You may wish to call it theft, however, legally, it is in fact not theft. Whether you like it or not, find it moral or immoral, right or wrong, government officials, during "emergencies," can confiscate any and all of your property and/or personal possessions, by force if necessary.
That's right. Anything and everything you own, is legally, subject, to confiscation by authorities during an "emergency", and you don't get to determine if it is an emergency or not, they do. And if you refuse to comply, they can take it by force, including, killing you to take it.
You can call it theft, you can claim it theft, but no court will rule it as theft.
If this disturbs you, then by all means, work to change the law that allows this to occur.
No, it didn't work for acid rain. It reduced acid rain, in the US, and created more of it, elsewhere, like in China, where noone gives a shit. It swept the 'dirt' that is acid rain, under the rug that is China.
No one will tax Africa, because there isn't anything to tax. This greenhouse gas carbon dioxide trading boondoggle is just that, a boondoggle.
Al Gore must need another 50 acre mansion, because that is what the net result of a carbon tax trading exchange will be. All the evil banker wall street types, that master and extract profit from the financial exchanges, will extract a profit from the greenhouse gas exchange, and the average family will get screwed, again. I know, because I'm an evil wall street banker type.
No amount of wishful thinking, good intentions, and taxation schemes, will magically create a cleaner greener planet. It will just incentive and divert money to polluters.
Create real, physical solutions that reduce energy consumption and pay for themselves, and the market will quickly adopt them.
Create magical fairy tale trading schemes, and professional traders will get rich, while grandma and grandpa starve and eat cat food.
If you want to tax China, the largest polluter, go ahead, tax China. You don't need to first tax the entire rest of the planet before you tax China. Wtf. Seriously.
Electric vehicles are more expensive for a reason. They cost more to produce. Cost, in terms of energy. If the entire US switched to electric vehicle usage tomorrow, the raw materials to produce those electric vehicles and the batteries would come from China. You've done nothing to reduce emissions, and in fact, you may have made them worse.
As for telling people how to reduce consumption, we already mandate X amount of insulation in homes. Having worked construction, I can tell you, the standard home, at least in Florida, has a thin layer of cellulose or rock wool sprayed into the attic, and not much in the walls. We *already* tell people to use *some* insulation. We *should* mandate the *optimal* form and amount of insulation. Science and the laws of thermodynamics do not care how people feel, and how people feel doesn't matter in regards to the outcome of a mathematical equation.
As for shifting all production to China, thats a great way to reduce the US emissions. Noone will have a job or be working. As far as the planet Earth is concerned, nothing will have changed.
There is nothing good about it. Think about it for a moment.
Lets say we tax carbon emissions, in a broad manner, as proposed. What will this accomplish ? It will burden the US, as the entire country is designed around the use of cars, and reward nations that don't care, like China. More production will shift to China and away from the US, with no net change in gas emissions.
Lets assume a best case scenario, where the tax collected will go towards producing solar panels. All that happens so far as emissions is concerned, is the source has shifted, from the coal fired power plant that produces electricity for you to use, to the pv cell factory that produces solar cells for you to purchase and use. Solar cell production uses an incredible amount of energy, which is why solar cells are currently an expensive form of energy.
No amount of price distortion will make the world a better place, and that is what taxes do, distort prices and divert resources towards arbitrary efforts.
If you really want to address greenhouse gas emissions, you need to address waste, not tax *everything in sight*. For example, a simple change to building codes, that requires R30 insulation instead of R19. It's almost no more complicated than changing a single number. This would reduce waste, and gas emissions, and energy expenditures, with no additional administrative costs, and it would phase in over time, as new houses are built, or old houses are remodeled. It would be paid for by the cost savings, and it would boost efficiency instead of punishing use. It is said that 15% of the energy generated, actually makes it to your wall socket, due to losses in production and transmission.
Conservation is a win-win, taxation is a giant vacuum cleaner sucking money from an already strained economy and handing it to less developed nations who will continue to pollute.
Congress reglated commerce, via the Controlled Substances act, and delegated authority over controlled substances to the DEA.
Congress can undo this act. That is how it works.
As an aside, for all the people slamming me for being a fascist, please take reading comprehension 101. I have not advocated for, or against, the current state of affairs in this thread, but have merely pointed out the current state of affairs. Take your teenage angst elsewhere.
If the courts said FDR could order the exchange of gold to currency, then it's not theft. If the court decides you don't deserve to live anymore, then it's the gas chamber for you pal, and it's not murder.
Your mistake when describing and comprehending these activities, is in the fact that you are applying the moral code of behavior that individuals are expected to live by, to the governments policies concerning society as a whole.
It is, and has always been, 2 different sets of rules.
People make moonshine, even tho alcohol is legally available. People traffic in and smuggle cigarettes to avoid paying cigarette taxes. Criminals will still commit crimes.
As to the exact effects, for a specific drug, one would have to try it, and collect data on it. Legalizing marijuana would be a good first step. Societal expense data could be collected in places like California as to whether it has resulted in a net positive or negative benefit.
Legalizing PCP, on the assumption that crime will be reduced, however, is not likely to produce the same data as the legalization of marijuana does.
You can claim anything you want to be unconstitutional, however, your opinion doesn't matter. Only the supreme court justices opinions matter.
That said, the fact that you would like a thing to be unconstitutional, if enough people agree with you, allows for a process where it can in fact be made to agree with your desires.
How often does this happen with legal drugs? Even highly addictive ones such as nicotine?
That wasn't the point. The point was, that individuals actions have consequences for society as a whole.
If allowing the use of a particular substance, call it Drug54, is determined to cause more damage to society than if it were made illegal and punished, then it should probably not be allowed.
Driving your car at 220mph down the interstate isn't allowed, even tho you have insurance to pay for damages you may incur. It isn't allowed, as, no matter how much insurance *you* have, or how good a driver *you* are, others don't have insurance, suck at driving, and as their allowed speed increases, so does the probability that they will kill entire families of people from the carnage that results in an accident at that speed.
Yes, I know about the Autobahn in Germany, and my response to it being used to refute the above hypothetical situation, is that their culture can apparently handle it, because, they aren't tweeting and sending texts at eating McDonalds at 220mph while be-bopping to Lady Gaga. If everyone who used drugs did so responsibly without consequences to society, then, it would be hard to argue for their regulation.
The point of my posts isn't that drug policy shouldn't be changed. I think it is just as f'd up as everyone else. My posts on this topic are merely to further the debate without pushing a personal agenda or emotional outburst.
Because making these drugs illegal 1) increases the price a hundredfold and 2) forces any users to deal with very nasty criminals.
Yes, this is probably the most harmful aspect of current drug control policy.
Deal with "drug" abuse the same way you deal with alcohol abuse, and you'd still have addicts, but a lot less associated crime and violence.
I'm not sure I follow this line of reasoning, as, making murder legal would also reduce the crime rate, and over time, the quantity of violence, as there would be a much smaller population as a result.
If people want to fuck themselves up, there is very little the police can do to stop them.
I don't think anyone could argue with this. The police ( and the legal system ) punish those who commit crimes, they don't prevent individual instances of crimes. It is the threat of punishment that affects many, but not all, peoples behaviors.
Remember that a constitutional amendment was required to ban the substance
While there isn't any doubt that prohibition ( and its repeal ) came about due to a constitutional amendment, it can in fact be banned without a constitutional amendment, thanks to the Controlled Substances Act, or any other number of similar control structures.
Section 2 returns that power explicitly to the states.
The states do currently have the power to ban alcohol in their state. However, that does not mean the IRS, FDA, etc cannot also regulate it, should a state allow its sale and consumption.
Anyway, I don't entirely disagree that issues such as this should be regulated by the states. The states, and the people, have the ability to amend the constitution to cede control of drug policy from the federal government right now. They don't, because, the public simply doesn't support it. If the public overwhelmingly supported it, it can be made to happen. This is the only mechanism we have to overrule a supreme court decision we disagree with. Make the supreme courts interpretation ( of any particular case ) invalid by law.
Slashdot Mirror
If you own beach front property, you should start a shark farm.
Set up some nets, and apply for an aquaculture tax deduction.
so that I can forget my co-workers exist.
You may wish to call it theft, however, legally, it is in fact not theft. Whether you like it or not, find it moral or immoral, right or wrong, government officials, during "emergencies," can confiscate any and all of your property and/or personal possessions, by force if necessary.
That's right. Anything and everything you own, is legally, subject, to confiscation by authorities during an "emergency", and you don't get to determine if it is an emergency or not, they do. And if you refuse to comply, they can take it by force, including, killing you to take it.
You can call it theft, you can claim it theft, but no court will rule it as theft.
If this disturbs you, then by all means, work to change the law that allows this to occur.
The flying robots assembled a tower of topless female college cheerleaders.
No, it didn't work for acid rain. It reduced acid rain, in the US, and created more of it, elsewhere, like in China, where noone gives a shit. It swept the 'dirt' that is acid rain, under the rug that is China.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5290236.stm
Neo ? Is that joo ?
It was a facetious comment on my part.
No one will tax Africa, because there isn't anything to tax. This greenhouse gas carbon dioxide trading boondoggle is just that, a boondoggle.
Al Gore must need another 50 acre mansion, because that is what the net result of a carbon tax trading exchange will be. All the evil banker wall street types, that master and extract profit from the financial exchanges, will extract a profit from the greenhouse gas exchange, and the average family will get screwed, again. I know, because I'm an evil wall street banker type.
No amount of wishful thinking, good intentions, and taxation schemes, will magically create a cleaner greener planet. It will just incentive and divert money to polluters.
Create real, physical solutions that reduce energy consumption and pay for themselves, and the market will quickly adopt them.
Create magical fairy tale trading schemes, and professional traders will get rich, while grandma and grandpa starve and eat cat food.
If you want to tax China, the largest polluter, go ahead, tax China. You don't need to first tax the entire rest of the planet before you tax China. Wtf. Seriously.
Electric vehicles are more expensive for a reason. They cost more to produce. Cost, in terms of energy. If the entire US switched to electric vehicle usage tomorrow, the raw materials to produce those electric vehicles and the batteries would come from China. You've done nothing to reduce emissions, and in fact, you may have made them worse.
As for telling people how to reduce consumption, we already mandate X amount of insulation in homes. Having worked construction, I can tell you, the standard home, at least in Florida, has a thin layer of cellulose or rock wool sprayed into the attic, and not much in the walls. We *already* tell people to use *some* insulation. We *should* mandate the *optimal* form and amount of insulation. Science and the laws of thermodynamics do not care how people feel, and how people feel doesn't matter in regards to the outcome of a mathematical equation.
As for shifting all production to China, thats a great way to reduce the US emissions. Noone will have a job or be working. As far as the planet Earth is concerned, nothing will have changed.
Excellent observation. Deforestation ... the solution to all our problems.
There is nothing good about it. Think about it for a moment.
Lets say we tax carbon emissions, in a broad manner, as proposed. What will this accomplish ? It will burden the US, as the entire country is designed around the use of cars, and reward nations that don't care, like China. More production will shift to China and away from the US, with no net change in gas emissions.
Lets assume a best case scenario, where the tax collected will go towards producing solar panels. All that happens so far as emissions is concerned, is the source has shifted, from the coal fired power plant that produces electricity for you to use, to the pv cell factory that produces solar cells for you to purchase and use. Solar cell production uses an incredible amount of energy, which is why solar cells are currently an expensive form of energy.
No amount of price distortion will make the world a better place, and that is what taxes do, distort prices and divert resources towards arbitrary efforts.
If you really want to address greenhouse gas emissions, you need to address waste, not tax *everything in sight*. For example, a simple change to building codes, that requires R30 insulation instead of R19. It's almost no more complicated than changing a single number. This would reduce waste, and gas emissions, and energy expenditures, with no additional administrative costs, and it would phase in over time, as new houses are built, or old houses are remodeled. It would be paid for by the cost savings, and it would boost efficiency instead of punishing use. It is said that 15% of the energy generated, actually makes it to your wall socket, due to losses in production and transmission.
Conservation is a win-win, taxation is a giant vacuum cleaner sucking money from an already strained economy and handing it to less developed nations who will continue to pollute.
it is all tied to national boundaries.
Unfortunately, it is all tied to money. Saving the world, one tax at a time.
Why don't you tax Africa. 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions come from making charcoal and burning wood for fuel in Africa.
It's the dirty Africans ruining the planet, not people driving cars w/ catalytic converters.
Reciprocity.
China requires foreign corporations to be 50% owned by the Chinese gov and/or a Chinese company ? US should require the same of Chinese firms.
China manipulates their currency to gain an export advantage ? US should, once a month, calculate a percentage based tariff on all Chinese goods.
etc.
Reciprocity people. They can shoot lasers at a mirror all day long, and burn themselves in the process.
Ever hear of wide angle, or 360 degree lenses ?
"She turned me into a newt!" ... "I got better."
Congress reglated commerce, via the Controlled Substances act, and delegated authority over controlled substances to the DEA.
Congress can undo this act. That is how it works.
As an aside, for all the people slamming me for being a fascist, please take reading comprehension 101. I have not advocated for, or against, the current state of affairs in this thread, but have merely pointed out the current state of affairs. Take your teenage angst elsewhere.
If the courts said FDR could order the exchange of gold to currency, then it's not theft. If the court decides you don't deserve to live anymore, then it's the gas chamber for you pal, and it's not murder.
Your mistake when describing and comprehending these activities, is in the fact that you are applying the moral code of behavior that individuals are expected to live by, to the governments policies concerning society as a whole.
It is, and has always been, 2 different sets of rules.
People make moonshine, even tho alcohol is legally available. People traffic in and smuggle cigarettes to avoid paying cigarette taxes. Criminals will still commit crimes.
As to the exact effects, for a specific drug, one would have to try it, and collect data on it. Legalizing marijuana would be a good first step. Societal expense data could be collected in places like California as to whether it has resulted in a net positive or negative benefit.
Legalizing PCP, on the assumption that crime will be reduced, however, is not likely to produce the same data as the legalization of marijuana does.
You can claim anything you want to be unconstitutional, however, your opinion doesn't matter. Only the supreme court justices opinions matter.
That said, the fact that you would like a thing to be unconstitutional, if enough people agree with you, allows for a process where it can in fact be made to agree with your desires.
How often does this happen with legal drugs? Even highly addictive ones such as nicotine?
That wasn't the point. The point was, that individuals actions have consequences for society as a whole.
If allowing the use of a particular substance, call it Drug54, is determined to cause more damage to society than if it were made illegal and punished, then it should probably not be allowed.
Driving your car at 220mph down the interstate isn't allowed, even tho you have insurance to pay for damages you may incur. It isn't allowed, as, no matter how much insurance *you* have, or how good a driver *you* are, others don't have insurance, suck at driving, and as their allowed speed increases, so does the probability that they will kill entire families of people from the carnage that results in an accident at that speed.
Yes, I know about the Autobahn in Germany, and my response to it being used to refute the above hypothetical situation, is that their culture can apparently handle it, because, they aren't tweeting and sending texts at eating McDonalds at 220mph while be-bopping to Lady Gaga. If everyone who used drugs did so responsibly without consequences to society, then, it would be hard to argue for their regulation.
The point of my posts isn't that drug policy shouldn't be changed. I think it is just as f'd up as everyone else. My posts on this topic are merely to further the debate without pushing a personal agenda or emotional outburst.
Because making these drugs illegal 1) increases the price a hundredfold and 2) forces any users to deal with very nasty criminals.
Yes, this is probably the most harmful aspect of current drug control policy.
Deal with "drug" abuse the same way you deal with alcohol abuse, and you'd still have addicts, but a lot less associated crime and violence.
I'm not sure I follow this line of reasoning, as, making murder legal would also reduce the crime rate, and over time, the quantity of violence, as there would be a much smaller population as a result.
If people want to fuck themselves up, there is very little the police can do to stop them.
I don't think anyone could argue with this. The police ( and the legal system ) punish those who commit crimes, they don't prevent individual instances of crimes. It is the threat of punishment that affects many, but not all, peoples behaviors.
Remember that a constitutional amendment was required to ban the substance
While there isn't any doubt that prohibition ( and its repeal ) came about due to a constitutional amendment, it can in fact be banned without a constitutional amendment, thanks to the Controlled Substances Act, or any other number of similar control structures.
Section 2 returns that power explicitly to the states.
The states do currently have the power to ban alcohol in their state. However, that does not mean the IRS, FDA, etc cannot also regulate it, should a state allow its sale and consumption.
Anyway, I don't entirely disagree that issues such as this should be regulated by the states. The states, and the people, have the ability to amend the constitution to cede control of drug policy from the federal government right now. They don't, because, the public simply doesn't support it. If the public overwhelmingly supported it, it can be made to happen. This is the only mechanism we have to overrule a supreme court decision we disagree with. Make the supreme courts interpretation ( of any particular case ) invalid by law.
Could you provide evidence of your "no remaining authority" claim ?
Just firewall all of China. Problem solved.