"How would you like it if you were denied a job because you're doing a perfectly legal activity in your own free time? A registration program? WTF? Should it include race, sexual orientation, hair color, religion, sports team preference, film taste, music taste etc. too? Wouldn't want to hire any unsavory elements."
You use the drugs at home, yes. But the effects don't wear off right away. This is why there should be a registration program. As an employer, I don't feel I should have to hire someone that is costing me more money through health care, a liability to me (if they come in high and damage something), or a liability to others (if they come in high/paranoid and kill/hurt customers/co-workers).
Companies that have a health insurance policy many times make you go through drug tests (and will drop you if you fail). This would be no different.
Here are some benefits from legalizing drugs: "- Police resources would be freed up to go after other criminal activity
- Border police could use more resources checking for weapons, terrorists etc."
The resources that were freed up would soon be gone due to all of the new addicts going through our hospitals.
"- Lower crime, since people don't have to commit crime to support their habits"
people would still commit crimes. Even if drugs were very cheap..a person addicted will eventually use all of their money and still need to commit crimes to get more. We might actually see more drug related deaths as a result, because you can get a lot more for a lot less.
"- The breakdown of the drug cartels and other organized crime"
There will always be organized crime around. If the big drugs were legalized, I'm sure there would be new synthetic drugs that were made illegal and the cycle would start again. Also, organized criminals don't just focus on drugs. You would have to make everything illegal legal to stop organized crime. This is why it is called crime and not a business.
"- People being allowed to do what the fuck they want with their own bodies"
If it were just about your body, it would be fine..but it's not. The fact that you don't see this is astonishing to me.
"So you see, in addition to GP's point that using drugs is a personal issue, there are also economic and moral arguments for the legalization of drugs. The only arguments I see against legalization is that there *might* be more people using drugs. Well, that a few more people use cheap, clean drugs is easily outweighed by the fators outlined above."
Basically, it seems like you just want a way to get your drugs easier. Also, you need a history lesson. Every illegal drug was once legal (hell..in the US, there was cocaine toothpaste and doctor's prescribed ectasy in the 80s). They were all made illegal for a reason..you should put the bong down and pickup a book sometime.
"Why? Because you think drugs aren't a good thing? Well, then we need a registration program for those who pursue religion, so employers could decide to hire you if you depend on an imaginary friend for advice... great idea, huh? Not! If an employee can do the job you need them to do in the manner you want it done, and they do not interfere with your operations otherwise, where is your justification for denying that person work? I mean, other than blatant favoritism and prejudice? "
No, because as an employer, I don't want to have to hire someone that won't be able to do his job properly because he just got done smoking a joint, shooting up, or snorting some coke (even though it may seem like you are doing okay when you are high..you probably aren't). Not to mention the added health care issues involved with drug use (costing an employer more money than someone that is not using drugs).
If drugs are so great and safe..why should this be a problem?
"People do this all the time. The fact that they are rarely arrested for doing so should tell you something."
hmm..now who's pulling figures out of his ass. Care to back this up?
"Did you know that the world market for illicit drugs is not only larger than the market for alcohol, it is larger than the oil industry?"
I will clue you in on something. Anything deemed illegal will have a large market. Because it is so difficult to obtain, the price will also be very high (simple economics here). This has nothing to do drugs. I bet the market for counterfeit money and child porn are also very high..should they be legalized too?
"Why is it then that the HUGE number of evil pot-smokers aren't being pulled over left and right? Could it be, just possibly, that smoking pot does not result in a loss of the ability to drive at an average level of competence?"
It could be because the people that smoke pot are the same type of people that have had their licenses suspended (and not driving) or they are kids that don't have a license yet.
"Could it be that people who are on acid, heroin, and other "big guns" are so far out of it that they generally couldn't drive if they wanted to?
Or could it be that alcohol has the unusual characteristic of tossing one's inhibitions to the winds along with one's abilities to be competent physically, whereas many (most) other drugs do not?"
No, more people are pulled over for drinking because it's legal in every country in the world. 99% of the population over the age of 21 in the US most likely has been to a bar and gotten drunk at some point in time (and possibly even younger).
A percentage of those people have driven drunk.
99% of the population certainly hasn't tried an illegal drug. Just on statistics alone, you can see that there are less people that would have been driving while on that illegal drug.
"I mean, it's not the law, is it? Because the penalties for drunk driving are getting right up there these days (as they certainly should.)"
Not sure where you were even headed with this. Are you on drugs right now?
"A good part of the reason (yes reason, not problem) why people habitually smoke marijuanna cirgarettes is because it is illegal. There are some countries where you can legally buy your meds in brown paper bags which takes away the thrill and excitement of obtaining it illegally. Initial drug use would certainly rise if legalized, but would eventually drop down below where it stands now. People are going to use drugs weather it's legal or not. There's no way around that. "
it's not the fact that people will use them or not. It's the government condoning such use. It would create millions of more addicts.
"And for your thought on depression - Good ol' Mary Jane cured my depression. I'll tell ya, I was a depressed little kid on the verge of suicide before I was introduced to mother nature. It helps me sleep, it helps me eat, and it helps me socialize. I find nothing wrong with laughing uncontrollably"
Don't worry..this will pass. When good old mary jane doesn't make you happy any more, you will need something harder and stronger (if you haven't already started)
"How about educating them on addiction and abuse rather than telling them that daddy had to go to jail because he needs a little pick-me-up during the day? I drink 4 to 5 cups of coffee every morning which I feel is worse than doing a little coke every once in a while. Believe me - both are equally addicting. I would even say that coffee is worse. Man, a nice hot cup of freshly brewed coffee - balanced, smooth, yet rich in flavor - sure sounds good right now. Way better than the cocaine "drip" I would have to deal with otherwise. "
I agree. Did you know that when they were passing laws to ban cocaine, they also looked at caffeine? Companies basically just replaced one stimulant with another. I used to drink a couple of cans of coke or mountain dew a day. It had some serious effects on my well-being. I have since cut-back to one can a week and I feel much better.
"And one more thing I'd like to talk about is your fear of inflated prices due to legalization. If we didn't dump all of our hard earned tax dollars into the criminalization of drugs (police forces, courts, prisons) then we would certainly be able to afford health care for every American citizen. We would then be able to clean up this great nation and get people out of prison and back to work where they can have a positive influence on our society"
Public health care is not the answer. I certainly do not want to pay shitloads in taxes and overfill our hospitals (my aunt and uncle live in canada and had to come over to the U.S. to get major surgery done because the waiting list was too long)
"justinlee37 - sorry about responding to this idiot for you - I hope you don't mind.
kz45 - don't knock it till' ya try it"
I think you made my point on who wants this: stoners. I remember hearing these arguments in highschool..from all of my stoner friends who loved smoking pot all day. The problem is that it is all very short-sited. You guys seem to believe doing X will solve problem Y..and not really looking at the big picture.
"That's not for others to judge. What you do on your own time with your own money should be your business, not mine. Arguments about what you may do to your financial standing are specious. You can wreck yourself simply by using a credit card in specific ways, or re-financing your house without understanding what you're doing or even by doing all the right things in unfortunate circumstances. "
This is true, but legalizing drugs doesn't just effect the people that are going to use them. It will effect society as a whole.
If anyone can start taking something like cocaine or heroine (even in small doses), addiction will climb and so will the care of the people addicted, which will mean higher prices for health care for us.
Not only that, but what about the people that decide to drive while stoned/high? There are enough people in this world killing the innocent while drunk..I don't think we need to add even more due to being high.
If drugs were ever legalized, we would also need a registration program. That registration program would allow potential employers to decide whether or not to hire you based on your legal drug usage.
Many European countries don't care about such things because they are already paying large amounts of money in taxes due to their public health care system.
"Why would anyone buy drugs second-hand from a dubious source when they could buy them guaranteed-clean at the supermarket? It's not as if poison is somehow perceived as a quality enhancer, and people do prefer to know what they're buying -- nobody wants to, say, buy some improperly prepared cocaine and die that night."
true, but if people on the street are selling "enhanced drugs". Something that makes a legalized drug better somehow, people will probably buy it (especially teenagers/kids).
"No, but, (and I quote this from my previous post), "You'd never have to walk down a dark alley in a bad neighborhood to meet a shifty pusher"
okay, so it will be replaced by a shifty gun dealer or a shifty pimp. your point?
"You're right, but, no one is going to. Aside from the millions (billions, maybe) who smoke tobacco, the website that spawned this whole discussion suggests that 162 million people smoke Marijuana. And how about all those alcoholics? You know, if they wanted to stop liver disease and depression, they should just STOP DRINKING. Come on, it's gotta be easy, right?"
It's true. If they stopped drinking, it would stop liver disease and depression. Legalizing it will not stop them from smoking it. We might have billions smoking marijuana if it is legalized (because it would be so easy to get).
"Can you really establish causation for that? Or is it just the case that people who are more prone to laziness and depression are also more prone to the abuse of pleasure-seeking activities like smoking Marijuana?"
Countless doctors in the past 10 years saying so and also my friends, who were fine before they started smoking pot (good grades, not depressed) and depressed/bad grades after smoking it for awhile.
Drugs like Extacy are also known for eating away at the Seratonin in your brain..causing permanent depression.
Even though many of the hard drugs are illegal, we can still see the effects of them because people can find a way to get them. I don't think I want the effects of these drugs on maybe 100,000,000 people instead of 10,000,000. That is what would happen as a result of legalizing it (more people would want to try these drugs and possibly get addicted..because..if it's legal..it must be okay..right?). This would mean more people going through our medical system for addiction and higher prices for all.
It seems like you take drugs daily (otherwise you wouldn't advocate this so much). You can obviously get them, so why do you care so much if everyone else can?
"If somebody was to illegally obtain a copy of each of those, they have "over $7000 worth of pirated software," ignoring the fact that nobody, ever, has any excuse for charging over $500 for any piece of software. Seriously. I predict that if a price cap of $500 on all software was imposed, the global pirated software trade would decrease by a factor of 10 (note: the actual number of copies would remain the same, but no longer would the average person have tens of thousands of dollard worth of pirated software)."
If people are willing to pay for it, I say it's fair. If this wasn't the case, these companies would lower their price.
Piracy may have also allowed for these things (pretty ironic..isn't it?). Piracy may have been used as a grass-roots effort to make something popular.
So your answer to stopping pirating software is to force companies to stop charging a certain price for it? I like the free market. It allows someone to charge $100 or $1000..and if you don't want to pay it, you can go somewhere else.
I also don't think it would decrease pirates at all. Check out http://www.joelonsoftware.com/ sometime. There are many Micro-ISVS that sell software for under $100. When a pirate website gets a copy, and people start getting a cracked copy..it is very easy to see sales go down to nothing at this level, which is what would eventually happen to a bigger company..if they didn't have the resources.
Large companies like microsoft might be able to handle it, but small companies just end up going out of business. Piracy actually keeps companies like Microsoft and Adobe on top of the software market.
"It's much better to legalize and educate. If drugs were legalized, the risks associated with taking them would be greatly diminished. You'd never be sold poisoned or impure drugs because they'd be sold by federally-regulated businesses instead of disorganized, irresponsible slangers. You'd never have to walk down a dark alley in a bad neighborhood to meet a shifty pusher, risking your own personal safety. Criminals (the dangerous, violent kind) would never profit from drug trafficking because there would no longer BE a profit -- the only people making money would be law-abiding businessmen"
True, but then we would also have to federally fund programs for people that are addicted (since it's legal now). Also, I don't think the legalization of drugs would magically stop dark alleys in bad neighborhoods. They are always going to be there.
"It's much better to legalize and educate. If drugs were legalized, the risks associated with taking them would be greatly diminished. You'd never be sold poisoned or impure drugs because they'd be sold by federally-regulated businesses instead of disorganized, irresponsible slangers. "
Oh really? Drugs are sold poisioned every day. If drugs were legalized, we would now have the legal form and illegal form on the streets. Your views on education are laughable too. Ever hear of the D.A.R.E. program? How is legalizing drugs going to magically increase education or help any more (education is not illegal)?
"One of the arguments against Marijuana is that it causes lung cancer (supposedly much moreso than nicotine). But if Marijuana were legalized it would be much easier to purchase the drug in ingestible forms (brownies, anyone?), totally nullifying any risk of lung cancer. Legalization of Marijuana would IMPROVE public health by making safer alternatives more accessible to those who desired them."
I know a way to stop lung-cancer. STOP SMOKING. It's just that fucking simple. The argument against marijuana is that it makes you lazy and eventually depressed.
"Pirated Web Videos. Supply and demand here. The supply of digitally transmitted products is nearly infinite, therefore the price falls to the floor. Then again, I am I am against copyright [www.nocopyrightstudios"
This isn't true. Digital products can't be compared to something physical (remember the old "copying a cd isn't the same as stealing" argument, it applies here as well).
Also, they aren't a bunch of random bits. It takes weeks, months, and sometimes even years to create a piece of music, application, or game (not to mention talent). The day that any of these can be created randomly by moving your mouse around is the day the price "drops to the floor".
(this applies to all of your "supply and demand" argument. The supply should be the number of people that have the ability to actually create these, which is low.
I will agree to the your drug argument if a law is never allowed to get passed that will take the taxpayer's dollar and fund people that are addicts.
"It is ridiculous to think that the various States of the world are fighting these issues, most of them are non-crimes and in most cases not even violent crimes. If violence comes out of various groups entering these black markets, that violence is created because of the need to break a law in order to enter the market. This is government's creation of a high barrier to entry -- and criminals love high barriers to entry because they create profits."
Did you know that cocaine and ectasy and opiates were legal in the United States at one point in time? If you do not learn history the first time, you will be doomed to repeat it. The government has learned from these mistakes and has made it illegal.
"One other thing that makes GPL attractive for corporations is the fact that source cannot be closed up again. Imagine these companies contributing to Linux and seeing their competitors close up that investment. No way. In that sense, BSD-style licenses are corporation unfriendly, as corporation supported development can only occur in stuff that's deemed 100% unstrategic and without value for the company."
well, those companies would be using the BSD license. This means that they would not be giving out the source to their competitors (because it isn't a requirement) and would not have an issue with someone closing up their investment (which wouldn't matter anyway..because even when you close up source, it is still accessable..just the changes aren't).
"In short: there are relatively few companies in the world (Microsoft, Oracle, Red Hat, IBM etc.) making money from creating and selling software and related services. There are maybe thousand times more companies who'se business is not related to selling software, yet they are USERS of software (ExxonMobil, WalMart, Volkswagen, that Mom & Pop bookstore down the street)."
This isn't true. There are 10's of thousands (maybe more) of Micro-isvs and mid-sized companies making > $500,000 per year with software and even more making money with services.
You must not be a developer or in any software related business. Basically you are saying that you would rather have software companies make less money for the good of everyone using it (so they can make more).
"You then drag the argument that more profits == more jobs. Well, it might mean more jobs for the software-companies, but it might mean less jobs for the companies who use software, since their money gets transferred to the software-companies, leaving less money to hire new employees."
Most companies pay much more in support contracts than licenses, so your argument doesn't really hold much water.
"They make their money from licenses, they are a licensing-company. Why is it that when Microsoft sells software-licenses and support, they are "software-company", but when Red Hat sells software-licenses and support, they are NOT "software-company"? Considering that Microsoft has lots of businesses not related to software as such (MSN, Xbox, Zune), I would say that they are less of a software-company than Red Hat is."
You never read my post. I said readhat is considered a software company at this point in time..but if they start doing more support than selling software, I won't consider them a software company.
"So what? There's nothing preventing anyone from selling GPL'ed software"
True, but one can just take it and share it with anyone they want. There is no point in selling GPLd software. Once it gets popular enough, you will start losing the majority of your profits (and there is not much you can do about it).
"If Red Hat can make profit from their GPL-related business, great! More power to them! I see NO problem with Red Hat making money from software originally written by someone else. None whats-o-ever."
Then what's the problem with closing up the source and re-selling GPLd software (if there' no problem making money on the software?)
"Oh, so now you say that you CAN make money from the software, just not "as much"? Well, competition has the tendency to drive down prices. Is this news to you? Who benefits from those lower prices? The customers and users"
no. Im saying when you make software a commodity, you won't make that much money with your software. This will effectivly make it more difficult to sell software as a company, which directly translates to less jobs in development (because there will be fewer companies). Zealous followers of the GNU (and have a job in development) don't realize that they are actually supporting their own demise.
""They" are the millions of people who don't read Slashdot and have no idea who Lik-Sang is. "They" are the people who only heard about the rootkit when it was on CNN. "They" are the millions of people who probably have a vague idea that their Gap t-shirt and Nike shoes were made by an underpaid child laborer, and don't really care; or that the $199 bargain PC they bought was probably made at a factory that dumps toxic waste into the environment, and buy it anyway. They are the people who keep Wal-Mart in business, even if the result is the elimination of local jobs or stores"
Even though you may think they are under-paid, they are not. In India, the average pay for a worker might be $5/Hour. If a company decides to pay a worker $5/Hour, they are not being under-paid.
China is the same way. Average pay there is considerably less than the rest of the world. Companies that decide to setup shop (such as nike) are not only creating jobs/prosperity, but saving families from complete poverty and starvation (children are going to work anyway) (it's a win-win situation).
"They are the people who keep Wal-Mart in business, even if the result is the elimination of local jobs or stores"
It's called competition. If a company comes into town that is better and cheaper, tough luck. Smaller stores will quickly learn how to adapt or go out of business.
"They have growing and profitable business, what more do you want? Microsoft-esque monopoly-profits? Sorry, not gonna happen"
It has nothing to do with "monopoly profits". Redhat is growing, but if they were closed source/proprietary, they would probably making 10X as much (which would mean more jobs as well). I also find it kind of funny that so many open source supporters name redhat as an example company when they basically built their business on the backs of hard-working open source programmers.
"So you are agreeing with me that you can make money from GPL'ed software, but it just doesn't have to involve selling license to that software?"
I am saying you can't make that much money with GNU software. Support and other stuff, but not from the software (redhat knows this, which is why they concentrate more on support and other stuff..but it doesn't mean longevity for a business..anyone can do it).
"I have seen some numbers a while ago (sorry, don't have any links), and the percentage is way above 1%. If people don't want the support-contract, why run Red Hat at all, since they could use CentOS instead"
People just might do that..then redhat would start losing marketshare and profits. When you make software a commodity, it starts to lose it's monetary value quite quickly.
"Red Hat's product is an OS, and the related software-stack. They have zillion people whose sole task is to improve that software. So yes, they are a software-company. Or are you saying that if they are not selling you bunch of bits as such, then they are not a software-company? You are artificially limiting the definition of a "software company" so it fits your argument. Hell, Microsoft isn't selling me bits either, they are just selling licenses. They are not a software-company, they are a licensing-company."
no. Microsoft makes most of their money with software, so they are a software company. I would consider redhat a software company now, but if they eventually make most of their money with support..I would no longer consider them a software company (maybe a consulting company). Why is this so hard for you to understand?
"Well, Red Hat seems to be doing quite OK, even though all their software is GPL'ed, and there are even 1:1 clones of their OS out there (CentOS among others). There are other means of making money besides "selling software".
Redhat isn't making that much in terms of a company (they also realized it's difficult to sell something for free and are selling certifications/books/support contracts). I would imagine they get a very small percentage of people that acutally purchase a copy (1% or less than the # of people using redhat..which is very bad for the survivability of a company. Many distro companies have gone under as a result of these low percentages).
Also, there are other means of making money, but then you aren't really considered a software company anymore and shouldn't even be considered in the "making money with gnu" argument. Making money with gnu means selling gnu software and possibly doing some support (IE: the selling of the software is your primary source of income) rather than just all support (which would make you a support company..and pretty much anyone can do this).
" the fact that it prevented them from taking GPL'd code and exploiting it for their own profit"
Honestly, I see no issues with this.
If I create a piece of source code and a company uses it for profit and closes it back up, I just won't get their changes (which isn't mine to begin with) but everyone, including me, can get the original code (which is still free).
Since code isn't tangable, it cannot just be "stolen". Especially if you can prove prior art (which shouldn't be that difficult)
To me, when I look at it in this light, it makes the GNU, FSF, and stallman a moot point and just a political agenda.
This is why I love the BSD license. It has no such restrictions..a truly free license......
"Simple economics dictates that you can make a reasonable profit out of free software. If you can't make a profit either your expectations are not reasonable or someone is undercutting your costs so you need to become more efficient. The model of "write a program, sit on your bum and profit selling copies" is dead. The Internet has made distribution so efficient that you will instantly be undercut. The problem isn't the GPL. It's people flogging a business model that is a dead horse"
And what is the GPL business model again? Selling software is hard. Proprietary or free. But free is much harder.
Also, popularity works against you, which is a bad sign. The more popular, the more likely someone else has already put your GNUd App on their site for free.
Even mysql has a commercial counterpart that is against the ideals of the GNU (they sell a commercial license for around $500 that can get around the GNU license).
Unless there is a law forbidding such things, there will always be proprietary software and the business model of selling software outright (per copy). Most people like to have their hand held when it comes to things like this (which is funny..because free software projects are usually the exact opposite. Newbies feel lost and many times are ridiculed) and most companies want an entity that they know will be able to support them.
The other issue is that if there is no money in something, the driving force as a whole goes down to nothing, which would mean an almost stand-still with software in general..which I don't think people in this community want.
"Recent Free Software gains in India were due to Stallman visiting and making a speech. He promised the locals freedom to adapt the code to their needs, and to be free of licensing free imposed by Western companies. Maybe in the United States all people care about is a better browser, but Stallman's globetrotting shows that a lot of people in disadvantaged places see value in the philosophy, not just the features"
Don't you get it?
Those people don't care about the philosophy or the features. When they hear stallman speak, they hear one thing: "getting software at no cost". This is what 99% of the population hears as well.
"How can you possibly equate anti-MicroSoft people with anti-GPL people? First of all, anti-GPL people aren't people, they're corporations. Anti-MicroSoft, pro-GPL people are actually real people, who are advocates of freedom for all, not profit for the few and slavery for the rest."
Some the new additions to the GNU license are a little zealous to say the least. The GNU license has always been touted as a "distribution" license. One of the new restrictions is on code is with services. Someone who has a service that uses GPLd code and does not re-distribute their code are still required to give out their source.
Even though many people in favor of the GNU may not like it or admit it, if the GPL starts getting too restrictive such as what I mentioned above, people will just stop using it. Companies will stop supporting it and developers that actually want to make a living with their software will just find code that is licensed under a different license because it will be a liability.
"I wish the US had a TV license. That way we could have a TV channel not tied to the profit margin so that we could get decent shows like Doctor Who more often. Wait, this is the United States, they'd go out of their way to make it all reality crap"
I hope this is a fucking joke. Have you ever seen the BBC? It's filled with complete garbage 24 hours a day..and guess what? The taxpayer's are paying for it!
I am so glad the U.S. does not have this TV tax bullshit.
"Noone is forcing us? What about computer vendors who bundle Vista with all their computers, just like they've bundled XP and every OS before it?"
Choose a different vendor. I do. I pick a vendor that doesn't bundle any Microsoft OS with it. Just because the general population is too lazy or ignorant of the fact that you can indeed get a computer without the latest and greatest version of windows does not make it "forced".
"Ya got me. But I never understand this stuff. Years ago, before there were any, I was approached to develop a live online poker site. I declined, saying it will never work because you can't stop people from cheating. And you can't, but it turned out not to matter. Then a few years ago I was approached to develop an site similar to youtube, and I said it would never work because people will always post copyrighted material and you'll get sued into oblivion"
It seems that people that are oblivious to any kind of law (copyright or otherwise) are successful (they don't sit and think about how something is illegal..they just do it and then hope that when they are called on it, they will figure a way out).
I had the idea for napster about 2 years before it was even out. I even had a beta of my program that I gave to a bunch of my friends...I only stopped because I figured I would be destroyed by the recording industry.
Even though napster was eventually taken down, Shawn Fanning did get a couple million out of it (I heard he is living in a nice house in Orange County).
"The many-eyeballs approach doesn't guarantee good code (alas!) but it does stop at least some of the worst practices."
This is not true.
The following are examples: Open Office, oscommerce, and mysql. All are fairly popular in the open source community and each one's sourcecode is a complete mess (oscommerce especially).
Open source can actually increase messy code, because not everyone follows the same practices. At least with proprietary software, it is usually written by the same X amount of people (X=number of people working on the project).
Slashdot Mirror
"How would you like it if you were denied a job because you're doing a perfectly legal activity in your own free time? A registration program? WTF? Should it include race, sexual orientation, hair color, religion, sports team preference, film taste, music taste etc. too? Wouldn't want to hire any unsavory elements."
You use the drugs at home, yes. But the effects don't wear off right away. This is why there should be a registration program. As an employer, I don't feel I should have to hire someone that is costing me more money through health care, a liability to me (if they come in high and damage something), or a liability to others (if they come in high/paranoid and kill/hurt customers/co-workers).
Companies that have a health insurance policy many times make you go through drug tests (and will drop you if you fail). This would be no different.
Here are some benefits from legalizing drugs:
"- Police resources would be freed up to go after other criminal activity
- Border police could use more resources checking for weapons, terrorists etc."
The resources that were freed up would soon be gone due to all of the new addicts going through our hospitals.
"- Lower crime, since people don't have to commit crime to support their habits"
people would still commit crimes. Even if drugs were very cheap..a person addicted will eventually use all of their money and still need to commit crimes to get more. We might actually see more drug related deaths as a result, because you can get a lot more for a lot less.
"- The breakdown of the drug cartels and other organized crime"
There will always be organized crime around. If the big drugs were legalized, I'm sure there would be new synthetic drugs that were made illegal and the cycle would start again. Also, organized criminals don't just focus on drugs. You would have to make everything illegal legal to stop organized crime. This is why it is called crime and not a business.
"- People being allowed to do what the fuck they want with their own bodies"
If it were just about your body, it would be fine..but it's not. The fact that you don't see this is astonishing to me.
"So you see, in addition to GP's point that using drugs is a personal issue, there are also economic and moral arguments for the legalization of drugs. The only arguments I see against legalization is that there *might* be more people using drugs. Well, that a few more people use cheap, clean drugs is easily outweighed by the fators outlined above."
Basically, it seems like you just want a way to get your drugs easier. Also, you need a history lesson. Every illegal drug was once legal (hell..in the US, there was cocaine toothpaste and doctor's prescribed ectasy in the 80s). They were all made illegal for a reason..you should put the bong down and pickup a book sometime.
"Why? Because you think drugs aren't a good thing? Well, then we need a registration program for those who pursue religion, so employers could decide to hire you if you depend on an imaginary friend for advice... great idea, huh? Not! If an employee can do the job you need them to do in the manner you want it done, and they do not interfere with your operations otherwise, where is your justification for denying that person work? I mean, other than blatant favoritism and prejudice? "
No, because as an employer, I don't want to have to hire someone that won't be able to do his job properly because he just got done smoking a joint, shooting up, or snorting some coke (even though it may seem like you are doing okay when you are high..you probably aren't). Not to mention the added health care issues involved with drug use (costing an employer more money than someone that is not using drugs).
If drugs are so great and safe..why should this be a problem?
"People do this all the time. The fact that they are rarely arrested for doing so should tell you something."
hmm..now who's pulling figures out of his ass. Care to back this up?
"Did you know that the world market for illicit drugs is not only larger than the market for alcohol, it is larger than the oil industry?"
I will clue you in on something. Anything deemed illegal will have a large market. Because it is so difficult to obtain, the price will also be very high (simple economics here). This has nothing to do drugs. I bet the market for counterfeit money and child porn are also very high..should they be legalized too?
"Why is it then that the HUGE number of evil pot-smokers aren't being pulled over left and right? Could it be, just possibly, that smoking pot does not result in a loss of the ability to drive at an average level of competence?"
It could be because the people that smoke pot are the same type of people that have had their licenses suspended (and not driving) or they are kids that don't have a license yet.
"Could it be that people who are on acid, heroin, and other "big guns" are so far out of it that they generally couldn't drive if they wanted to?
Or could it be that alcohol has the unusual characteristic of tossing one's inhibitions to the winds along with one's abilities to be competent physically, whereas many (most) other drugs do not?"
No, more people are pulled over for drinking because it's legal in every country in the world. 99% of the population over the age of 21 in the US most likely has been to a bar and gotten drunk at some point in time (and possibly even younger).
A percentage of those people have driven drunk.
99% of the population certainly hasn't tried an illegal drug. Just on statistics alone, you can see that there are less people that would have been driving while on that illegal drug.
"I mean, it's not the law, is it? Because the penalties for drunk driving are getting right up there these days (as they certainly should.)"
Not sure where you were even headed with this. Are you on drugs right now?
"A good part of the reason (yes reason, not problem) why people habitually smoke marijuanna cirgarettes is because it is illegal. There are some countries where you can legally buy your meds in brown paper bags which takes away the thrill and excitement of obtaining it illegally. Initial drug use would certainly rise if legalized, but would eventually drop down below where it stands now. People are going to use drugs weather it's legal or not. There's no way around that. "
it's not the fact that people will use them or not. It's the government condoning such use. It would create millions of more addicts.
"And for your thought on depression - Good ol' Mary Jane cured my depression. I'll tell ya, I was a depressed little kid on the verge of suicide before I was introduced to mother nature. It helps me sleep, it helps me eat, and it helps me socialize. I find nothing wrong with laughing uncontrollably"
Don't worry..this will pass. When good old mary jane doesn't make you happy any more, you will need something harder and stronger (if you haven't already started)
"How about educating them on addiction and abuse rather than telling them that daddy had to go to jail because he needs a little pick-me-up during the day? I drink 4 to 5 cups of coffee every morning which I feel is worse than doing a little coke every once in a while. Believe me - both are equally addicting. I would even say that coffee is worse. Man, a nice hot cup of freshly brewed coffee - balanced, smooth, yet rich in flavor - sure sounds good right now. Way better than the cocaine "drip" I would have to deal with otherwise. "
I agree. Did you know that when they were passing laws to ban cocaine, they also looked at caffeine? Companies basically just replaced one stimulant with another. I used to drink a couple of cans of coke or mountain dew a day. It had some serious effects on my well-being. I have since cut-back to one can a week and I feel much better.
"And one more thing I'd like to talk about is your fear of inflated prices due to legalization. If we didn't dump all of our hard earned tax dollars into the criminalization of drugs (police forces, courts, prisons) then we would certainly be able to afford health care for every American citizen. We would then be able to clean up this great nation and get people out of prison and back to work where they can have a positive influence on our society"
Public health care is not the answer. I certainly do not want to pay shitloads in taxes and overfill our hospitals (my aunt and uncle live in canada and had to come over to the U.S. to get major surgery done because the waiting list was too long)
"justinlee37 - sorry about responding to this idiot for you - I hope you don't mind.
kz45 - don't knock it till' ya try it"
I think you made my point on who wants this: stoners. I remember hearing these arguments in highschool..from all of my stoner friends who loved smoking pot all day. The problem is that it is all very short-sited. You guys seem to believe doing X will solve problem Y..and not really looking at the big picture.
"That's not for others to judge. What you do on your own time with your own money should be your business, not mine. Arguments about what you may do to your financial standing are specious. You can wreck yourself simply by using a credit card in specific ways, or re-financing your house without understanding what you're doing or even by doing all the right things in unfortunate circumstances. "
This is true, but legalizing drugs doesn't just effect the people that are going to use them. It will effect society as a whole.
If anyone can start taking something like cocaine or heroine (even in small doses), addiction will climb and so will the care of the people addicted, which will mean higher prices for health care for us.
Not only that, but what about the people that decide to drive while stoned/high? There are enough people in this world killing the innocent while drunk..I don't think we need to add even more due to being high.
If drugs were ever legalized, we would also need a registration program. That registration program would allow potential employers to decide whether or not to hire you based on your legal drug usage.
Many European countries don't care about such things because they are already paying large amounts of money in taxes due to their public health care system.
"Why would anyone buy drugs second-hand from a dubious source when they could buy them guaranteed-clean at the supermarket? It's not as if poison is somehow perceived as a quality enhancer, and people do prefer to know what they're buying -- nobody wants to, say, buy some improperly prepared cocaine and die that night."
true, but if people on the street are selling "enhanced drugs". Something that makes a legalized drug better somehow, people will probably buy it (especially teenagers/kids).
"No, but, (and I quote this from my previous post), "You'd never have to walk down a dark alley in a bad neighborhood to meet a shifty pusher"
okay, so it will be replaced by a shifty gun dealer or a shifty pimp. your point?
"You're right, but, no one is going to. Aside from the millions (billions, maybe) who smoke tobacco, the website that spawned this whole discussion suggests that 162 million people smoke Marijuana. And how about all those alcoholics? You know, if they wanted to stop liver disease and depression, they should just STOP DRINKING. Come on, it's gotta be easy, right?"
It's true. If they stopped drinking, it would stop liver disease and depression. Legalizing it will not stop them from smoking it. We might have billions smoking marijuana if it is legalized (because it would be so easy to get).
"Can you really establish causation for that? Or is it just the case that people who are more prone to laziness and depression are also more prone to the abuse of pleasure-seeking activities like smoking Marijuana?"
Countless doctors in the past 10 years saying so and also my friends, who were fine before they started smoking pot (good grades, not depressed) and depressed/bad grades after smoking it for awhile.
Drugs like Extacy are also known for eating away at the Seratonin in your brain..causing permanent depression.
Even though many of the hard drugs are illegal, we can still see the effects of them because people can find a way to get them. I don't think I want the effects of these drugs on maybe 100,000,000 people instead of 10,000,000. That is what would happen as a result of legalizing it (more people would want to try these drugs and possibly get addicted..because..if it's legal..it must be okay..right?). This would mean more people going through our medical system for addiction and higher prices for all.
It seems like you take drugs daily (otherwise you wouldn't advocate this so much). You can obviously get them, so why do you care so much if everyone else can?
"Aparently they are forced to work there, since if they don't and end up on welfare, they're "stealing from the state"."
okay, so what is the solution to the problem then?
"If somebody was to illegally obtain a copy of each of those, they have "over $7000 worth of pirated software," ignoring the fact that nobody, ever, has any excuse for charging over $500 for any piece of software. Seriously. I predict that if a price cap of $500 on all software was imposed, the global pirated software trade would decrease by a factor of 10 (note: the actual number of copies would remain the same, but no longer would the average person have tens of thousands of dollard worth of pirated software)."
If people are willing to pay for it, I say it's fair. If this wasn't the case, these companies would lower their price.
Piracy may have also allowed for these things (pretty ironic..isn't it?). Piracy may have been used as a grass-roots effort to make something popular.
So your answer to stopping pirating software is to force companies to stop charging a certain price for it? I like the free market. It allows someone to charge $100 or $1000..and if you don't want to pay it, you can go somewhere else.
I also don't think it would decrease pirates at all. Check out http://www.joelonsoftware.com/ sometime. There are many Micro-ISVS that sell software for under $100. When a pirate website gets a copy, and people start getting a cracked copy..it is very easy to see sales go down to nothing at this level, which is what would eventually happen to a bigger company..if they didn't have the resources.
Large companies like microsoft might be able to handle it, but small companies just end up going out of business. Piracy actually keeps companies like Microsoft and Adobe on top of the software market.
"It's much better to legalize and educate. If drugs were legalized, the risks associated with taking them would be greatly diminished. You'd never be sold poisoned or impure drugs because they'd be sold by federally-regulated businesses instead of disorganized, irresponsible slangers. You'd never have to walk down a dark alley in a bad neighborhood to meet a shifty pusher, risking your own personal safety. Criminals (the dangerous, violent kind) would never profit from drug trafficking because there would no longer BE a profit -- the only people making money would be law-abiding businessmen"
True, but then we would also have to federally fund programs for people that are addicted (since it's legal now). Also, I don't think the legalization of drugs would magically stop dark alleys in bad neighborhoods. They are always going to be there.
"It's much better to legalize and educate. If drugs were legalized, the risks associated with taking them would be greatly diminished. You'd never be sold poisoned or impure drugs because they'd be sold by federally-regulated businesses instead of disorganized, irresponsible slangers. "
Oh really? Drugs are sold poisioned every day. If drugs were legalized, we would now have the legal form and illegal form on the streets. Your views on education are laughable too. Ever hear of the D.A.R.E. program? How is legalizing drugs going to magically increase education or help any more (education is not illegal)?
"One of the arguments against Marijuana is that it causes lung cancer (supposedly much moreso than nicotine). But if Marijuana were legalized it would be much easier to purchase the drug in ingestible forms (brownies, anyone?), totally nullifying any risk of lung cancer. Legalization of Marijuana would IMPROVE public health by making safer alternatives more accessible to those who desired them."
I know a way to stop lung-cancer. STOP SMOKING. It's just that fucking simple. The argument against marijuana is that it makes you lazy and eventually depressed.
"Stealing from the state? Just like fast food chains are stealing from their employees by paying them low wages"
When anyone can do a job, the wage goes way down. It's not stealing. Also, the employees aren't forced to work there.
"Which begs the question (as an outsider looking at what has happened in the US in the past few years) - so, what are you waiting for?"
If you think the US is actually that bad, you need to open your eyes and look at the rest of the world.
"Pirated Web Videos. Supply and demand here. The supply of digitally transmitted products is nearly infinite, therefore the price falls to the floor. Then again, I am I am against copyright [www.nocopyrightstudios"
This isn't true. Digital products can't be compared to something physical (remember the old "copying a cd isn't the same as stealing" argument, it applies here as well).
Also, they aren't a bunch of random bits. It takes weeks, months, and sometimes even years to create a piece of music, application, or game (not to mention talent). The day that any of these can be created randomly by moving your mouse around is the day the price "drops to the floor".
(this applies to all of your "supply and demand" argument. The supply should be the number of people that have the ability to actually create these, which is low.
I will agree to the your drug argument if a law is never allowed to get passed that will take the taxpayer's dollar and fund people that are addicts.
"It is ridiculous to think that the various States of the world are fighting these issues, most of them are non-crimes and in most cases not even violent crimes. If violence comes out of various groups entering these black markets, that violence is created because of the need to break a law in order to enter the market. This is government's creation of a high barrier to entry -- and criminals love high barriers to entry because they create profits."
Did you know that cocaine and ectasy and opiates were legal in the United States at one point in time? If you do not learn history the first time, you will be doomed to repeat it. The government has learned from these mistakes and has made it illegal.
"One other thing that makes GPL attractive for corporations is the fact that source cannot be closed up again. Imagine these companies contributing to Linux and seeing their competitors close up that investment. No way. In that sense, BSD-style licenses are corporation unfriendly, as corporation supported development can only occur in stuff that's deemed 100% unstrategic and without value for the company."
well, those companies would be using the BSD license. This means that they would not be giving out the source to their competitors (because it isn't a requirement) and would not have an issue with someone closing up their investment (which wouldn't matter anyway..because even when you close up source, it is still accessable..just the changes aren't).
"In short: there are relatively few companies in the world (Microsoft, Oracle, Red Hat, IBM etc.) making money from creating and selling software and related services. There are maybe thousand times more companies who'se business is not related to selling software, yet they are USERS of software (ExxonMobil, WalMart, Volkswagen, that Mom & Pop bookstore down the street)."
This isn't true. There are 10's of thousands (maybe more) of Micro-isvs and mid-sized companies making > $500,000 per year with software and even more making money with services.
You must not be a developer or in any software related business. Basically you are saying that you would rather have software companies make less money for the good of everyone using it (so they can make more).
"You then drag the argument that more profits == more jobs. Well, it might mean more jobs for the software-companies, but it might mean less jobs for the companies who use software, since their money gets transferred to the software-companies, leaving less money to hire new employees."
Most companies pay much more in support contracts than licenses, so your argument doesn't really hold much water.
"They make their money from licenses, they are a licensing-company. Why is it that when Microsoft sells software-licenses and support, they are "software-company", but when Red Hat sells software-licenses and support, they are NOT "software-company"? Considering that Microsoft has lots of businesses not related to software as such (MSN, Xbox, Zune), I would say that they are less of a software-company than Red Hat is."
You never read my post. I said readhat is considered a software company at this point in time..but if they start doing more support than selling software, I won't consider them a software company.
"So what? There's nothing preventing anyone from selling GPL'ed software"
True, but one can just take it and share it with anyone they want. There is no point in selling GPLd software. Once it gets popular enough, you will start losing the majority of your profits (and there is not much you can do about it).
"If Red Hat can make profit from their GPL-related business, great! More power to them! I see NO problem with Red Hat making money from software originally written by someone else. None whats-o-ever."
Then what's the problem with closing up the source and re-selling GPLd software (if there' no problem making money on the software?)
"Oh, so now you say that you CAN make money from the software, just not "as much"? Well, competition has the tendency to drive down prices. Is this news to you? Who benefits from those lower prices? The customers and users"
no. Im saying when you make software a commodity, you won't make that much money with your software. This will effectivly make it more difficult to sell software as a company, which directly translates to less jobs in development (because there will be fewer companies). Zealous followers of the GNU (and have a job in development) don't realize that they are actually supporting their own demise.
""They" are the millions of people who don't read Slashdot and have no idea who Lik-Sang is. "They" are the people who only heard about the rootkit when it was on CNN. "They" are the millions of people who probably have a vague idea that their Gap t-shirt and Nike shoes were made by an underpaid child laborer, and don't really care; or that the $199 bargain PC they bought was probably made at a factory that dumps toxic waste into the environment, and buy it anyway. They are the people who keep Wal-Mart in business, even if the result is the elimination of local jobs or stores"
Even though you may think they are under-paid, they are not. In India, the average pay for a worker might be $5/Hour. If a company decides to pay a worker $5/Hour, they are not being under-paid.
China is the same way. Average pay there is considerably less than the rest of the world. Companies that decide to setup shop (such as nike) are not only creating jobs/prosperity, but saving families from complete poverty and starvation (children are going to work anyway) (it's a win-win situation).
"They are the people who keep Wal-Mart in business, even if the result is the elimination of local jobs or stores"
It's called competition. If a company comes into town that is better and cheaper, tough luck. Smaller stores will quickly learn how to adapt or go out of business.
"They have growing and profitable business, what more do you want? Microsoft-esque monopoly-profits? Sorry, not gonna happen"
It has nothing to do with "monopoly profits". Redhat is growing, but if they were closed source/proprietary, they would probably making 10X as much (which would mean more jobs as well). I also find it kind of funny that so many open source supporters name redhat as an example company when they basically built their business on the backs of hard-working open source programmers.
"So you are agreeing with me that you can make money from GPL'ed software, but it just doesn't have to involve selling license to that software?"
I am saying you can't make that much money with GNU software. Support and other stuff, but not from the software (redhat knows this, which is why they concentrate more on support and other stuff..but it doesn't mean longevity for a business..anyone can do it).
"I have seen some numbers a while ago (sorry, don't have any links), and the percentage is way above 1%. If people don't want the support-contract, why run Red Hat at all, since they could use CentOS instead"
People just might do that..then redhat would start losing marketshare and profits. When you make software a commodity, it starts to lose it's monetary value quite quickly.
"Red Hat's product is an OS, and the related software-stack. They have zillion people whose sole task is to improve that software. So yes, they are a software-company. Or are you saying that if they are not selling you bunch of bits as such, then they are not a software-company? You are artificially limiting the definition of a "software company" so it fits your argument. Hell, Microsoft isn't selling me bits either, they are just selling licenses. They are not a software-company, they are a licensing-company."
no. Microsoft makes most of their money with software, so they are a software company. I would consider redhat a software company now, but if they eventually make most of their money with support..I would no longer consider them a software company (maybe a consulting company). Why is this so hard for you to understand?
"Well, Red Hat seems to be doing quite OK, even though all their software is GPL'ed, and there are even 1:1 clones of their OS out there (CentOS among others). There are other means of making money besides "selling software".
Redhat isn't making that much in terms of a company (they also realized it's difficult to sell something for free and are selling certifications/books/support contracts). I would imagine they get a very small percentage of people that acutally purchase a copy (1% or less than the # of people using redhat..which is very bad for the survivability of a company. Many distro companies have gone under as a result of these low percentages).
Also, there are other means of making money, but then you aren't really considered a software company anymore and shouldn't even be considered in the "making money with gnu" argument. Making money with gnu means selling gnu software and possibly doing some support (IE: the selling of the software is your primary source of income) rather than just all support (which would make you a support company..and pretty much anyone can do this).
" the fact that it prevented them from taking GPL'd code and exploiting it for their own profit"
Honestly, I see no issues with this.
If I create a piece of source code and a company uses it for profit and closes it back up, I just won't get their changes (which isn't mine to begin with) but everyone, including me, can get the original code (which is still free).
Since code isn't tangable, it cannot just be "stolen". Especially if you can prove prior art (which shouldn't be that difficult)
To me, when I look at it in this light, it makes the GNU, FSF, and stallman a moot point and just a political agenda.
This is why I love the BSD license. It has no such restrictions..a truly free license......
"Simple economics dictates that you can make a reasonable profit out of free software. If you can't make a profit either your expectations are not reasonable or someone is undercutting your costs so you need to become more efficient. The model of "write a program, sit on your bum and profit selling copies" is dead. The Internet has made distribution so efficient that you will instantly be undercut. The problem isn't the GPL. It's people flogging a business model that is a dead horse"
And what is the GPL business model again? Selling software is hard. Proprietary or free. But free is much harder.
Also, popularity works against you, which is a bad sign. The more popular, the more likely someone else has already put your GNUd App on their site for free.
Even mysql has a commercial counterpart that is against the ideals of the GNU (they sell a commercial license for around $500 that can get around the GNU license).
Unless there is a law forbidding such things, there will always be proprietary software and the business model of selling software outright (per copy). Most people like to have their hand held when it comes to things like this (which is funny..because free software projects are usually the exact opposite. Newbies feel lost and many times are ridiculed) and most companies want an entity that they know will be able to support them.
The other issue is that if there is no money in something, the driving force as a whole goes down to nothing, which would mean an almost stand-still with software in general..which I don't think people in this community want.
"Recent Free Software gains in India were due to Stallman visiting and making a speech. He promised the locals freedom to adapt the code to their needs, and to be free of licensing free imposed by Western companies. Maybe in the United States all people care about is a better browser, but Stallman's globetrotting shows that a lot of people in disadvantaged places see value in the philosophy, not just the features"
Don't you get it?
Those people don't care about the philosophy or the features. When they hear stallman speak, they hear one thing: "getting software at no cost". This is what 99% of the population hears as well.
"How can you possibly equate anti-MicroSoft people with anti-GPL people? First of all, anti-GPL people aren't people, they're corporations. Anti-MicroSoft, pro-GPL people are actually real people, who are advocates of freedom for all, not profit for the few and slavery for the rest."
Some the new additions to the GNU license are a little zealous to say the least. The GNU license has always been touted as a "distribution" license. One of the new restrictions is on code is with services. Someone who has a service that uses GPLd code and does not re-distribute their code are still required to give out their source.
Even though many people in favor of the GNU may not like it or admit it, if the GPL starts getting too restrictive such as what I mentioned above, people will just stop using it. Companies will stop supporting it and developers that actually want to make a living with their software will just find code that is licensed under a different license because it will be a liability.
"I wish the US had a TV license. That way we could have a TV channel not tied to the profit margin so that we could get decent shows like Doctor Who more often. Wait, this is the United States, they'd go out of their way to make it all reality crap"
I hope this is a fucking joke. Have you ever seen the BBC? It's filled with complete garbage 24 hours a day..and guess what? The taxpayer's are paying for it!
I am so glad the U.S. does not have this TV tax bullshit.
"Noone is forcing us? What about computer vendors who bundle Vista with all their computers, just like they've bundled XP and every OS before it?"
Choose a different vendor. I do. I pick a vendor that doesn't bundle any Microsoft OS with it. Just because the general population is too lazy or ignorant of the fact that you can indeed get a computer without the latest and greatest version of windows does not make it "forced".
"Ya got me. But I never understand this stuff. Years ago, before there were any, I was approached to develop a live online poker site. I declined, saying it will never work because you can't stop people from cheating. And you can't, but it turned out not to matter. Then a few years ago I was approached to develop an site similar to youtube, and I said it would never work because people will always post copyrighted material and you'll get sued into oblivion"
It seems that people that are oblivious to any kind of law (copyright or otherwise) are successful (they don't sit and think about how something is illegal..they just do it and then hope that when they are called on it, they will figure a way out).
I had the idea for napster about 2 years before it was even out. I even had a beta of my program that I gave to a bunch of my friends...I only stopped because I figured I would be destroyed by the recording industry.
Even though napster was eventually taken down, Shawn Fanning did get a couple million out of it (I heard he is living in a nice house in Orange County).
"You would not consider it newsworthy in the States because it's not a middle class caucasian girl and is not being shown around the clock on CNN."
Funny. When Fox news shows non-caucasian murders and other crimes it's considered racist by the left.
"The many-eyeballs approach doesn't guarantee good code (alas!) but it does stop at least some of the worst practices."
This is not true.
The following are examples: Open Office, oscommerce, and mysql. All are fairly popular in the open source community and each one's sourcecode is a complete mess (oscommerce especially).
Open source can actually increase messy code, because not everyone follows the same practices. At least with proprietary software, it is usually written by the same X amount of people (X=number of people working on the project).