Slashdot Mirror
US Open Government Initiative Enters Phase Three
circletimessquare writes "The Obama administration opened a discussion forum in January of this year which has become an electronic suggestion box. It is now entering stage three, following brainstorm and discussion phases: the draft phase, in which the top subject matter is codified into suggestions for the government. 'Ultimately, the visitors advanced more than 3,900 ideas, which in turn spawned 11,000 comments that received 210,000 thumb votes. The result? Three of the top 10 most popular ideas called for legalizing marijuana, and two featured conspiracy theories about Mr. Obama's true place of birth.'"
Not sure if that's a brilliant idea or not, but surely removing it from schedule 1 status is the right thing to do.
That Nixon-era policy makes classifies it as having "no medicinal value" and is considered "highly addictive". Both are jokes.
The status above cocaine gives law enforcement more incentive to go after potheads than Colombian smugglers. Ridiculous.
The article gets it right in saying it is a "suggestion box." All we can do is suggest to our rulers what we want them to do: they still get to decide. This is still not democracy. It's barely even a democratic republic.
If you want real democracy, please consider joining the Metagovernment project which is a collective of projects working to make governance a truly open system for everyone.
Also, consider attending Participation Camp. The virtual meeting started this morning, and there will be a brainstorm session tomorrow morning (1500GMT, ie 11:00 AM Eastern).
"...But until then I don't see why it merits the time of our government."
I think that's part of the point. All this other crap going on and we're still arresting people for smoking pot!?!
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
That's a lie. The only connection marijuana has with psychosis is that it irritates schizophrenic symptons, but so does alcohol. The psychiatric community is deathly afraid of marijuana, and make all sorts of claims as to its dangers, without a hint of hard, real research. If a patient smokes marijuana, they claim every single problem the patient is facing stems from the fact he or she smokes marijuana. From psychosis to depression -- it's all caused by marijuana. They claim marijuana's a depressant. The government claims it's a hallucinogen. Science claims it's medicine -- anti-nausea, pro-appetite, anti-depressant qualities. Don't believe me? Believe some real research. "The endocannabinoid system has been involved in the control of several neurophysiological and behavioural responses. Indeed, recent studies have suggested that the cannabinoid system could represent an important substrate for the control of emotional behaviour, and further research would probably help to identify new promising therapeutic targets. This paper reviews the results obtained in different animal models used to investigate emotional states after the manipulation of the endocannabinoid system. Cannabinoid compounds can induce anxiogenic- and anxiolytic-like responses in rodents depending on the experimental conditions. Studies using knockout mice lacking the CB1 cannabinoid receptors have shown the participation of this receptor in several behavioural responses including anxiety- and depressive-like states. Furthermore, the endocannabinoid system regulates the hypothalamic-pituitary adrenal axis, which is involved in providing an appropriate response to stressful situations. Recent studies have also demonstrated that the endocannabinoids can function as retrograde messengers, modulating the release of different neurotransmitter, including opioids, GABA and cholecystokinin that have been classically involved in the control of anxiety-like responses. All this recent information has further clarified the role played by the endogenous cannabinoid system in the control of emotional behaviour and provides data to support a new possible therapeutic use of cannabinoid compounds." Valverde, O. "Participation of the cannabinoid system in the regulation of emotional-like behaviour." 26 Nov. 2005. National Center for Biotechnology Information. 5 Jan. 2009. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed...kpos=4&log$=relatedreviews&logdbfrom=pubmed
Health Freedom is almost as popular as Freedom itself.
And for some reason marijuana is an important issue? Are you kidding me? I don't see how it could possibly be more relevant than any of the issues I already listed. If we could solve all of them, then I would be comfortable with our national government looking into this "marijuana issue" (whatever the hell the issue is). But until then I don't see why it merits the time of our government.
Lets see... You legalize marijuana and you can cut down on the number of arrests made, cut down on the number of cops, when you legalize it you would also allow for new industries to thrive, tax dollars to collect, Assuming even only a moderate increase of marijuana consumption as a part of it being legalized, you open up an entire new industry, more jobs, less spending for the government, more freedom and more revenue.
There is no way you can argue for marijuana to not be legalized by a purely financial standpoint. Plus, legalizing it will cut costs, and spend less time looking at the issue rather than the more time you are foolishly suggesting.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
It's not surprising people want to get get high.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Arresting pot smokers is an incredibly lucrative business! That's why it's still banned.
And, I'm sure if you spent enough time creating moral panic over alcohol, tobacco and easy to find over-the-counter drugs, you would find that the results are the same if not worse.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Does it cause the user to submit long rambling posts which include no white space?
The CB App. What's your 20?
I'm fairly certain they're still ignoring the issue that the most people who participated in this poll and who are in all likelyhood are not representative of the voting publicwere interested in changing, legalization of marijuana.
Fixed that for you.
An online poll conducted like this is going to be ridiculously skewed. Even if no one cheated, voting hundreds of times for their own "legalize pot" suggestions, the demographic here is going to be much MUCH younger than the average voting population. No age restrictions. And half the people who posted on there probably sent a link to all their friends and posted it on like-minded forums. Those people who are really REALLY opposed to legalization are also less likely to participate in this. Likewise, a lot of those people most in favor of legalization don't vote or can't vote yet.
I think it's more likely this was actually a way of getting younger voters interested in government.
Of course, so would be taxing pot smokers.
The CB App. What's your 20?
Paper. Clothes. Construction materials. Food. Medicines. Fuel. There's a lot that you can do with hemp. End your ignorance.
Circumcision is child abuse.
I would just like to point out that Narconon runs the web site you pulled this info from. According to Wikipedia:
Narconon is an in-patient rehabilitation program for drug abusers in several dozen treatment centers worldwide, chiefly in the United States and western Europe. Each Narconon center is independently owned and operated under a license from ABLE International, a Scientology-related entity.
People always think that the only reason to legalize cannibus is pot. It's not. It's not even the best reason. It barely makes the top ten, and even then, only because it's the most effective anti-nauseant (anti-emetic for pedants) known to modern science. Hemp fiber could replace wood pulp for use in paper tomorrow for a tenth our current cost. It could replace synthetic fibers in textiles and increase the strength, durability, comfort, threadfastness and affordability of the clothing and cloth products that it goes into. As a byproduct of the hemp fiber industry, hemp oil could replace synthetic lubricants at a fraction of the current cost in industrial applications.
Proper crop rotation with hemp and other cash crops can virtually eliminate the need for artificial fertilizers. The list just keeps going on and on. And all you prohibitionists can think about is getting stoned.
And all you prohibitionists can think about is getting stoned.
No, they're thinking about their jobs. Fewer people to arrest, fewer people to jail, fewer people to track once out on parole. Hell, the prison guard's union in california consistently lobbies for harsher sentencing for drug offenders. That's repugnant.
I think it needs to be made clear that the two main supporters of prohibition are bad cops and drug dealers. That really tells you all you need to know.
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
The irony of this is, twofold: One, this is the administration that that had added a huge increase to tobacco taxes, and these people think that the government is actually going to legalize marijuana? Hah hah hah! Good one.
Two, it's just sad that our country's main concern is legalizing some drug that's major benefit is to get people high. While marijuana has a lot of medical uses, and banning it is pointless, it's just pathetic that nobody cares about inflation, an overzealous foreign policy, the sick demented system of child "protection" services ruined to scam parents and ruin the family, the court system being a guilty-until-proven-innocent fiasco where the court orders you to prove your innocence and you have to pay for court costs, drugs tests, psych exams, and etc. to prove your innocence, and freedom from censorship. Nope, us Americans gotta have our weed! Gotta get high so we won't have any other problems to worry about, just pretend they don't exist with a nice pipe in front of us.
I guess there is also a third point of irony: Weed stupifies you, you'd think the government would favor deregulating it so they could tax it to the sky's limit and get more money off of you that way, while having a bunch of people too high to care about the other rights the government keeps taking away.
and give rise to revolution or a strong man who throws out all the rights in the republic to reestablish order, leading to autocracy
if you aren't explicit about the whole democracy thing, you wind up with an aristocratic elite with a firm grip on the government. study the history of all republics, this is a natural evolution. for all of its flaws, democracy has a feature which trumps everything else: it manufactures legitimacy. the will of the people is consulted, and the government is chosen from that will. the people are happy they have their say. there is always malcontent, in any system, but it is held at a minimum in democracy
without the explicit consultation democracy provides, the will of the people and the agenda of the ruling class begin to drift apart over time. simple miscommunication and entropy can be the culprit, no real malice, although there's always enough of that around. mistrust and illegtimacy is the result, and social stability decays, eventually leading to outright revolt or an incredibly weak government that gives way to a strong man and autocracy who reestablishes order, but at the cost of all the precious rights you look to a republic to guarantee
so you're stuck with democracy. it provides stability. a republic without democracy isn't stable, it decays
and i really have to wonder what makes you so distrustful of your fellow man. some sort of blind conceit on your part probably, a personal failure of yours
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Which is exactly why it WON'T happen.
There are big industries making obscene profits due to hemp being outlawed. You think for one second they'll let it be legalized without a huge fight?
Any politician who so much as suggested it would be committing political suicide.
What BKX didn't mention is there are forms of hemp that do not have the same stoner effects that could be legalized, but aren't because law enforcement can't easily tell the difference. Or at least that's the reason often cited.
.. .that would never happen. Who would vote in something that gave our government less control.....
Imagine giving tobacco farmers a replacement crop that would provide them a great income and not have the same social stigma tobacco has. It might be possible that with such a change, growing tobacco for cigarettes would be reduced, naturally driving up the cost of cigarettes and further reducing usage WITHOUT government intervention, while increasing tax revenues from the sales of all the hemp products.
Nah
For the record, I am for the legalization of marijuana, the stoner kind. I smoked 30 years ago and so did many people who have since stopped. It's obviously not addictive, except for those that can get addicted to anything.
I also have glaucoma, and spend $100/month (even after insurance) for tiny bottles of eye drops to reduce the pressure. The drops sting when I put them in three times a day. I'd much rather sit out on my back patio a couple times a day and enjoy a little toke.....
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
A well armed society is a polite society.
I'm guessing this is why the English have been, for centuries, known around the world for their ignorant, rude, brashness whilst the Americans are recognized far and wide for their dainty manners and eccentric etiquette?
OMG!!! Ponies!!!
And for some reason marijuana is an important issue?
Almost one million arrests per year ? 50 to 100,000 people or so in jail at any one time for possession ? A few dozen people killed each year while being arrested or while in jail ?
Corruption all over the place ? Damn straight it's an important issue. And, unlike many issues, it is a purely government issue, that the government could solve in a week, if the government was interested in actually listening to what the people were saying.
So he was right, plain old text or pot for short.
Of course you're describing exactly the system that the US has already. How clever of you.
Except you've omitted one tiny fact: the US system costs the US government (and thus US taxpayers) approximately 4 TIMES MORE per citizen than socialized systems, and the quality of care is demonstrably lower.
You don't do socialized medicine because it's kinder to poor people (although it is)
You don't do socialized medicine because it creates a healthier and more productive population (although it does)
You don't do socialized medicine because it removes the profit motive (i.e. denial of care) from the healthcare equation (although it helps to do this)
You do socialized medicine because it's cheaper.
Anyone who tells you that socialized medicine is more expensive, and/or will lead to a poorer standard of care, either works for a US insurance company, or is willfully ignoring all the evidence from every other industrialized 1st world country, or, like you I suspect, is just a fsckwit.
... and a point is made. The United States is NOT a Democracy. We are a Republic.
You say that as if they're mutually explusive. They're not. Dictatorship and democracy are mutually explusive. Monarchy and republic are mutually exclusive. But all democracies are either a republic or a monarchy, and the US is not a monarchy. It's a democratic federal republic (although you could argue about how democratic it really is, considering how the system is organised to effectively only allow two parties to be represented in Congress, and a president can be elected on a minority vote).
Under a Democracy, the majority forces their opinions on the minority and it eventually turns into an Oligarchy.
Not necessarily, although it is what's hapened in the US. But that's more because of the lack of real democracy in the system.
In our Republic, laws are set forth through a strict set of procedures to ensure fairness to all parties involved, not just the most popular.
In which republic exactly? Definitely not in the US, where only the two biggest parties have any real chance of representation.
Fuck all of you. You still believe that schoolboy bullshit about how the country is governed? Dream on, sleepers!
Let me spell it out for you: The United States is a "Goldman Sachsocracy" The man with the gold will sack us all over the world.
Freedom? You have more people incarcerated in your borders than any nation in history. Why? It's good for business.
I wish Americans had half the guts of 15-year-old Iranian girls! There'd have been 5 American Revolutions since 1870. Your textbook lies about the accountability of US government to the people have kept you complacent, and made you both arrogant yet ignorant and oppressed.
They just stole over a hundred billion dollars from your earnings and your next two generations, and GAVE it to a firm that prints your money, runs your fiscal policy and just paid out the BIGGEST bonuses in its 140 year history.
You live in the Matrix - and that's not a metaphor. Like George Carlin said; "They call it the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it.
Wake up.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Jesus. What do they teach you these days?
Plato.
"The Republic" is the Roman derived title of his main surviving work.
It is a series of hypothetical dialogs, as if conducted by his master, Socrates, with his school and visitors to court, on the ideal rule for the City-State. It does NOT outline or advocate a republican form of governance. It's ideal is a Philosopher King - and models this through contrasting forms and their evolutions.
In modern terms, Plato is a prototype for Fascism - with the good of a state being the highest form of Government - above any kind of personal interest or property - provided the state is "just". The nature of this "justness" also provides much of the food for the book's discussions.
In it, he also issues the allegory of the cave. Interestingly, this is the model for The Matrix - which is where most of you are living your lives!
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
That's an absurd overstatement. Or naive. No public policy of any type can ever truly be a "good idea in virtually every imaginable way."
Actually it's quite possible, you see, because Prohibition is such a bad idea in every imaginable way.
I use friend/foe to signal strong [dis]agreement instead of mod points. What else are f/f good for?
Remember it's the burden of proof of those that want legalization not those that view it as being harmful.
Wrong. The burden of proof falls on the accuser, not the accused. That's quite some backwards logic you have there.
The illegalization of marijuana was never based on proof. It was outlawed to protect business. The main supporters of it's illegalization used the public's fear of minorities and anti-marijuana propaganda to accomplish that.
If you'd like you can read up on Harry J. Anslinger for some examples of what kind of "proof" was originally used by the Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics to describe the problem and afford more power to his position. I've posted some of those examples below.
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 use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others.
The primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races.
Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men.
You smoke a joint and you're likely to kill your brother.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"I can't see how a monarchy can be democratic. The monarch has ultimate power and so the people do not."
Honestly, did you even do basic research on various types of monarchies in the world?
No?
Didn't think so.
There are vast differences between types of monarchies just as there are vast different differences between republics.
For example, here's a list of 3 republics:
-the US
- North Korea
- Iran
They are ALL republics(look it up if you don't believe me) yet they ALL have vastly different types of goverment. If you would compare them, they would be put in three totally different categories yet they are ALL republics.
In the same way there are different types of monarchies with three examples:
- Saudi-Arabia
- The Netherlands
- Sweden
These types of monarchies are again vastly different. 1 is an absolute monarchy, 2 are democracies. 2 out of 3 have the monarch as head of goverment yet all 3 have the monarch as head of state. If you do some further research about the topic you will notice that pretty much all sates are different in the way they function and that the words "republic" and "monarchy" can have vastly different meanings in different parts of the world.
But don't let me stop your bashing, please.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.