the KISS principle is perhaps one of the greatest principles in engineering, and frequently keeps people's minds grounded in the deliverables, and prevents them from spinning out of control into overly complex solutions, which are in fact the source of most software bugs, not the solution to them
if this is the principle you are referring to, i don't know where the source of your animosity to it lies, nor why it has anything to do with this particular subject matter
has destroyed more freedom than any totalitarian government, religious fundamentalism, or any other government abuse you can think of in the history of mankind
unlike you, i actually understand and acknowledge what something like heroin does to a person: the bars int he mind of addiction is the purest form of freedom destruction imaginable
furthermore, in the name of alcohol and tobacco regulation, government agents have imprisoned mass numbers of citizens, and will continue to do so, and you support this, because oyu understand the rationale behind it. but not for heroin?!
as an american, someone who fights for and loves freedom, i am apparently more knowledgeable and have a better grasp of the subject matter than you and how freedom is maximized: the limitation of the spread of a freedom destroying substance
you argue form a position of ignorance: an ignorance of the subject matter. therefore your opinion is not only invalid, but dangerous to the very concept you care about
its nothing but WELL-REGULATED oxycodone, developing its own black market, as a simple result of WIDER AVAILABILITY of a highly addictive+inebriating drug
so you're deep in the twilight zone now: you're arguing in favor of the illegality of the substance (that's what "regulation" is, numbskull), while pointing at such regulation as a success (when its clearly a failure, as in the case of hillybilly heroin), under an obvious historical example of what happens when a drugs are freely available (the opium wars: drug dealers humiliating a proud civilization by force addicting wide swaths of chinese society)
understand that if it were legalized it would be even EASIER. duh
so you push back against availability, and you cut down on zombie creation, simple as that. you don't stop zombie creation. you can't ever do that. but you certainly don't allow it to proceed without any interference: you're never going to stop the idiots committed to destroying their lives, but you sure as hell will stop a hell of a lot of casual idiots from the fate drug addled zombiehood. then they mature, realize the threat on their own, and that's one less useless zombie you have to house and feed
why do you have a mental block on the concept that addiction itself is a harm? i mean if the cost in wasted lives, if the destruction of individual freedoms means nothing to you (it's "none of my business") then consider the cost to society in terms of having to house and feed these zombies
with the monkey on their back, they can't keep a job or a relationship. so i have to pay for them. well, if i am footing the bill, then i think i'd rather spend my money preventing the creation of the zombies in the first place, no? its a hell of a lot cheaper. i won't prevent the creation of all of them, but i'll put a significant dent in their numbers
the effects of addiction of the worst (coke. meth, heroin) is far worse the effects of the war on drugs
you like to point to history. i'm glad your victorian upper middle class examples were able to make positive contributions despite their crippling drug problems (ask them, they would say themselves that the drug use didn't help them: imagine how much they could contribute had they not been so addled)
here's another victorian history lesson for you, that is the real instruction as to what the viral spread of highly addictive substances does to a society:
"you're willing to point guns at people and lock them in cages to control their behavior. You should be ashamed."
yes, i am willing to lock away mafioso who don't care about destroying lives in order to get a buck, i have no problem with that
you apparently are happy with millions of lives destroyed because you have no appreciation what easy access to a highly addictive substance does to people and the freedom it destroys. you should be ashamed
there is a "war on alcohol" (pointless) or a "war on lsd" (pointless) or a "war on meth" (NOT pointless)
you need to evaluate each drug individually, because for some drugs, that are highly addictive and inebriating, pushing back against the availability of the drug has a real effect in terms of saving lots of lives
there are two classes of drug users, for any drug: the committed idiot, and the casual idiot
the committed idiot, just as you say, represents a permanent underclass of drug addled zombie. no law will stop their self-destruction. whether every drug is completely free, or completely draconianly locked down, they will still destory their lives, no matter what you do. that's just their psychological fate. and so they don't matter in the policy analysis
but the CASUAl idiot, the average teenager who thinks they are immune and immortal, that there are no limitations on their will power: in a free and unfettered environment, these are lives you are burdening with decades of quality of life destroying, freedom destroying addiction (when it comes to only the worst drugs: cocaine, heroine, meth). but given enough time, and difficulty in accessing the worst substances, the casual teenage idiot will mature and realize on their own the threat coke/ meth/ heroin has on their quality of life and freedom
that is what the war on drugs is for. not the permanent unalterable underclass of drug zombies, but the much larger user base of casual idiots who, with CERTAIN substances (meth/ heorin/ coke) will be turned into drug zombies
you have to evaluate the substances individually. alcohol, marijuana: the war on drugs is stupid
heroin, coke: the war on drugs makes a genuine net positive. yes, the war on drugs has plenty of negative effects. for alcohol/ marijuana, those negative effects argue for legalization. but for some substances, life destruction is so viral through easy addiction, that the war, even with all the negativ effects considered, still has a net positive effect
that if you legalized everything, every single problem you just cited above would be worse?
the best you can do is push back against the growth of the drug addled zombie underclass, and push back against the growth of the mafia, forever. NOT pushing back against these things simply means they grow and proliferate even more, to the destruction of far more rights and freedoms and destroyed lives than the war on drugs itself. you can't ever completely destroy the drug use, but that never was the point: the point is to simply minimize their stink
why can't you see that? why can't you appreciate the damage done by a large underclass of drug zombies and a fattened mafia from their existence? why doesn't your mind perceive of and understand the threat to individual freedom from those things?
here's the problem: teenagers are idiots. they think of themselves as immortal and immune, they don't perceive of the limitations of their willpower when faced, for example, with crippling addiction to something like coke/ heroin/ meth. and so, in an environment of easy access, a heck of a lot of them will try these things, and wind up with a life long crippling addiction
prevent them from accessing to these drugs though, and they mature to the point where they perceive on their own these substances have towards their quality of life and their freedom. of course you won't save everyone, some committed idiots are just hellbent on personal destruction. but a much larger class of casual idiots needs to be given the chance to escape the hell of addiction
i really wish you could understand and appreciate exactly what heroin, coke, and meth do to someone's lives and their minds and their freedom. of course the war on drugs has negative effects. i recognize and acknowledge every single negative you cite. now i wish you would acknowledge what free and unfettered access to heroin/ coke/ meth will cost in wasted lives, and see that it is far worse than the war on drugs
that the war on drugs has no effects? it minimizes the damage that substance abuse does. it doesn't eradicate it, that's never been the goal. anyone who thinks that mocking that goal somehow legitimizes the problem doesn't understand the issues, because no one serious thinks that's a goal
it simply makes it harder for the casual idiot to become an addict before they mature and realize on their own the danger. of course there will always be a hardcore group of seriously stupid who will destroy their lives with drugs, no matter what the social policy, completely free access or completely draconian laws: some people are just doomed by their own bad psychology/ ideology. you can't help such people, so they don't matter on the policy questions. the point is not to save everyone, the point is to save as many as you can
the point is, if there were no war on drugs, the stink you point to would merely be larger. of coruse we can never completely eradicate these things, and of course the war itself makes some things worse. but no war at all CLEARLY is even worse, can't you see that?
there will always be a growing underclass of drug addled zombies, forever. there will always be a mafia, forever. the best you can do is push back against both, and minimize it. and any civilization that has ever existed, and ever will exist, therefore will forever more be engaged in such a "war" (its not really a war, thats a bad name, its more like a simple maintenance function, like taking the trash out every thursday. we all have a "war on trash" in our houses)
what i don't understand this mentality that says "becuase we can't completely eradicate it, we should allow it to be worse"
then learn your history, before it is repeated, fool: this is what happens when drug dealing imperialists are allowed to destroy a society by reducing large swaths of its citizens to zombies via drug addiction:
in the history of the world, the sum total of every fascist, totalitarian, despotic, religious fundamentalist, and autocratic authoritarian law has, by orders of magnitude, never even remotely touched the freedom that was destroyed in terms of wasted lives due to drug addiction. drug addiction is the most potent threat to individual freedom that has ever existed and perhaps ever will exist in the history of mankind
the most fascist totalitarian state possible to be imagined in the furthest reaches of orwell's fantasy life has nothing on the freedom destroying power of drug addiction. unless, of course, such a hypothetical totalitarian government actually force addicted its own citizens. that's the ultimate totalitarian state
in the real word, it is a not a choice between rainbows and piles of shit. it is a choice between shit, and slightly stinkier shit
the war on drugs puts blood on our hands, absolutely, i understand and appreciate that 100%
but i also realize that for the worst substances, free access puts MORE blood on our hands. why some people don't understand this is beyond my understanding. they obviously don't appreciate, out of some sort of blind naivete, what something like meth, heroin, or coke does to people's lives. and that free access simply means more lives are desroyed
but assuming you do realize the blood that is spilt due to free access to truly life destroying substances, i ask you to choose again
you see all of the externalities, but you do not see what the actual substance does to someone
i'm asking to consider that, as it is obviously far worse than all of the negative effects of the war on drugs (for something like coke, heroin, meth)
additionally, i realize there is a hardcore subset of losers who are hellbent on destroying their lives and will get access to life destroying drugs no matter what is legal or not. such committed self-destructive idiots are beyond the help of anyone, no matter what the laws of drugs are: complete legality, or complete illegality, it doesn't matter: these people are doomed by their own psychology, having nothing whatsoever to do with any social policy. and so such people don't even matter in the discussion
i'm mostly concerned with the MUCH LARGER sphere of casual idiots, who will not try hard to get drugs (until they are addicts), but when offered casual use in a carefree environment, get zombified. this is what the illegality prevents: the destruction of the lives of the carefree casual idiot, whose life would be doomed to slavery to a substance, before they are given a chance to mature and realize on their own the folly and danger these substances represent to their freedom and the quality of their life
no one is going to outlaw biochemistry, no one is going to outlaw physics
people ARE going to outlaw, and rightfully so (surely you can't say otherwise), working with SMALL SUBCLASSES of technology that only result in death and destruction
i understand your point completely, and your point is completely without merit
you apparently cannot tell the difference between large overall classes of technologies and small subclasses that deal in obviously dangerous topics that should be outlawed according to anyone. you apparently cannot tell the difference between, for example, outlawing something that might challenge a social dynamic, and outlawing something that makes people dead. the former is where law loses, the latter is where law is in the right, and will always be in the right, according to anyone not insane
every anecdote of every negative effect of the war on drugs that you can cite or imagine
i'm also asking you to see that i'm only for making the worst substances illegal. i am for the legalization of marijuana and lsd, for exactly the reasons you cite: the war on drugs is far worse than the drugs, FOR THESE DRUGS
now i'm asking you to consider the negative effects of addiction OF THE WORST DRUGS on society and the free will
i'm asking you to consider if the war on drugs FOR ONLY THESE WORST DRUGS is less of a negative than the drugs themselves
do you see that the war on drugs cannot be mentally evaulated as "drug use" versus "war on drugs"?
it has to be evaluated as "alcohol use" versus "war on alcohol", or "lsd use" versus "war on lsd", or "meth use" versus "war on meth"
you can't lump caffeine and cocaine in the same category, and expect to say anything useful on the issue, do you see that?
think about it
real life is not a choice between rainbow unicorns and child eating demons. it is often a choice between child eating demons and slightly meaner child eating demons. with the war on drugs, and cocaine/meth/heroin, for example, you have such a difficult real world choice: lots of gray areas, and hard-to-evaluate-which-is-worse negative effects
your choice is between the horrible negative effects, and slightly worse horrible negative effects. for something like marijuana, the war on drugs is worse than the negative effects of marijuana use, clearly. so marijuana should be legal, clearly
but for something like cocaine, the war on drugs is bad, but the SUBSTANCE ITSELF, in terms of destroyed lives and encumbered society, is worse than the war on that particular drug
do you feel where i am coming from yet?
you can't come to me and evaluate all drugs the same. that's not intellectually honest of you. you cannot say something useful and valuable when mentally you put caffeine and nicotine in the same basket as heroin and methamphetamine. when you do that, you've lost the ability to say anything meaningful, because different drugs are VERY different in their pharmacological effects, so you have to evaluate each drug individually
lsd, psilocybin: weakly addicting, highly inebriating: should be legal
alcohol, marijuana: moderately addicting, moderately inebriating: legal/ should be legal
cocaine, heroin, methamphetaime: highly inebriating, highly addicting: illegal, and should stay that way
for all classes of drugs except the highly inebriating+highly addicting, the war on drugs is worse than the drugs themselves. but for the highly inebriating+highly addicting, you have a substance that overrides willpower, causing you to want to do nothing except zone out for hours, unable to maintain a job or relationship, and become caught in a biochemical feedback cycle that overwhelms all other desires in your life save one: more, more, more... you can't cope with any joy or depression in your life without resorting to the substance. nothing in your life becomes possible without the substance. you are now a slave. compare those bars in the mind to the negative effects of the war on drugs. its not even a toss up: the drug is far worse
free access to only the worst substances zombifies people, making them unable to support themselves (and then society has to support them). therefore, society sees that it is cheaper to simply prevent the creation of such zombies in the first place (and additionally, preserve the free will of those who would otherwise become slaves to a substance)
i'm only talking about cocaine, heroin, meth: the drugs with a proven track record of taking a mind that thought about art, culture, politics... and is now is reduced to a dim zombified state, a permanently fried interrupt switch: "need more fix, need more fix need more fix..." an interrupt switch which also spreads, through addiction, unless society steps up and prevents access to that substance. surely you understand the nature of addiction and what it does to the individual and society that must care for the zombified. surely you see the destruction of freedom here, far worse than any war on drugs
think about the changes the gun wreaked on the feudal system
think about the changes the printing press wreaked on traditional religious/ monarchical power structures
think about the changes the nuclear bomb wreaked on warfare and international relations
now think about the internet and its effects on copyright law
the technology came, and changed everything. time and time again
i'm not talking about civilian restrictions on dynamite or radar guns, these are tiny dots. i'm talking about the larger technological themes: the introduction of electronics, the introduction of sailing ships, the introduction of the cotton gin, etc. surely you can see how technology alter society and the law in ways no one can foresee or even understand when the technology is introduced. its not like the guys fiddling with the arpanet in the 1960s said "hey, lets destroy the recorded music industry", but that's what their invention is doing
surely you can see technological change trumps existing law, and law must alter itself and adapt
yes, corporations are a force in this world and they are warping our democracy to enrich themselves and impoverish us
however, i'd like you to see that technology is on our side
they can warp our legal system with their financial influence, but we can simply route around their morally invalid laws
in other words, a legion of well-funded lawyers is no match for tens of millions of technologically astute, media hungry, and, most importantly, POOR teenagers
let them buy any law they want. its just a matter of obfuscating, encrypting, and otherwise placing ourselves out of their ability to enforce their corrupt laws
a law that you cannot enforce is worse than no law at all. no amount of money and power can change that. time and technology are on our side. see that, remember that, and understand that the future is bright, and the enemies of true democracy are simply damage for the internet to route around and ignore
i'm asking you to be optimistic, not pessimistic, about the future of the internet and the changes it will reap in our favor, the common man, at the expense of corporate power
that is, the most addictive+inebriating: cocaine, heroin, meth, etc (marijuana should be legal)
its not a war, its a maintenance function of civilization, like taking out the trash every thursday
what you don't understand is that some drugs are far worse themselves to the destruction of freedom (addiction is bars in the mind) than any war on drugs and its effects on society. free and unfettered access to the most addictive/ inebriating drugs leads to a growing population of people whose lives have become zombified
so for the sake of saving lives from the hell of addiction, and preserving civilization from this infection, there will ALWAYS be a war on drugs, forever. the war on drugs is a permanent aspect of every civilization that ever existed and ever will
if it is not fought, you've created a zombie underclass of addicts and a financially fattened mafia. you need to continually drain these cesspools. every civilization that ever existed realizes this. acceptance of certain highly addictive+inebriating drugs merely means more addicts. surely you see this is far worse for the individual and society than the side effects of the war on drugs itself, right?
you don't actually believe addiction to cocaine/ meth/ heroin is harmless, or that without controls on these substances, that more lives won't be destroyed? the war on drugs has many negative effects on society. for something like marijuana, legalization is the solution. but for the most hardcore drugs, the drugs themselves are worse than the war on drugs. i hope you understand this
technology changes law. technology does not fit into the confines as defined by law, law adjusts and accommodates to new technology
and when law pits itself against technology, law always loses. technological progress has destroyed and swept aside so many legal, social, and political structures in this world
why does anyone believe hollywood stands a chance? the internet has permanently changed media distribution, in favor of the consumer. all that media companies can do is adapt, or die. of course, in the adaptation period, plenty of absurd attempts at preserving the legal status quos of past dead technological eras will be attempted, but this is just denial
in the end, we, the consumer, win. because technology empowers us to route around the old status quo. and if the law is pitted against the technology, then it also empowers us above the law (in this one narrow issue)
you can't imagine that without government regulation in the areas you cite that people would be more free?
can you imagine that there are other limits on your freedom than what the government does?
perhaps corporations? are their activities a limit on your freedom? do they need to be regulated?
how about poor health? is that a limit on your freedom? do you nnot deserve freedom from crippling or impossible costs to maintain it?
how about roads, schools, simple law enforcement? or is the only threat to your freedom from the house senate or white house? what about the highway robberyman? is he a limit on your freedom?
you have an extremely limited grasp of reality if you believe that freedom is only limited by the government. mostly, your freedom is limited by other people. not least of which the whims of an aristocracy that your supposed "freedom fighting" empowers, at the expense of the common man
but you don't see that do you?
your words serve the moneyed few, they do not serve the common man. that really is the truth. try to understand someday how a classist social structure works and limits the common man. then maybe you will truly understand what freedom is
i have no doubt the anecdote you just wrote above is true
but i can find just as many anecdotes on the web that serve radical leftist agendas too. would you like an anecdote from a radical lefty blog that proves a belief of yours wrong? oh, its a lie then, right?
which is the whole problem: if its not from a prominent news organization with a reputation to uphold, its just a random unsubstantiated story. after all, no one ever lies on the internet... right?
but you won't accept that as an argument against blatant political blogs with an obvious agenda, because you don't actually care about the truth, you care about pushing your agenda
which again would be fine, everyone has an agenda. but what some people will do in service of an agenda is intellectually dishonest. for example, you have no problem calling any unsubstantiated bullshit that supports your beliefs as the "truth" and anything in the mainstream media that might challenge your beliefs as "elitist"
this kind of reactionary adherence to propaganda that only adheres to your beliefs is the sign of dangerously closed mind. it says volumes about your own intellectual failures, it says nothing about reality, and it says nothing about mainstream media except that you don't like mainstream media because it challenges your opinions. you can't deal with the fact that something reported as the truth from the mainstream media might actually be right, and therefore your opinion is wrong, and therefore you have to reject the entirety of mainstream media as "elitist"
did you ever notice how the far right calls the meanstream media left wing and the far left calls mainstream media right wing? maybe that says more about the far right and the far left than the mainstream media itself?;-)
but you're probably not even reading me anymore. i'm challenging your opinion. this is very tricky business with you. you've probably just labelled me an elitist socialist muslim communist, or whatever scary word that basically means the same thing that "poopie head" or "boogie man" means to a second grader, and you've moved on
because you have the monopoly on the "truth". you don't need me. you know, someone tha tmigth actually challenge your opinion and make you think. you trust random assholes on the internet with "amazing" stories in the service of a transparent agenda, rather than mainstream media. awesome!
until you realize that as twitter creeps further into english language use, the following conversation following english language convention is only a few months away:
"i was going to twitter that until i got the tweet you twatted yesterday and i realized its no fun twuttering anymore, you twat"
i tried to consider what 9.6 billion light years was like in terms of distance. i mean, really, really tried to get a mental grasp on that scale of size
and i couldn't do it, and now there's a trickle of blood leading out of my nose
thanks a lot, slashdot
i'll just go back to the simply mind-bending effort of trying to imagine the amount of indexed pages in google in terms of library of congress units
conceding an argument, deep in a thread, rather than digging in your heels and shouting "no, YUO!!!" in blind stubbornness
is this the internet? intellectual honesty and integrity on an internet forum? you have just asploded my mind
much respect sir
for the record, i'm as bothered by endless american navel gazing as you are: it makes americans self-absorbed and shallow to be so unaware and unconcered with the wider world. but its not up to me to stop that, its up to you
leave and start your own australian/ ukian/ canadian/ kiwian/ etc centric slashdot. unfortunately, as a simple rule of the network effect, it won't have the same size userbase. and so you are forced to go to america-centric forums, and suffer through american navel gazing to get larger doses of the tech talk you desire
for the america-centrism, i apologize. but its a function of history and the network effect, no malice. don't hate us, enough of the world already does
Slashdot Mirror
you mean "Keep it simple, stupid"?
the KISS principle is perhaps one of the greatest principles in engineering, and frequently keeps people's minds grounded in the deliverables, and prevents them from spinning out of control into overly complex solutions, which are in fact the source of most software bugs, not the solution to them
if this is the principle you are referring to, i don't know where the source of your animosity to it lies, nor why it has anything to do with this particular subject matter
please tell me: if you let heroin be freely available to anyone who wanted it, exactly what would happen to such a society?
i'm too ignorant and uneducated to imagine what would happen. i'm too busy trying to destroy people's freedoms
k thx!
has destroyed more freedom than any totalitarian government, religious fundamentalism, or any other government abuse you can think of in the history of mankind
unlike you, i actually understand and acknowledge what something like heroin does to a person: the bars int he mind of addiction is the purest form of freedom destruction imaginable
furthermore, in the name of alcohol and tobacco regulation, government agents have imprisoned mass numbers of citizens, and will continue to do so, and you support this, because oyu understand the rationale behind it. but not for heroin?!
as an american, someone who fights for and loves freedom, i am apparently more knowledgeable and have a better grasp of the subject matter than you and how freedom is maximized: the limitation of the spread of a freedom destroying substance
you argue form a position of ignorance: an ignorance of the subject matter. therefore your opinion is not only invalid, but dangerous to the very concept you care about
ever hear of hillbilly heroin?
its nothing but WELL-REGULATED oxycodone, developing its own black market, as a simple result of WIDER AVAILABILITY of a highly addictive+inebriating drug
so you're deep in the twilight zone now: you're arguing in favor of the illegality of the substance (that's what "regulation" is, numbskull), while pointing at such regulation as a success (when its clearly a failure, as in the case of hillybilly heroin), under an obvious historical example of what happens when a drugs are freely available (the opium wars: drug dealers humiliating a proud civilization by force addicting wide swaths of chinese society)
consider yourself spanked, moron
understand that if it were legalized it would be even EASIER. duh
so you push back against availability, and you cut down on zombie creation, simple as that. you don't stop zombie creation. you can't ever do that. but you certainly don't allow it to proceed without any interference: you're never going to stop the idiots committed to destroying their lives, but you sure as hell will stop a hell of a lot of casual idiots from the fate drug addled zombiehood. then they mature, realize the threat on their own, and that's one less useless zombie you have to house and feed
why do you have a mental block on the concept that addiction itself is a harm? i mean if the cost in wasted lives, if the destruction of individual freedoms means nothing to you (it's "none of my business") then consider the cost to society in terms of having to house and feed these zombies
with the monkey on their back, they can't keep a job or a relationship. so i have to pay for them. well, if i am footing the bill, then i think i'd rather spend my money preventing the creation of the zombies in the first place, no? its a hell of a lot cheaper. i won't prevent the creation of all of them, but i'll put a significant dent in their numbers
feel me now?
the effects of addiction of the worst (coke. meth, heroin) is far worse the effects of the war on drugs
you like to point to history. i'm glad your victorian upper middle class examples were able to make positive contributions despite their crippling drug problems (ask them, they would say themselves that the drug use didn't help them: imagine how much they could contribute had they not been so addled)
here's another victorian history lesson for you, that is the real instruction as to what the viral spread of highly addictive substances does to a society:
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/CHING/OPIUM.HTM
"you're willing to point guns at people and lock them in cages to control their behavior. You should be ashamed."
yes, i am willing to lock away mafioso who don't care about destroying lives in order to get a buck, i have no problem with that
you apparently are happy with millions of lives destroyed because you have no appreciation what easy access to a highly addictive substance does to people and the freedom it destroys. you should be ashamed
there is no war on drugs
there is a "war on alcohol" (pointless) or a "war on lsd" (pointless) or a "war on meth" (NOT pointless)
you need to evaluate each drug individually, because for some drugs, that are highly addictive and inebriating, pushing back against the availability of the drug has a real effect in terms of saving lots of lives
there are two classes of drug users, for any drug: the committed idiot, and the casual idiot
the committed idiot, just as you say, represents a permanent underclass of drug addled zombie. no law will stop their self-destruction. whether every drug is completely free, or completely draconianly locked down, they will still destory their lives, no matter what you do. that's just their psychological fate. and so they don't matter in the policy analysis
but the CASUAl idiot, the average teenager who thinks they are immune and immortal, that there are no limitations on their will power: in a free and unfettered environment, these are lives you are burdening with decades of quality of life destroying, freedom destroying addiction (when it comes to only the worst drugs: cocaine, heroine, meth). but given enough time, and difficulty in accessing the worst substances, the casual teenage idiot will mature and realize on their own the threat coke/ meth/ heroin has on their quality of life and freedom
that is what the war on drugs is for. not the permanent unalterable underclass of drug zombies, but the much larger user base of casual idiots who, with CERTAIN substances (meth/ heorin/ coke) will be turned into drug zombies
you have to evaluate the substances individually. alcohol, marijuana: the war on drugs is stupid
heroin, coke: the war on drugs makes a genuine net positive. yes, the war on drugs has plenty of negative effects. for alcohol/ marijuana, those negative effects argue for legalization. but for some substances, life destruction is so viral through easy addiction, that the war, even with all the negativ effects considered, still has a net positive effect
that if you legalized everything, every single problem you just cited above would be worse?
the best you can do is push back against the growth of the drug addled zombie underclass, and push back against the growth of the mafia, forever. NOT pushing back against these things simply means they grow and proliferate even more, to the destruction of far more rights and freedoms and destroyed lives than the war on drugs itself. you can't ever completely destroy the drug use, but that never was the point: the point is to simply minimize their stink
why can't you see that? why can't you appreciate the damage done by a large underclass of drug zombies and a fattened mafia from their existence? why doesn't your mind perceive of and understand the threat to individual freedom from those things?
here, learn your history:
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/CHING/OPIUM.HTM
here's the problem: teenagers are idiots. they think of themselves as immortal and immune, they don't perceive of the limitations of their willpower when faced, for example, with crippling addiction to something like coke/ heroin/ meth. and so, in an environment of easy access, a heck of a lot of them will try these things, and wind up with a life long crippling addiction
prevent them from accessing to these drugs though, and they mature to the point where they perceive on their own these substances have towards their quality of life and their freedom. of course you won't save everyone, some committed idiots are just hellbent on personal destruction. but a much larger class of casual idiots needs to be given the chance to escape the hell of addiction
i really wish you could understand and appreciate exactly what heroin, coke, and meth do to someone's lives and their minds and their freedom. of course the war on drugs has negative effects. i recognize and acknowledge every single negative you cite. now i wish you would acknowledge what free and unfettered access to heroin/ coke/ meth will cost in wasted lives, and see that it is far worse than the war on drugs
that the war on drugs has no effects? it minimizes the damage that substance abuse does. it doesn't eradicate it, that's never been the goal. anyone who thinks that mocking that goal somehow legitimizes the problem doesn't understand the issues, because no one serious thinks that's a goal
it simply makes it harder for the casual idiot to become an addict before they mature and realize on their own the danger. of course there will always be a hardcore group of seriously stupid who will destroy their lives with drugs, no matter what the social policy, completely free access or completely draconian laws: some people are just doomed by their own bad psychology/ ideology. you can't help such people, so they don't matter on the policy questions. the point is not to save everyone, the point is to save as many as you can
the point is, if there were no war on drugs, the stink you point to would merely be larger. of coruse we can never completely eradicate these things, and of course the war itself makes some things worse. but no war at all CLEARLY is even worse, can't you see that?
there will always be a growing underclass of drug addled zombies, forever. there will always be a mafia, forever. the best you can do is push back against both, and minimize it. and any civilization that has ever existed, and ever will exist, therefore will forever more be engaged in such a "war" (its not really a war, thats a bad name, its more like a simple maintenance function, like taking the trash out every thursday. we all have a "war on trash" in our houses)
what i don't understand this mentality that says "becuase we can't completely eradicate it, we should allow it to be worse"
insane
then learn your history, before it is repeated, fool: this is what happens when drug dealing imperialists are allowed to destroy a society by reducing large swaths of its citizens to zombies via drug addiction:
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/CHING/OPIUM.HTM
in the history of the world, the sum total of every fascist, totalitarian, despotic, religious fundamentalist, and autocratic authoritarian law has, by orders of magnitude, never even remotely touched the freedom that was destroyed in terms of wasted lives due to drug addiction. drug addiction is the most potent threat to individual freedom that has ever existed and perhaps ever will exist in the history of mankind
the most fascist totalitarian state possible to be imagined in the furthest reaches of orwell's fantasy life has nothing on the freedom destroying power of drug addiction. unless, of course, such a hypothetical totalitarian government actually force addicted its own citizens. that's the ultimate totalitarian state
in the real word, it is a not a choice between rainbows and piles of shit. it is a choice between shit, and slightly stinkier shit
the war on drugs puts blood on our hands, absolutely, i understand and appreciate that 100%
but i also realize that for the worst substances, free access puts MORE blood on our hands. why some people don't understand this is beyond my understanding. they obviously don't appreciate, out of some sort of blind naivete, what something like meth, heroin, or coke does to people's lives. and that free access simply means more lives are desroyed
but assuming you do realize the blood that is spilt due to free access to truly life destroying substances, i ask you to choose again
for what substance addiction does to a life
you see all of the externalities, but you do not see what the actual substance does to someone
i'm asking to consider that, as it is obviously far worse than all of the negative effects of the war on drugs (for something like coke, heroin, meth)
additionally, i realize there is a hardcore subset of losers who are hellbent on destroying their lives and will get access to life destroying drugs no matter what is legal or not. such committed self-destructive idiots are beyond the help of anyone, no matter what the laws of drugs are: complete legality, or complete illegality, it doesn't matter: these people are doomed by their own psychology, having nothing whatsoever to do with any social policy. and so such people don't even matter in the discussion
i'm mostly concerned with the MUCH LARGER sphere of casual idiots, who will not try hard to get drugs (until they are addicts), but when offered casual use in a carefree environment, get zombified. this is what the illegality prevents: the destruction of the lives of the carefree casual idiot, whose life would be doomed to slavery to a substance, before they are given a chance to mature and realize on their own the folly and danger these substances represent to their freedom and the quality of their life
no one is going to outlaw biochemistry, no one is going to outlaw physics
people ARE going to outlaw, and rightfully so (surely you can't say otherwise), working with SMALL SUBCLASSES of technology that only result in death and destruction
otherwise, you get stupid morons like this:
http://www.timw.com/2007/08/06/weird/radioactive-boy-scout-charged-in-smoke-detector-theft/
i understand your point completely, and your point is completely without merit
you apparently cannot tell the difference between large overall classes of technologies and small subclasses that deal in obviously dangerous topics that should be outlawed according to anyone. you apparently cannot tell the difference between, for example, outlawing something that might challenge a social dynamic, and outlawing something that makes people dead. the former is where law loses, the latter is where law is in the right, and will always be in the right, according to anyone not insane
every anecdote of every negative effect of the war on drugs that you can cite or imagine
i'm also asking you to see that i'm only for making the worst substances illegal. i am for the legalization of marijuana and lsd, for exactly the reasons you cite: the war on drugs is far worse than the drugs, FOR THESE DRUGS
now i'm asking you to consider the negative effects of addiction OF THE WORST DRUGS on society and the free will
i'm asking you to consider if the war on drugs FOR ONLY THESE WORST DRUGS is less of a negative than the drugs themselves
do you see that the war on drugs cannot be mentally evaulated as "drug use" versus "war on drugs"?
it has to be evaluated as "alcohol use" versus "war on alcohol", or "lsd use" versus "war on lsd", or "meth use" versus "war on meth"
you can't lump caffeine and cocaine in the same category, and expect to say anything useful on the issue, do you see that?
think about it
real life is not a choice between rainbow unicorns and child eating demons. it is often a choice between child eating demons and slightly meaner child eating demons. with the war on drugs, and cocaine/meth/heroin, for example, you have such a difficult real world choice: lots of gray areas, and hard-to-evaluate-which-is-worse negative effects
your choice is between the horrible negative effects, and slightly worse horrible negative effects. for something like marijuana, the war on drugs is worse than the negative effects of marijuana use, clearly. so marijuana should be legal, clearly
but for something like cocaine, the war on drugs is bad, but the SUBSTANCE ITSELF, in terms of destroyed lives and encumbered society, is worse than the war on that particular drug
do you feel where i am coming from yet?
you can't come to me and evaluate all drugs the same. that's not intellectually honest of you. you cannot say something useful and valuable when mentally you put caffeine and nicotine in the same basket as heroin and methamphetamine. when you do that, you've lost the ability to say anything meaningful, because different drugs are VERY different in their pharmacological effects, so you have to evaluate each drug individually
dynamite? plutonium? rocket propelled grenades? weaponized anthrax?
obviously these technologies need to be controlled
otherwise, what technologies can you possibly be talking about that has any merit on this subject matter?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_(mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence).svg
caffeine: weakly addicting, weakly inebriating: legal
nicotine: highly addictive, weakly inebriating: legal
lsd, psilocybin: weakly addicting, highly inebriating: should be legal
alcohol, marijuana: moderately addicting, moderately inebriating: legal/ should be legal
cocaine, heroin, methamphetaime: highly inebriating, highly addicting: illegal, and should stay that way
for all classes of drugs except the highly inebriating+highly addicting, the war on drugs is worse than the drugs themselves. but for the highly inebriating+highly addicting, you have a substance that overrides willpower, causing you to want to do nothing except zone out for hours, unable to maintain a job or relationship, and become caught in a biochemical feedback cycle that overwhelms all other desires in your life save one: more, more, more... you can't cope with any joy or depression in your life without resorting to the substance. nothing in your life becomes possible without the substance. you are now a slave. compare those bars in the mind to the negative effects of the war on drugs. its not even a toss up: the drug is far worse
free access to only the worst substances zombifies people, making them unable to support themselves (and then society has to support them). therefore, society sees that it is cheaper to simply prevent the creation of such zombies in the first place (and additionally, preserve the free will of those who would otherwise become slaves to a substance)
i'm only talking about cocaine, heroin, meth: the drugs with a proven track record of taking a mind that thought about art, culture, politics... and is now is reduced to a dim zombified state, a permanently fried interrupt switch: "need more fix, need more fix need more fix..." an interrupt switch which also spreads, through addiction, unless society steps up and prevents access to that substance. surely you understand the nature of addiction and what it does to the individual and society that must care for the zombified. surely you see the destruction of freedom here, far worse than any war on drugs
think about the changes the gun wreaked on the feudal system
think about the changes the printing press wreaked on traditional religious/ monarchical power structures
think about the changes the nuclear bomb wreaked on warfare and international relations
now think about the internet and its effects on copyright law
the technology came, and changed everything. time and time again
i'm not talking about civilian restrictions on dynamite or radar guns, these are tiny dots. i'm talking about the larger technological themes: the introduction of electronics, the introduction of sailing ships, the introduction of the cotton gin, etc. surely you can see how technology alter society and the law in ways no one can foresee or even understand when the technology is introduced. its not like the guys fiddling with the arpanet in the 1960s said "hey, lets destroy the recorded music industry", but that's what their invention is doing
surely you can see technological change trumps existing law, and law must alter itself and adapt
yes, corporations are a force in this world and they are warping our democracy to enrich themselves and impoverish us
however, i'd like you to see that technology is on our side
they can warp our legal system with their financial influence, but we can simply route around their morally invalid laws
in other words, a legion of well-funded lawyers is no match for tens of millions of technologically astute, media hungry, and, most importantly, POOR teenagers
let them buy any law they want. its just a matter of obfuscating, encrypting, and otherwise placing ourselves out of their ability to enforce their corrupt laws
a law that you cannot enforce is worse than no law at all. no amount of money and power can change that. time and technology are on our side. see that, remember that, and understand that the future is bright, and the enemies of true democracy are simply damage for the internet to route around and ignore
i'm asking you to be optimistic, not pessimistic, about the future of the internet and the changes it will reap in our favor, the common man, at the expense of corporate power
we win ;-)
that is, the most addictive+inebriating: cocaine, heroin, meth, etc (marijuana should be legal)
its not a war, its a maintenance function of civilization, like taking out the trash every thursday
what you don't understand is that some drugs are far worse themselves to the destruction of freedom (addiction is bars in the mind) than any war on drugs and its effects on society. free and unfettered access to the most addictive/ inebriating drugs leads to a growing population of people whose lives have become zombified
so for the sake of saving lives from the hell of addiction, and preserving civilization from this infection, there will ALWAYS be a war on drugs, forever. the war on drugs is a permanent aspect of every civilization that ever existed and ever will
if it is not fought, you've created a zombie underclass of addicts and a financially fattened mafia. you need to continually drain these cesspools. every civilization that ever existed realizes this. acceptance of certain highly addictive+inebriating drugs merely means more addicts. surely you see this is far worse for the individual and society than the side effects of the war on drugs itself, right?
you don't actually believe addiction to cocaine/ meth/ heroin is harmless, or that without controls on these substances, that more lives won't be destroyed? the war on drugs has many negative effects on society. for something like marijuana, legalization is the solution. but for the most hardcore drugs, the drugs themselves are worse than the war on drugs. i hope you understand this
technology changes law. technology does not fit into the confines as defined by law, law adjusts and accommodates to new technology
and when law pits itself against technology, law always loses. technological progress has destroyed and swept aside so many legal, social, and political structures in this world
why does anyone believe hollywood stands a chance? the internet has permanently changed media distribution, in favor of the consumer. all that media companies can do is adapt, or die. of course, in the adaptation period, plenty of absurd attempts at preserving the legal status quos of past dead technological eras will be attempted, but this is just denial
in the end, we, the consumer, win. because technology empowers us to route around the old status quo. and if the law is pitted against the technology, then it also empowers us above the law (in this one narrow issue)
you can't imagine that without government regulation in the areas you cite that people would be more free?
can you imagine that there are other limits on your freedom than what the government does?
perhaps corporations? are their activities a limit on your freedom? do they need to be regulated?
how about poor health? is that a limit on your freedom? do you nnot deserve freedom from crippling or impossible costs to maintain it?
how about roads, schools, simple law enforcement? or is the only threat to your freedom from the house senate or white house? what about the highway robberyman? is he a limit on your freedom?
you have an extremely limited grasp of reality if you believe that freedom is only limited by the government. mostly, your freedom is limited by other people. not least of which the whims of an aristocracy that your supposed "freedom fighting" empowers, at the expense of the common man
but you don't see that do you?
your words serve the moneyed few, they do not serve the common man. that really is the truth. try to understand someday how a classist social structure works and limits the common man. then maybe you will truly understand what freedom is
i have no doubt the anecdote you just wrote above is true
but i can find just as many anecdotes on the web that serve radical leftist agendas too. would you like an anecdote from a radical lefty blog that proves a belief of yours wrong? oh, its a lie then, right?
which is the whole problem: if its not from a prominent news organization with a reputation to uphold, its just a random unsubstantiated story. after all, no one ever lies on the internet... right?
but you won't accept that as an argument against blatant political blogs with an obvious agenda, because you don't actually care about the truth, you care about pushing your agenda
which again would be fine, everyone has an agenda. but what some people will do in service of an agenda is intellectually dishonest. for example, you have no problem calling any unsubstantiated bullshit that supports your beliefs as the "truth" and anything in the mainstream media that might challenge your beliefs as "elitist"
this kind of reactionary adherence to propaganda that only adheres to your beliefs is the sign of dangerously closed mind. it says volumes about your own intellectual failures, it says nothing about reality, and it says nothing about mainstream media except that you don't like mainstream media because it challenges your opinions. you can't deal with the fact that something reported as the truth from the mainstream media might actually be right, and therefore your opinion is wrong, and therefore you have to reject the entirety of mainstream media as "elitist"
did you ever notice how the far right calls the meanstream media left wing and the far left calls mainstream media right wing? maybe that says more about the far right and the far left than the mainstream media itself? ;-)
but you're probably not even reading me anymore. i'm challenging your opinion. this is very tricky business with you. you've probably just labelled me an elitist socialist muslim communist, or whatever scary word that basically means the same thing that "poopie head" or "boogie man" means to a second grader, and you've moved on
because you have the monopoly on the "truth". you don't need me. you know, someone tha tmigth actually challenge your opinion and make you think. you trust random assholes on the internet with "amazing" stories in the service of a transparent agenda, rather than mainstream media. awesome!
pfffffffft
until you realize that as twitter creeps further into english language use, the following conversation following english language convention is only a few months away:
"i was going to twitter that until i got the tweet you twatted yesterday and i realized its no fun twuttering anymore, you twat"
"don't call me a twat you twit"
(shudder)
i tried to consider what 9.6 billion light years was like in terms of distance. i mean, really, really tried to get a mental grasp on that scale of size
and i couldn't do it, and now there's a trickle of blood leading out of my nose
thanks a lot, slashdot
i'll just go back to the simply mind-bending effort of trying to imagine the amount of indexed pages in google in terms of library of congress units
conceding an argument, deep in a thread, rather than digging in your heels and shouting "no, YUO!!!" in blind stubbornness
is this the internet? intellectual honesty and integrity on an internet forum? you have just asploded my mind
much respect sir
for the record, i'm as bothered by endless american navel gazing as you are: it makes americans self-absorbed and shallow to be so unaware and unconcered with the wider world. but its not up to me to stop that, its up to you
leave and start your own australian/ ukian/ canadian/ kiwian/ etc centric slashdot. unfortunately, as a simple rule of the network effect, it won't have the same size userbase. and so you are forced to go to america-centric forums, and suffer through american navel gazing to get larger doses of the tech talk you desire
for the america-centrism, i apologize. but its a function of history and the network effect, no malice. don't hate us, enough of the world already does