Oh,/. How many marriages have you broken up due to your limited reply depth and how it makes it look like everyone is replying to everyone?:p
s.petry: The illegality of taking that money held in escrow for our own purposes is exactly what I was replying to you about. You can argue that we should have continued holding that money to force Iran to . . . what? Release hostages? No need, they already agreed to release them. Stop enriching uranium? They did that a few years back with the help of Stuxnet. Publicize their secret nuclear enrichment site? Too bad, they already did that too. Agree not to further their nuclear program? Yes, you win!
Now certainly, Clinton's continued agreement with the hardline hawk establishment that Iran was "weeks away" from a viable nuclear program have been debunked by everyone who knows two shits about the matter. But Trump continues to push that assessment to this day and even touts war with Iran as "Meh, no biggie."* He also says that everyone should have nukes, and we should all use them. Either he's trying to play Nixon's "madman" persona poorly, or he's a complete tool.
Bing Tsher E: My CoD comment was directed at your nonsense. Move along.
* Not an actual word-for-word quote. He probably used the phrase "grab her pussy" somewhere in there.
Awesome! I'm so glad I asked for clarification rather than assume I knew what you meant. tl;dr I think we're 99% on the same page here. But I'd be remiss if I let one of the few good/. threads peter out due to agreement.:)
I thought the example I gave of the busted taillight - which could ordinarily get you a fix-it ticket but not jail time on its own - was pretty fair but I might not have fleshed it out.
It wasn't so much that as I suspect that you, as I, don't feel this is a good use of law enforcement. If someone is behaving in a dangerous manner or committing something more serious than an infraction, I'm okay with police stopping them and escalating if there is a good reason. Conversely, if they aren't, leave them alone.
This gets into unequal enforcement, stop-and-frisk, expanding infraction laws that give police an excuse to pull "everyone" over... But as we have both seen, this tends to be enforced on certain minorities more than the populace as a whole. Again, not this exact topic (percentage of incarcerated due to drugs alone), but a pressing next question once you look at who eventually gets incarcerated.
I wanted to give you the opportunity to choose a different example to see if you felt using small infractions like that was justified, but it seems we're in agreement. That still leaves the question of whether or not "a large percentage of inmates" would be released under decriminalization of cannabis or even other drugs. Unfortunately, I don't have the numbers for pot alone, but the numbers above seem to answer the question w.r.t. drugs as a whole. Not the subject of this thread, but to me, the entire landscape of drug prohibition—and the vast destruction it has brought with it—is the more interesting and meaty discussion topic.:)
I have mixed feelings about street dealers. . . . [explanation of the problems they introduce] . . . Which is generally a good call for legalization, although the recreational drug industry being what it is right now I don't see it going away just because we would end up with Philip-Morris brand pot and Anheuser-Busch brand heroin.
You must ask yourself how many people have died from an overdose or drug interaction due to incorrect packaging of beer, wine and spirits combined. The answer, in my view, is the only evidence needed to argue for decriminalization and legalization of nearly every* drug—from pot to heroine. Why are people dying from bath salts? Pot is illegal and they are not. Why do we have a heroine epidemic? People are getting cut off from their legal source of Oxy.
My point is that street dealers would almost entirely disappear with regulation. I have a very small investment with a cannabis edibles company in California (I have a dog in this race, but the race is essentially won), and the amount of testing that we put into every step of the process is considerable. Each plant is randomly tested. Each batch of combined plants is again randomly tested. Each batch of oil is randomly tested. All of our confections are randomly tested. Anywhere along the way, you can pick up any product, scan its label, and track every single seed that went into it. Hell, I'd bet you can't even do that with wine and grapes. Of course, wine has been around for much less time than cannabis use.
* I view drug use on par with extreme sports. You might injure yourself severely or even die while engaging in either activity, and people will engage in both regardless of the law. Given that, why is there so much research into safety equipment and better regulations for extreme sports? The law. If reasonable people are going to engage in both activities, isn't it society's responsibility to work to make both as safe as possible and minimize the drag on society's productiveness? Prohibition has clearly devastated productivity for a large portion of society and fails the test immediately.
Please educate us on the law that would allow the U.S. to keep the money held in escrow from the arms sale. Or does "discretion" include not obeying international laws and treaties?
I will start by pointing out that the category BOP is using there is simply "drug offenses". Yeah, this includes some people who were ultimately charged only with having pot on them. However this also includes people who were dealing heroin, crack, etc. In other words it isn't a very reasonable picture of how many people are in jail for pot offenses.
That's true. More of my interest in the subject is in decriminalizing all drugs and focusing the money saved into harm reduction and education. Others have done deeper research to separate cannabis from other drugs if you're interested. The history of drug prohibition is fascinating and more than a bit sickening. It's time to end it for countless reasons.
My argument is that the overwhelming majority of people arrested for pot-related offenses were caught doing something else illegal. If you are driving with a busted taillight (which is a citable offense in every state I have lived in) and the cop found reason to search your vehicle and found pot, the charge would be for possession.
I don't see how that follows. If nearly half of all federal prisoners were convicted solely for drug offenses, how can the overwhelming majority of drug offenders be convicted of other crimes? That would require every single prisoner to be a drug offender. Or are you saying they were caught doing something illegal, but those charges weren't pursued once drugs were discovered? That seems unlikely.
I may just be missing your point. Please explain if I am.
Very few people are arrested only because there was reason to suspect they had pot on them.
Possibly, but I would bet a lot of people got locked up for possession during stop-and-frisk where it was pretty clear the "reason to suspect" was often having dark skin. I wouldn't be surprised if it was used to crack down on street dealers as well.
The money wasn't for the hostages. The hostages were released in exchange for the U.S. giving clemency to several Iranians convicted of dodging the sanctions.
The $400 million was money the U.S. had already accepted from Iran in exchange for weapons the U.S. then refused to send.
The $1.2 billion was interest on that money. The original money was held and the interest accrued in an account specifically for this purpose and did not belong to the U.S. government or its citizens.
Now, if you're going to argue that the U.S. should not follow the rule of law, I'll save you some time and bow out of this conversation. Either way, you should do some more research on this. The U.S. has done some severely shitty things throughout its history, but repaying money owed for goods never delivered isn't one of them.
Are there a lot of people in jail for possessing or using pot? Unquestionably, yes there are. The question though is how did they get arrested? They did something that attracted the attention of law enforcement.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons says that number was just under eighty-four thousand last month, 46.4% of all prisoners. I don't know exactly how they build the graph, but I assume someone arrested for murder while high would be counted as homocide rather than a drug offense. The numbers add up to 100%, so it doesn't appear to be overlapping.
Sadly, HFCS is probably the one substance mentioned in this entire thread that actually deserves to be treated militarily,* and we gleefully pump our kids full of the shit every day.
Yes, better to use the excess electricity to push the train up a hill. When you need it, just disengage the break. It might be hard to board the train when it's flying through the station at 180kph, though.
He basically says "It's hard to predict, and we expect more of these storms." That does nothing to contradict or clarify his assertion that "THIS IS THE RESULT OF CLIMATE CHANGE."
Can you not understand the difference between those two statements and how statistics and probability are involved? Are you willfully ignoring logic? If I tell you not to sit on your ass all day eating cake because you'll get fat, and then you do and stay slim all your life due to a high metabolism, have you disproven that inactivity combined with a high-carbohydrate diet cause weight gain?
"Oh yes, it's a myth!" you'll shout. Good luck with that.
Well, since you're not even bothering to quote from my actual transcript.
Oh don't even start with that. I did copy that text from your transcript and cut out the duplicated text for clarity.
"What'll probably happen is people will move - they'll move away from these areas, and then what's gonna happen to all that copper wiring and all that copper plumbing? Somebody's gonna show up to salvage it, or is somebody going to show up to loot it?"
You, on the other hand, completely made up words that he never even used. Is this what passes for intellectual honesty these days?
"If you don't fix climate change right now, we'll have a descent into lawlessness with looters everywhere."
In depressed areas like those mentioned in the article I linked, people are resorting to looting copper and other metals from abandoned buildings, and this has lead to—you guessed it—all sorts of criminal activity. A descent into lawlessness? Your claim, not his.
Don't blame me for taking what he said as if he meant it.
Why must everything be paint-by-numbers? Oh right, because that's the only argument left against taking action on climate change. "We can't because . . . you wore a blue shirt today, sorry."
Please point out the parts where he is carefully refining and adding caveats to his view?
"Individual storms are hard to predict. And so as the ocean gets bigger and the sea surface gets warmer, you would expect more of these storms." Expectation is at the heart of statistics. If you suspect a new process favors an event, you expect that event to happen more frequently.
Let's not forget that he also basically said, "If you don't fix climate change right now, we'll have a descent into lawlessness with looters everywhere," too.
No, he did not. He actually said, "What'll probably happen is people will move, and then what's gonna happen to all that copper? Somebody's gonna show up to salvage or loot it." He makes no mention of a descent into lawlessness. This is exactlywhat's happened in cities where the major industry has closed or moved away.
While I wish his opening line was less absolute, you are being rather disingenuous by putting words in his mouth and ignoring the full context.
Or maybe watch the video that contains his full comments? Naw, let's ignore it and look only at the one or two sentences the author decided to quote and assume they form his complete stance on the subject.
No, you just missed Martian's point entirely. Global warming is causing the sea temperature to increase which is causing the sea volume and level to increase. These are easily demonstrated with simple physics experiments. But that will only increase the size and frequency of storms probabilistically.
We may still get periods of smaller and less frequent storms even with extreme global warming just as we do today. The probability of those periods occurring, however, will decrease. The system is far too complex to point to individual events and say, "This was directly caused by X," because that event could have occurred without X, too.
Slashdot Mirror
Brilliant!
Oh, /. How many marriages have you broken up due to your limited reply depth and how it makes it look like everyone is replying to everyone? :p
s.petry: The illegality of taking that money held in escrow for our own purposes is exactly what I was replying to you about. You can argue that we should have continued holding that money to force Iran to . . . what? Release hostages? No need, they already agreed to release them. Stop enriching uranium? They did that a few years back with the help of Stuxnet. Publicize their secret nuclear enrichment site? Too bad, they already did that too. Agree not to further their nuclear program? Yes, you win!
Now certainly, Clinton's continued agreement with the hardline hawk establishment that Iran was "weeks away" from a viable nuclear program have been debunked by everyone who knows two shits about the matter. But Trump continues to push that assessment to this day and even touts war with Iran as "Meh, no biggie."* He also says that everyone should have nukes, and we should all use them. Either he's trying to play Nixon's "madman" persona poorly, or he's a complete tool.
Bing Tsher E: My CoD comment was directed at your nonsense. Move along.
* Not an actual word-for-word quote. He probably used the phrase "grab her pussy" somewhere in there.
No, I'm talking about the real world. Call of Duty cut scenes don't apply.
Awesome! I'm so glad I asked for clarification rather than assume I knew what you meant. tl;dr I think we're 99% on the same page here. But I'd be remiss if I let one of the few good /. threads peter out due to agreement. :)
I thought the example I gave of the busted taillight - which could ordinarily get you a fix-it ticket but not jail time on its own - was pretty fair but I might not have fleshed it out.
It wasn't so much that as I suspect that you, as I, don't feel this is a good use of law enforcement. If someone is behaving in a dangerous manner or committing something more serious than an infraction, I'm okay with police stopping them and escalating if there is a good reason. Conversely, if they aren't, leave them alone.
This gets into unequal enforcement, stop-and-frisk, expanding infraction laws that give police an excuse to pull "everyone" over... But as we have both seen, this tends to be enforced on certain minorities more than the populace as a whole. Again, not this exact topic (percentage of incarcerated due to drugs alone), but a pressing next question once you look at who eventually gets incarcerated.
I wanted to give you the opportunity to choose a different example to see if you felt using small infractions like that was justified, but it seems we're in agreement. That still leaves the question of whether or not "a large percentage of inmates" would be released under decriminalization of cannabis or even other drugs. Unfortunately, I don't have the numbers for pot alone, but the numbers above seem to answer the question w.r.t. drugs as a whole. Not the subject of this thread, but to me, the entire landscape of drug prohibition—and the vast destruction it has brought with it—is the more interesting and meaty discussion topic. :)
I have mixed feelings about street dealers. . . . [explanation of the problems they introduce] . . . Which is generally a good call for legalization, although the recreational drug industry being what it is right now I don't see it going away just because we would end up with Philip-Morris brand pot and Anheuser-Busch brand heroin.
You must ask yourself how many people have died from an overdose or drug interaction due to incorrect packaging of beer, wine and spirits combined. The answer, in my view, is the only evidence needed to argue for decriminalization and legalization of nearly every* drug—from pot to heroine. Why are people dying from bath salts? Pot is illegal and they are not. Why do we have a heroine epidemic? People are getting cut off from their legal source of Oxy.
My point is that street dealers would almost entirely disappear with regulation. I have a very small investment with a cannabis edibles company in California (I have a dog in this race, but the race is essentially won), and the amount of testing that we put into every step of the process is considerable. Each plant is randomly tested. Each batch of combined plants is again randomly tested. Each batch of oil is randomly tested. All of our confections are randomly tested. Anywhere along the way, you can pick up any product, scan its label, and track every single seed that went into it. Hell, I'd bet you can't even do that with wine and grapes. Of course, wine has been around for much less time than cannabis use.
* I view drug use on par with extreme sports. You might injure yourself severely or even die while engaging in either activity, and people will engage in both regardless of the law. Given that, why is there so much research into safety equipment and better regulations for extreme sports? The law. If reasonable people are going to engage in both activities, isn't it society's responsibility to work to make both as safe as possible and minimize the drag on society's productiveness? Prohibition has clearly devastated productivity for a large portion of society and fails the test immediately.
T
Please educate us on the law that would allow the U.S. to keep the money held in escrow from the arms sale. Or does "discretion" include not obeying international laws and treaties?
I will start by pointing out that the category BOP is using there is simply "drug offenses". Yeah, this includes some people who were ultimately charged only with having pot on them. However this also includes people who were dealing heroin, crack, etc. In other words it isn't a very reasonable picture of how many people are in jail for pot offenses.
That's true. More of my interest in the subject is in decriminalizing all drugs and focusing the money saved into harm reduction and education. Others have done deeper research to separate cannabis from other drugs if you're interested. The history of drug prohibition is fascinating and more than a bit sickening. It's time to end it for countless reasons.
My argument is that the overwhelming majority of people arrested for pot-related offenses were caught doing something else illegal. If you are driving with a busted taillight (which is a citable offense in every state I have lived in) and the cop found reason to search your vehicle and found pot, the charge would be for possession.
I don't see how that follows. If nearly half of all federal prisoners were convicted solely for drug offenses, how can the overwhelming majority of drug offenders be convicted of other crimes? That would require every single prisoner to be a drug offender. Or are you saying they were caught doing something illegal, but those charges weren't pursued once drugs were discovered? That seems unlikely.
I may just be missing your point. Please explain if I am.
Very few people are arrested only because there was reason to suspect they had pot on them.
Possibly, but I would bet a lot of people got locked up for possession during stop-and-frisk where it was pretty clear the "reason to suspect" was often having dark skin. I wouldn't be surprised if it was used to crack down on street dealers as well.
In the US for example, the 1.2 Billion dollars handed to Iran for hostages could have been used for roads and money been recirculated by the public.
This is incorrect for several reasons.
Now, if you're going to argue that the U.S. should not follow the rule of law, I'll save you some time and bow out of this conversation. Either way, you should do some more research on this. The U.S. has done some severely shitty things throughout its history, but repaying money owed for goods never delivered isn't one of them.
Isn't it about time ... to reveal all stuff THEY [Republicans] are doing and do not want you to know?
New embarrassing documents are being revealed every single day. Don't you follow @realDonaldTrump?
You just quoted the answer to your own damn question. R u kan reed gud?
Are there a lot of people in jail for possessing or using pot? Unquestionably, yes there are. The question though is how did they get arrested? They did something that attracted the attention of law enforcement.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons says that number was just under eighty-four thousand last month, 46.4% of all prisoners. I don't know exactly how they build the graph, but I assume someone arrested for murder while high would be counted as homocide rather than a drug offense. The numbers add up to 100%, so it doesn't appear to be overlapping.
That doesn't count state prisons which—while housing far more prisoners—have a smaller percentage locked up for drug offenses. "According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there are 1,358,875 people in state prisons. Of them, 16 percent have a drug crime as their most serious offense."
Sadly, HFCS is probably the one substance mentioned in this entire thread that actually deserves to be treated militarily,* and we gleefully pump our kids full of the shit every day.
* Note, I still wouldn't condone that action.
You sound like you've been hitting the D.A.R.E. pipe pretty hard.
Brilliant! :)
Citation needed please. What politician had their right to free speech shit upon?
The entire population of Iraq when the U.S. unilaterally disabled the .iq gTLD and Wikileaks domain in the leadup to the Iraq War.
No, AOL has invented named folders.
Mind. Blown.
I hope it's not Lead Zeppelin because lead is highly toxic!
Same here. I've never been awoken by the engine or car noise, but I've definitely been roused by the whistle on several occasions.
Yes, better to use the excess electricity to push the train up a hill. When you need it, just disengage the break. It might be hard to board the train when it's flying through the station at 180kph, though.
For starters, they appear to be completely different images.
Naw, they're the same image, but the name was changed to obscure the copyright violation.
Do you really think they just decide to use fixed batteries just to piss you off?
Don't be silly. They do it to force you to buy a new phone every year or two.
"Oh, is your battery holding less charge? Just buy a new phone and you'll get a new battery for FREE!"
According to a new study, X! However, most of X did not occur in reality.
So . . . "We expected to find X but didn't. Nobel Prize, please!"
Is that really the finding of this study, or is this just the typical Slashdot editorial process at work?
He basically says "It's hard to predict, and we expect more of these storms." That does nothing to contradict or clarify his assertion that "THIS IS THE RESULT OF CLIMATE CHANGE."
Can you not understand the difference between those two statements and how statistics and probability are involved? Are you willfully ignoring logic? If I tell you not to sit on your ass all day eating cake because you'll get fat, and then you do and stay slim all your life due to a high metabolism, have you disproven that inactivity combined with a high-carbohydrate diet cause weight gain?
"Oh yes, it's a myth!" you'll shout. Good luck with that.
Well, since you're not even bothering to quote from my actual transcript.
Oh don't even start with that. I did copy that text from your transcript and cut out the duplicated text for clarity.
"What'll probably happen is people will move - they'll move away from these areas, and then what's gonna happen to all that copper wiring and all that copper plumbing? Somebody's gonna show up to salvage it, or is somebody going to show up to loot it?"
You, on the other hand, completely made up words that he never even used. Is this what passes for intellectual honesty these days?
"If you don't fix climate change right now, we'll have a descent into lawlessness with looters everywhere."
In depressed areas like those mentioned in the article I linked, people are resorting to looting copper and other metals from abandoned buildings, and this has lead to—you guessed it—all sorts of criminal activity. A descent into lawlessness? Your claim, not his.
Don't blame me for taking what he said as if he meant it.
Why must everything be paint-by-numbers? Oh right, because that's the only argument left against taking action on climate change. "We can't because . . . you wore a blue shirt today, sorry."
I sure hope they develop peer review some day!
That sounds like a fantastic PhD research topic.
Please point out the parts where he is carefully refining and adding caveats to his view?
"Individual storms are hard to predict. And so as the ocean gets bigger and the sea surface gets warmer, you would expect more of these storms." Expectation is at the heart of statistics. If you suspect a new process favors an event, you expect that event to happen more frequently.
Let's not forget that he also basically said, "If you don't fix climate change right now, we'll have a descent into lawlessness with looters everywhere," too.
No, he did not. He actually said, "What'll probably happen is people will move, and then what's gonna happen to all that copper? Somebody's gonna show up to salvage or loot it." He makes no mention of a descent into lawlessness. This is exactly what's happened in cities where the major industry has closed or moved away.
While I wish his opening line was less absolute, you are being rather disingenuous by putting words in his mouth and ignoring the full context.
Or maybe watch the video that contains his full comments? Naw, let's ignore it and look only at the one or two sentences the author decided to quote and assume they form his complete stance on the subject.
No, you just missed Martian's point entirely. Global warming is causing the sea temperature to increase which is causing the sea volume and level to increase. These are easily demonstrated with simple physics experiments. But that will only increase the size and frequency of storms probabilistically.
We may still get periods of smaller and less frequent storms even with extreme global warming just as we do today. The probability of those periods occurring, however, will decrease. The system is far too complex to point to individual events and say, "This was directly caused by X," because that event could have occurred without X, too.