Completely dismantle the DEA and return control of drug laws to local jurisdictions, with the overall understanding that no rights of due process shall be violated, and that no unjust or draconian penalties shall be set. One way to begin that perhaps would be to tell the states that yes, you can set your own drug laws, but you have to first offer any offenders, especially first time offenders, the option of medical treatment at the states expense if they so wish. Just to balance that, mandatory treatment/jail time for any drug offender who injures or kills other people while under the influence.
And completely decriminalize marijuana/hemp. Leave it to the states whether or not they wish to regulate the sales of the intoxicating form of it, but make it clear that no law shall be passed that will make the sale or use of cannabis for medical purposes illegal, and also that any attempt by anyone to monopolize sales or produce tainted product will not go unpunished. This bullshit has gone on for entirely too many generations and it's time that it was stopped. We regulate alcohol sales (with varying success) and cannabis has been medically shown to be less destructive than alcohol.
There's lots more that needs to be done there and what I said above isn't the best by any means... but drug abuse should be a medical problem, not a legislative one. The only thing that legislation has done has been to create artificial black markets that have done tremendous damage to our country and this is not acceptable.
I'll maybe push for a large domestic project rather than invent a war. Maybe an interstate highway syste... aww damn... I'll come up with something good.
Energy independence. There are plenty of technical hurdles to be overcome, but that can be done. (the real obstacles are the afore-mentioned corporate and political hurdles...) Tax breaks for everyone who installs solar panels or some other form of energy production that returns energy to the grid. Massive overhauls of the electrical grid which make it more locally redundant. Etc. Lots to do...;)
But that is what the US needs if we're going to regain our independence, stay out of foreign ventures and rebuild our economy.
Oh, and start seriously prosecuting corporations, lobby groups, and *individuals within those corps/groups* who violate US law. By prosecuting I mean PRISON.
Plus, anyone who tries to introduce non-relevant bill provisions is permanently barred from running for office at any level including president of the local chapter of alcoholics anonymous:)
I don't think the culture would be much of a problem, I've often been told I'd do very well there. Yes, I do care much more about it "in practice" - I'm a very pragmatic person who lives what/how he believes (which is why I don't like the US much despite having lived here all my life, hypocrisy seems to be a way of life here.)
As to class divisions, there's really a tremendous amount of that here in the US, it's just not spoken of in that way. For instance, right down the road from here are two gated communities where outsiders (meaning, not rich people) are looked upon with suspicion and distrust - even me, and I've done work on some of the homes up there.
What's even funnier is that none of them seem to agree on whether it's legal or not.:)
(As a part time photographer who sells his pictures I have an interest in this, and *my* lawyer tells me that as long as there isn't any brand confusion - that is, as long as I'm not selling my pictures as "official" photographs, I have nothing to worry about. I'm currently going round and round with the local city council over the same issue, ie photographs of historical city landmarks which the city seems to think they have the rights to limit photographs of. They even have that printed on the landmark info posts. Sigh. Can anyone point me to relevant cases? )
But if this is not too daunting, you're very welcome to join!
:)
Yeah, but... can I bring my pussies overseas?;)
In all seriousness, my parents on both sides are Swedish, and I've thought a lot about "going home" recently. How hard would that be? I'm a skilled carpenter/gen-maintenance person and computer tech, and although I don't speak the language (not that my relatives haven't tried to teach me, but I'm much better at computer languages than human languages) I believe I have something to offer. But I'm in my forties, and my cats are my only kids, and I'm not willing to give them up. But at this point, it's either Canada or Sweden. This country I once swore allegiance to has violated the oath repeatedly, and there's little recourse left to me other than living a lie.
Sweden certainly looks a lot better than the US does to this blond old child. What say you? Have any pointers?
Your comments might have more weight to them to them if you actually explained how it is that schools seem to have gained more legal right to discipline kids than parents seem to have now, and cited legal decisions. I'd be interested in hearing both sides.
If schools *do* have more legal power over their students than the parents of said students do, that tells me that our system is badly broken. The ultimate responsibility for raising children should be with the parents, not the state or federal authorities, outside of extraordinary circumstances.
Unfortunately nowadays it seems like the "state" (meaning the federal, state, or local authorities) have taken on the burden of making sure that children are raised the "right way" - but it seems to me that the constitution doesn't grant any of those powers to any of those entities; rather it specifically denies those powers to them in favor of the individual citizens.
Crime and domestic abuse(spouses and children) were very common. Durring prohibition these declined by something in the area of fifty percent.
I do hope you have some citations for that, as I've never read (or heard, my grandparents lived thru it and would laugh at your analysis) anything about that period of history that implied anything of the kind (as a matter of fact quite the opposite), and there were few really comprehensive studies back then that weren't biased. You might also ask yourself just why it was repealed.
If large portions of the population are intoxicated beyond self control a large part of the time I suspect you and I both would be unhappy; so yes we do impose certain restrictions on certin know to be problematic behaviors.
If that has worked as well as you imply, then why do we keep legislating more and more draconian measures?
This culteral background has server to reasonably well manage the most economically viable and influential nation the world has ever know for more the two hundred years now.
This cultural background has served to reasonably well mismanage the most economically viable and influential nation the world has ever know for more the two hundred years now.
There, fixed that for you.
There's a modern term for people who think the way you do, let me see if my age-addled mind remembers it... oh, yeah.
Good to hear again that there are still teachers who know how to actually deal with students as individual people. Too many of them - and especially too many of the administrators and bureaucrats seem to think kids are just parts being cycled down an assembly line.
I hope she can stick with it. My SO's sister taught first-third for almost ten years before she died, and became increasingly cynical and critical of the administration of the school she was teaching in (a small town in S. Wisconsin) to the point where the administration cut her hours to nearly nil. She remarked not long before she left us that the way students were being treated wasn't that different than the way the cattle at the nearby slaughter plant were treated...
In the US there's also a constitutional right to be confronted by one's accusers in a court of law, whether or not you are "of age".
Schools should not be exempt from that requirement. IMHO, YMMV, etc. But where/when I grew up, the emphasis was on responsibility, not on actual actions.
I'd like to note that in the US, the state drinking laws were in many, if not most cases the federal government would deny highway or school funding in order to bring the states into compliance. My memory is a bit hazy on the details, but if I remember correctly that's fairly accurate.
Possession at a place other than the household of the parent or guardian creates a rebuttable presumption of intent to consume it at a place other than the household of the parent or guardian. This presumption may be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.
Ah... lawyer language. Why don't they just say "It is illegal for anyone under the age of 21* to possess alcoholic beverages without their parents consent and foreknowledge." See? Really simple. (consumption of said beverages is nearly impossible to prosecute so any laws that attempt to bind underage people to that are just plain ridiculous especially in a "time of war" - there are many kids fighting and dying overseas right now who can't legally drink when they come home. Most people who fought in WWII or Nam see that as the ridiculous bullshit that it is. )
* Age 18: Can join the military (or when I was young, could be drafted to do so), can legally move out of one's parent's house, have sex with anyone of the same age or older, get married and have kids, legal to vote, buy porn magazines, enter into legal binding financial contracts, etc. The "age of responsibility".
But not legal to drink? Ah, the Nanny State strikes again...
M(s) lastchance, please don't consider this aimed at you:) )
t (longtime lurker convinced by a crazy rational neighbor to start posting...)
The reason the school administrators are punishing the kids instead of reporting them to the police is to avoid giving (or adding to) the kids' criminal records. Kids do all kinds of things and sometimes these things are illegal. In this case, these kids may have been doing something illegal. The administrators are trying to punish the kids so they learn not to do it again.
That's funny, I don't recall our schools being given the power to judge students over what they do outside the school. AFAIR that power belongs to the parents and the police authorities.
What if your parents caught you doing something illegal? Should they not punish you?
That would be up to the parents, wouldn't it? Not the schools.
Should they instead go straight to the police and turn you in? What kind of Gestapo bullcrap is that? Do you really want to live in a police state where you can't even confide in your own parents?
Strawman.
But most will still take pictures and that's still a liability. The school wants them to just not do these things in the first place.
What, take pictures? Because it somehow reflects on the school?;)
While they can't control people like that, they can influence and that's exactly what they are trying to do and that is the whole damn point of punishment.
?????!
Reread your own sentence. I hope you can comprehend the latent hypocrisy.
You know, when I was growing up (a long, long time ago) generally when we partied, our elders would say "oh, it's just kids being kids, having fun" - as long as we didn't do *really* destructive or dangerous things such as stealing cars, robbing liquor stores, setting fires, causing damage to property, etc...
But I guess I grew up in a more rational time. Not by much, mind you, but still... I ran into my old basketball coach a couple years ago and we had the opportunity to share a few drinks together. What's happening to our schools nowadays makes him sick at heart.
I'm in my forties, and the older I get, the less I find myself able to ignore other people's BS. But the penalties for calling on them on it continue to get higher.
An old friend calls it "cultural communication dysfunction". I think it's a great term but naming something doesn't help fix it...
Again with the "shoulds." No, in fact, you're wrong. There is no "should" here. There's only choices and consequences, none of them objectively superior to the other in the abstract, but only weighed against the intended consequences. If my goal were to not look bad to some people, sure, I should stop. Hell, I wouldn't have started. If my goal were to not waste time, then that too, would have prevented me from continuing. That is, of course, not my goal. My goal here? Entertainment and intellectual stimulation at the end of the day. So by no means should I have stopped.
Fair enough. Alright, let me amend that. *I* would have. Not because it might have got me in trouble, and not because I'm concerned about how it makes me look. But because this sort of argument can become a self-feeding bad habit, and I have better things to do.
> Ok, go ahead and ban me now...... Hm. I sure hope you're joking.
Oh, sure. But if threat of lawsuit were a deterrent to me, I'd shut off my computer and never turn it back on.:-)
Hell, I get that feeling often even without the lawsuit thing. *g*
Shrug. I post where I post. I am no respector of persons, nor of web sites.:-)
Hey, no sweat, I feel the same way. I just prefer to take the battle to the enemy. If you fight him inside your perimeter, you may win, but the casualties can be high.;)
Just sayin. Since I don't really know you, I guess I'm out of line. But this is still a fun thread. It reminds me of usenet somehow *g*
You don't understand why this is threatening? If I "casually" mentioned that I know where you live and that I used to be a firefighter and know how to get away with arson and that I think you're somebody whose family deserves to suffer, you wouldn't think that was threatening?
That's a strawman argument. What he said in no way justified what you analogized it to.
(Note: I am entirely non-violent, have never been a firefighter, do not know where you live, and have no idea how to commit arson)
First off, a better thing to say would be that you're *not aggressive*, ie, that you don't start fights. Anyone who says that they are "non-violent" I have to assume is either naive or an idiot. I can violently defend myself against an attacker, for example. The next two points are irrelevant to the discussion, if not to your bad analogy. The last one just plain doesn't make sense. Are you saying you can't use a can of gas and a match? Perhaps you meant to say that you have no idea how to commit arson *undetectably* which is true of the vast majority of the population, I suspect (except perhaps firefighters *g*)
You did not say that you would hurt him, but the implication was clear. Obviously, I don't think you have any intention of hurting him. It just makes you look like a typically clueless robot-like nerd, that's all.
Maybe he is a "typically clueless robot-like nerd", you insensitive clod. You might have just hurt his feelings, or worse;)
Try that kind of crap in the real world and you have to defend what you said.
Slashdot Mirror
Completely dismantle the DEA and return control of drug laws to local jurisdictions, with the overall understanding that no rights of due process shall be violated, and that no unjust or draconian penalties shall be set. One way to begin that perhaps would be to tell the states that yes, you can set your own drug laws, but you have to first offer any offenders, especially first time offenders, the option of medical treatment at the states expense if they so wish. Just to balance that, mandatory treatment/jail time for any drug offender who injures or kills other people while under the influence.
And completely decriminalize marijuana/hemp. Leave it to the states whether or not they wish to regulate the sales of the intoxicating form of it, but make it clear that no law shall be passed that will make the sale or use of cannabis for medical purposes illegal, and also that any attempt by anyone to monopolize sales or produce tainted product will not go unpunished. This bullshit has gone on for entirely too many generations and it's time that it was stopped. We regulate alcohol sales (with varying success) and cannabis has been medically shown to be less destructive than alcohol.
There's lots more that needs to be done there and what I said above isn't the best by any means... but drug abuse should be a medical problem, not a legislative one. The only thing that legislation has done has been to create artificial black markets that have done tremendous damage to our country and this is not acceptable.
tic (a NORML member since 1988)
I'll maybe push for a large domestic project rather than invent a war. Maybe an interstate highway syste... aww damn... I'll come up with something good.
;)
Energy independence. There are plenty of technical hurdles to be overcome, but that can be done. (the real obstacles are the afore-mentioned corporate and political hurdles...) Tax breaks for everyone who installs solar panels or some other form of energy production that returns energy to the grid. Massive overhauls of the electrical grid which make it more locally redundant. Etc. Lots to do...
But that is what the US needs if we're going to regain our independence, stay out of foreign ventures and rebuild our economy.
Oh, and start seriously prosecuting corporations, lobby groups, and *individuals within those corps/groups* who violate US law. By prosecuting I mean PRISON.
tic
Plus, anyone who tries to introduce non-relevant bill provisions is permanently barred from running for office at any level including president of the local chapter of alcoholics anonymous
tic
... any time I was in doubt as to what to do, President McBang would post the question to Slashdot and use the top-moderated answer for guidance.
;)
Somehow I doubt you'd do any worse than what we have now. Scary, ain't it?
tic
Thanks for the info (everyone).
I don't think the culture would be much of a problem, I've often been told I'd do very well there. Yes, I do care much more about it "in practice" - I'm a very pragmatic person who lives what/how he believes (which is why I don't like the US much despite having lived here all my life, hypocrisy seems to be a way of life here.)
As to class divisions, there's really a tremendous amount of that here in the US, it's just not spoken of in that way. For instance, right down the road from here are two gated communities where outsiders (meaning, not rich people) are looked upon with suspicion and distrust - even me, and I've done work on some of the homes up there.
thanks again, tic
What's even funnier is that none of them seem to agree on whether it's legal or not. :)
(As a part time photographer who sells his pictures I have an interest in this, and *my* lawyer tells me that as long as there isn't any brand confusion - that is, as long as I'm not selling my pictures as "official" photographs, I have nothing to worry about. I'm currently going round and round with the local city council over the same issue, ie photographs of historical city landmarks which the city seems to think they have the rights to limit photographs of. They even have that printed on the landmark info posts. Sigh. Can anyone point me to relevant cases? )
tic
Yeah, but... can I bring my pussies overseas?
In all seriousness, my parents on both sides are Swedish, and I've thought a lot about "going home" recently. How hard would that be? I'm a skilled carpenter/gen-maintenance person and computer tech, and although I don't speak the language (not that my relatives haven't tried to teach me, but I'm much better at computer languages than human languages) I believe I have something to offer. But I'm in my forties, and my cats are my only kids, and I'm not willing to give them up. But at this point, it's either Canada or Sweden. This country I once swore allegiance to has violated the oath repeatedly, and there's little recourse left to me other than living a lie.
Sweden certainly looks a lot better than the US does to this blond old child. What say you? Have any pointers?
tic
I don't think we're in the 70s anymore, Toto.
Your comments might have more weight to them to them if you actually explained how it is that schools seem to have gained more legal right to discipline kids than parents seem to have now, and cited legal decisions. I'd be interested in hearing both sides.
If schools *do* have more legal power over their students than the parents of said students do, that tells me that our system is badly broken. The ultimate responsibility for raising children should be with the parents, not the state or federal authorities, outside of extraordinary circumstances.
Unfortunately nowadays it seems like the "state" (meaning the federal, state, or local authorities) have taken on the burden of making sure that children are raised the "right way" - but it seems to me that the constitution doesn't grant any of those powers to any of those entities; rather it specifically denies those powers to them in favor of the individual citizens.
If I've been misled, please correct me.
In kind, tic
Crime and domestic abuse(spouses and children) were very common. Durring prohibition these declined by something in the area of fifty percent.
I do hope you have some citations for that, as I've never read (or heard, my grandparents lived thru it and would laugh at your analysis) anything about that period of history that implied anything of the kind (as a matter of fact quite the opposite), and there were few really comprehensive studies back then that weren't biased. You might also ask yourself just why it was repealed.
If large portions of the population are intoxicated beyond self control a large part of the time I suspect you and I both would be unhappy; so yes we do impose certain restrictions on certin know to be problematic behaviors.
If that has worked as well as you imply, then why do we keep legislating more and more draconian measures?
This culteral background has server to reasonably well manage the most economically viable and influential nation the world has ever know for more the two hundred years now.
This cultural background has served to reasonably well mismanage the most economically viable and influential nation the world has ever know for more the two hundred years now.
There, fixed that for you.
There's a modern term for people who think the way you do, let me see if my age-addled mind remembers it... oh, yeah.
Moonbat.
tic
Good to hear again that there are still teachers who know how to actually deal with students as individual people. Too many of them - and especially too many of the administrators and bureaucrats seem to think kids are just parts being cycled down an assembly line.
I hope she can stick with it. My SO's sister taught first-third for almost ten years before she died, and became increasingly cynical and critical of the administration of the school she was teaching in (a small town in S. Wisconsin) to the point where the administration cut her hours to nearly nil. She remarked not long before she left us that the way students were being treated wasn't that different than the way the cattle at the nearby slaughter plant were treated...
tic
In the US there's also a constitutional right to be confronted by one's accusers in a court of law, whether or not you are "of age".
Schools should not be exempt from that requirement. IMHO, YMMV, etc. But where/when I grew up, the emphasis was on responsibility, not on actual actions.
tic
I'd like to note that in the US, the state drinking laws were in many, if not most cases the federal government would deny highway or school funding in order to bring the states into compliance. My memory is a bit hazy on the details, but if I remember correctly that's fairly accurate.
tic
surely the US isn't *that* backward?
Yes, unfortunately, we are. There's a good reason why the term "nanny state" has become popular here.
tic
Possession at a place other than the household of the parent or guardian creates
:) )
a rebuttable presumption of intent to consume it at a place other than the household of the parent
or guardian. This presumption may be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.
Ah... lawyer language. Why don't they just say "It is illegal for anyone under the age of 21* to possess alcoholic beverages without their parents consent and foreknowledge." See? Really simple. (consumption of said beverages is nearly impossible to prosecute so any laws that attempt to bind underage people to that are just plain ridiculous especially in a "time of war" - there are many kids fighting and dying overseas right now who can't legally drink when they come home. Most people who fought in WWII or Nam see that as the ridiculous bullshit that it is. )
* Age 18: Can join the military (or when I was young, could be drafted to do so), can legally move out of one's parent's house, have sex with anyone of the same age or older, get married and have kids, legal to vote, buy porn magazines, enter into legal binding financial contracts, etc. The "age of responsibility".
But not legal to drink? Ah, the Nanny State strikes again...
M(s) lastchance, please don't consider this aimed at you
t (longtime lurker convinced by a crazy rational neighbor to start posting...)
The reason the school administrators are punishing the kids instead of reporting them to the police is to avoid giving (or adding to) the kids' criminal records. Kids do all kinds of things and sometimes these things are illegal. In this case, these kids may have been doing something illegal. The administrators are trying to punish the kids so they learn not to do it again.
;)
:(
That's funny, I don't recall our schools being given the power to judge students over what they do outside the school. AFAIR that power belongs to the parents and the police authorities.
What if your parents caught you doing something illegal? Should they not punish you?
That would be up to the parents, wouldn't it? Not the schools.
Should they instead go straight to the police and turn you in? What kind of Gestapo bullcrap is that? Do you really want to live in a police state where you can't even confide in your own parents?
Strawman.
But most will still take pictures and that's still a liability. The school wants them to just not do these things in the first place.
What, take pictures? Because it somehow reflects on the school?
While they can't control people like that, they can influence and that's exactly what they are trying to do and that is the whole damn point of punishment.
?????!
Reread your own sentence. I hope you can comprehend the latent hypocrisy.
You know, when I was growing up (a long, long time ago) generally when we partied, our elders would say "oh, it's just kids being kids, having fun" - as long as we didn't do *really* destructive or dangerous things such as stealing cars, robbing liquor stores, setting fires, causing damage to property, etc...
But I guess I grew up in a more rational time. Not by much, mind you, but still... I ran into my old basketball coach a couple years ago and we had the opportunity to share a few drinks together. What's happening to our schools nowadays makes him sick at heart.
Sad times
tic
He'd probably break the wood chipper anyway...
Why?
I know what I said, and I meant it just the way it was written.
t
Who knows? But it's popular - at least here in the US, our voting population does it every couple years.
tic!lock
Or something.
;)
Yeah, it gets complicated.
I'm in my forties, and the older I get, the less I find myself able to ignore other people's BS. But the penalties for calling on them on it continue to get higher.
An old friend calls it "cultural communication dysfunction". I think it's a great term but naming something doesn't help fix it...
t
So what you're saying is that cultural behavioral norms should outweigh the contributions those who can't conform to them can make?
I'm confused.
tic!lock
Again with the "shoulds." No, in fact, you're wrong. There is no "should" here. There's only choices and consequences, none of them objectively superior to the other in the abstract, but only weighed against the intended consequences. If my goal were to not look bad to some people, sure, I should stop. Hell, I wouldn't have started. If my goal were to not waste time, then that too, would have prevented me from continuing. That is, of course, not my goal. My goal here? Entertainment and intellectual stimulation at the end of the day. So by no means should I have stopped.
...
;)
Fair enough. Alright, let me amend that. *I* would have. Not because it might have got me in trouble, and not because I'm concerned about how it makes me look. But because this sort of argument can become a self-feeding bad habit, and I have better things to do.
> Ok, go ahead and ban me now...
Hm. I sure hope you're joking.
In the slashdot sort of sense, yes.
t
Oh, sure. But if threat of lawsuit were a deterrent to me, I'd shut off my computer and never turn it back on. :-)
:-)
;)
Hell, I get that feeling often even without the lawsuit thing. *g*
Shrug. I post where I post. I am no respector of persons, nor of web sites.
Hey, no sweat, I feel the same way. I just prefer to take the battle to the enemy. If you fight him inside your perimeter, you may win, but the casualties can be high.
Just sayin. Since I don't really know you, I guess I'm out of line. But this is still a fun thread. It reminds me of usenet somehow *g*
t
You don't understand why this is threatening? If I "casually" mentioned that I know where you live and that I used to be a firefighter and know how to get away with arson and that I think you're somebody whose family deserves to suffer, you wouldn't think that was threatening?
;)
That's a strawman argument. What he said in no way justified what you analogized it to.
(Note: I am entirely non-violent, have never been a firefighter, do not know where you live, and have no idea how to commit arson)
First off, a better thing to say would be that you're *not aggressive*, ie, that you don't start fights. Anyone who says that they are "non-violent" I have to assume is either naive or an idiot. I can violently defend myself against an attacker, for example. The next two points are irrelevant to the discussion, if not to your bad analogy. The last one just plain doesn't make sense. Are you saying you can't use a can of gas and a match? Perhaps you meant to say that you have no idea how to commit arson *undetectably* which is true of the vast majority of the population, I suspect (except perhaps firefighters *g*)
You did not say that you would hurt him, but the implication was clear. Obviously, I don't think you have any intention of hurting him. It just makes you look like a typically clueless robot-like nerd, that's all.
Maybe he is a "typically clueless robot-like nerd", you insensitive clod. You might have just hurt his feelings, or worse
Try that kind of crap in the real world and you have to defend what you said.
There, fixed that for you.
tic!lock