Perhaps it will always be a problem. That doesn't mean that fighting it is a bad idea - having it illegal and fought against may be better than the alternative (at least for the harder drugs - for marijuana, which is almost harmless and something I strongly want legal, the drug war is unconscionable).
Comparing it to crimes with a simple victim isn't meant to comment on the morality of drugs, it's simply meant to suggest that legal prohibitions can work at least in part to curb demand. Having it illegal actually does reduce demand (stateways can change folkways - to look at another example of this, when slavery was ended and when women were given the vote, societal support was a lot closer to 50-50 in the times before the legal change, but after it support for the conclusion changed drastically).
On the latter point, I was not sufficiently clear - if someone either temporarily or permanently lacks funds for cocaine, LSD, or heroin, because of the strength of the addiction of those drugs, they are much more likely to commit violence to get funds (or the drug itself) than less-or-non-addictive drugs (like pot, alcohol, cigarettes, etc).
For drugs which have a small enough cost to society, of course they should be legal - the problems with smuggling operations and the like plus the unhappiness caused by restricting people's autonomy make it very clear. For those which are inimical to civilisation, the costs that you lay out are certainly real (and worrying), but I think the alternative of permitting them is considerably worse. Your judgement may reasonably vary - I know that ten years ago I probably would've sided with you (not meant as an age-diminuative, rather meant to illustrate the difficulty of the subject matter and how reasonable people may disagree over what solution is best).
That would be true, if we didn't have a tradition of valuing autonomy and the happiness it brings. It's not our only value (so we can balance it against other values at times), but it's an important one.
I believe what you said translates to "I don't like what you said and find it offensive". Perhaps you should've just said that rather than tossing insults around.
I can go along with both of these statements. Having accurate research would be a great start (and the tradition of the current anti-drug lobby to stifle publication of such research is shameful).
I think you're wrong that banning things never work - most of the foundation of our legal system is based on the idea that the existence of law deters certain kinds of behaviour. Note that I say "deters", not "eliminates" - murder may be illegal, but given how its possibility is inherent in all of us and often stems from passions that no law can completely hold back, it still happens. This does not mean that we legalise it. Likewise with many other laws and substances.
I'd rather, so much as it is possible, close down the markets as much as possible for those drugs that cannot be used responsibly, and I believe that prohibition of these drugs can at least partly work - whether full success can ever be reached is an open question. If a drug is addictive enough that people will rob or murder to get it, it doesn't matter so much what kind of source they get it from (although these criminal gangs are certainly, as you note, a significant problem).
You're part of society, and society has an interest in you and how you relate to others in society. There are very few truly private concerns, even if we prefer to have a culture that strongly values autonomy (which in the general case I do).
The mere existence of black markets for anything prohibited is not, in my opinion, sufficient to justify opening markets for anything possible (e.g. assassination). Society can say "no" to something and fight it despite there being a potential market (although some weight should probably be given to the effects of black markets on society in general).
As to weighing those costs against each other, it is a matter of judgement. I hold that any drug which is unlikely to be usable in a moderate, sensible way should be prohibited if possible (although providing addiction treatment as well would be great). I can't fault those who would weigh this a bit differently though.
You summarise too much. I believe that health concerns are not the primary factor in how prohibition laws were laid out in the United States (accidents of history as well as religious fervor play far too large a role). Suggesting that they be reconsidered and rebased on actual health concerns and societal impact is not self-contradictory.
As I understand, the earlier forms of the drug were considerably less pure (and hence far less addictive/dangerous). Modern usage of the drug has been a significantly larger problem (although even the indigenous use may have been too hazardous - I am uncertain if any studies were or could have been done on practice at the time).
It is possible I don't know as much on this topic as I should - the main point of my post is the approach we should take to drug regulation. The conclusions we should draw can and should be adapted to actual medical studies and discussions on their broader societal ramifications.
And consider it in light of the fact that it was written to replace an earlier government that did not work because it delegated everything to the states.
Given that alcohol is already legal and is more dangerous than at least the most common recreational drugs, It would make sense to at least legalise other recreational drugs that are on par or less harmful than it (marijuana being the most obvious candidate).
"Hard" drugs like Cocaine should probably remain illegal - it is impossible (or prohibitively difficult, at least) to "use them responsibly" and their health effects are much more marked.
Permitting broad autonomy to people in cases where there is not a clear and strong societal interest otherwise makes sense - broad restrictions on recreational drugs don't have arguments that meet the bar we should be holding up.
You can't grant the GPL license in bad faith like this. It'd be equivalent to finding some of the occasionally-leaked Microsoft Windows code, slapping the GPL on it, and "releasing" it to a friend - if you don't have the IP rights to it in the first place, the license is invalid.
When all of society becomes unreasonable, one is screwed regardless of the laws. Likewise, when unconscionable things are legal (as slavery, beating one's wife, etc), that doesn't mean that good people should sit by and permit them to occur, or necessarily give up on bringing consequences to those who perpetuate them.
Some types of law are better served by this idea than others, of course, but one of the hazards of a strongly legalistic society (one much more formal than ours, e.g. with no "reasonable person" concept, one that does not permit judges to reshape laws according to the public interest or jury nullification, etc) is that many people use the letter of the law to delimit how they will and will not behave rather than use it as a marker for dangerous ground.
That would work well for future cases, but because laws cannot be retroactive in the United States, it alone would not be sufficient to handle this case.
Perhaps harassment would be a better line of reasoning to pursue than this.
We could turn that around too though. If you don't like the consequences of releasing software/art/whatever to the world and having people further copy/modify/whatever it, don't give it to anyone. You can't control culture, you can't control informaton, and if you try, you've lost before you even started.
You want to dictate how I, as a computer user, can use my computer. You think uses of software you wrote are things you can control. You can...:P
Point is, either we decide original developers of software get to define policy or we frown on letting anyone define policy and let people do what they want with it. Many in the opensource community favour some form of the latter
Many companies? Maybe many companies should, but actually doing so is almost unheard of. This has nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with embedded power and interests in social structures.
Also, try suing a company to get it to reveal its contracts with another company. There isn't even the expectation of openness there - I'm not sure where you were trying to go with your second paragraph.
Corporations are legal fictions intended to serve the public goood. Things just arn't working out between us, and so we're revoking your corporate charter and selling off all your physical assets and placing your intellectual property into the public domain. kthnxbai
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps it will always be a problem. That doesn't mean that fighting it is a bad idea - having it illegal and fought against may be better than the alternative (at least for the harder drugs - for marijuana, which is almost harmless and something I strongly want legal, the drug war is unconscionable).
Comparing it to crimes with a simple victim isn't meant to comment on the morality of drugs, it's simply meant to suggest that legal prohibitions can work at least in part to curb demand. Having it illegal actually does reduce demand (stateways can change folkways - to look at another example of this, when slavery was ended and when women were given the vote, societal support was a lot closer to 50-50 in the times before the legal change, but after it support for the conclusion changed drastically).
On the latter point, I was not sufficiently clear - if someone either temporarily or permanently lacks funds for cocaine, LSD, or heroin, because of the strength of the addiction of those drugs, they are much more likely to commit violence to get funds (or the drug itself) than less-or-non-addictive drugs (like pot, alcohol, cigarettes, etc).
For drugs which have a small enough cost to society, of course they should be legal - the problems with smuggling operations and the like plus the unhappiness caused by restricting people's autonomy make it very clear. For those which are inimical to civilisation, the costs that you lay out are certainly real (and worrying), but I think the alternative of permitting them is considerably worse. Your judgement may reasonably vary - I know that ten years ago I probably would've sided with you (not meant as an age-diminuative, rather meant to illustrate the difficulty of the subject matter and how reasonable people may disagree over what solution is best).
That would be true, if we didn't have a tradition of valuing autonomy and the happiness it brings. It's not our only value (so we can balance it against other values at times), but it's an important one.
I believe what you said translates to "I don't like what you said and find it offensive". Perhaps you should've just said that rather than tossing insults around.
I can go along with both of these statements. Having accurate research would be a great start (and the tradition of the current anti-drug lobby to stifle publication of such research is shameful).
I think you're wrong that banning things never work - most of the foundation of our legal system is based on the idea that the existence of law deters certain kinds of behaviour. Note that I say "deters", not "eliminates" - murder may be illegal, but given how its possibility is inherent in all of us and often stems from passions that no law can completely hold back, it still happens. This does not mean that we legalise it. Likewise with many other laws and substances.
I'd rather, so much as it is possible, close down the markets as much as possible for those drugs that cannot be used responsibly, and I believe that prohibition of these drugs can at least partly work - whether full success can ever be reached is an open question. If a drug is addictive enough that people will rob or murder to get it, it doesn't matter so much what kind of source they get it from (although these criminal gangs are certainly, as you note, a significant problem).
You're part of society, and society has an interest in you and how you relate to others in society. There are very few truly private concerns, even if we prefer to have a culture that strongly values autonomy (which in the general case I do).
The mere existence of black markets for anything prohibited is not, in my opinion, sufficient to justify opening markets for anything possible (e.g. assassination). Society can say "no" to something and fight it despite there being a potential market (although some weight should probably be given to the effects of black markets on society in general).
As to weighing those costs against each other, it is a matter of judgement. I hold that any drug which is unlikely to be usable in a moderate, sensible way should be prohibited if possible (although providing addiction treatment as well would be great). I can't fault those who would weigh this a bit differently though.
You summarise too much. I believe that health concerns are not the primary factor in how prohibition laws were laid out in the United States (accidents of history as well as religious fervor play far too large a role). Suggesting that they be reconsidered and rebased on actual health concerns and societal impact is not self-contradictory.
As I understand, the earlier forms of the drug were considerably less pure (and hence far less addictive/dangerous). Modern usage of the drug has been a significantly larger problem (although even the indigenous use may have been too hazardous - I am uncertain if any studies were or could have been done on practice at the time).
It is possible I don't know as much on this topic as I should - the main point of my post is the approach we should take to drug regulation. The conclusions we should draw can and should be adapted to actual medical studies and discussions on their broader societal ramifications.
And consider it in light of the fact that it was written to replace an earlier government that did not work because it delegated everything to the states.
Given that alcohol is already legal and is more dangerous than at least the most common recreational drugs, It would make sense to at least legalise other recreational drugs that are on par or less harmful than it (marijuana being the most obvious candidate).
"Hard" drugs like Cocaine should probably remain illegal - it is impossible (or prohibitively difficult, at least) to "use them responsibly" and their health effects are much more marked.
Permitting broad autonomy to people in cases where there is not a clear and strong societal interest otherwise makes sense - broad restrictions on recreational drugs don't have arguments that meet the bar we should be holding up.
(I am not a libertarian, by the way)
get over yourself
Unlike that designated by a corporation one works for? :)
You can't grant the GPL license in bad faith like this. It'd be equivalent to finding some of the occasionally-leaked Microsoft Windows code, slapping the GPL on it, and "releasing" it to a friend - if you don't have the IP rights to it in the first place, the license is invalid.
When all of society becomes unreasonable, one is screwed regardless of the laws. Likewise, when unconscionable things are legal (as slavery, beating one's wife, etc), that doesn't mean that good people should sit by and permit them to occur, or necessarily give up on bringing consequences to those who perpetuate them.
Some types of law are better served by this idea than others, of course, but one of the hazards of a strongly legalistic society (one much more formal than ours, e.g. with no "reasonable person" concept, one that does not permit judges to reshape laws according to the public interest or jury nullification, etc) is that many people use the letter of the law to delimit how they will and will not behave rather than use it as a marker for dangerous ground.
"Clearly unconscionable by wide societal consensus" is quite different than "clearly unconscionable to somebody".
That would work well for future cases, but because laws cannot be retroactive in the United States, it alone would not be sufficient to handle this case.
Perhaps harassment would be a better line of reasoning to pursue than this.
On that day, the geeks would crawl out of the basements and university computer labs to dance in the streets.
We could turn that around too though. If you don't like the consequences of releasing software/art/whatever to the world and having people further copy/modify/whatever it, don't give it to anyone. You can't control culture, you can't control informaton, and if you try, you've lost before you even started.
Those people are few in number, and we disapprove of them. Hence, two meanings of "mostly harmless" are relevant :)
You want to dictate how I, as a computer user, can use my computer. You think uses of software you wrote are things you can control. You can... :P
Point is, either we decide original developers of software get to define policy or we frown on letting anyone define policy and let people do what they want with it. Many in the opensource community favour some form of the latter
Many companies? Maybe many companies should, but actually doing so is almost unheard of. This has nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with embedded power and interests in social structures.
Also, try suing a company to get it to reveal its contracts with another company. There isn't even the expectation of openness there - I'm not sure where you were trying to go with your second paragraph.
Corporations are legal fictions intended to serve the public goood. Things just arn't working out between us, and so we're revoking your corporate charter and selling off all your physical assets and placing your intellectual property into the public domain. kthnxbai
(cd /tmp/dir1 ; tar cf - *) | tar xvf -
escape-underscore to fill in the last argument to the last command (might be a bash-ism)
killall
screen
Openness and privacy have not always been the easiest values to reconcile. This post completely dropped the ball :)