I don't see how making drugs available for free does anything to diminish demand for the product. People will still want to get high, and it will only be easier for them to do so if they can get it for free.
I believe that selling it and using that money to fund treatment and education programs is the best we can do. But we're definitely in agreement that legalizing it makes the worst problems associated with the drug trade go away overnight.
Want to get rid of the drug dealers? It only takes a few easy and cheap steps. Step 1: Provide free high quality drugs to people already addicted with no criminal penalties or consequences to people who come forward and ask for them.
It's quite one thing to legalize and regulate drugs, with which I heartily agree. It's quite another to ask taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction. Taxpayers don't subsidize booze or tobacco, and that hasn't created any black market worth mentioning.
"This changes everything. The politics of fear will end. Black people won't be seen 'out of place' in any place from now on."
You might think so, but I assure you that the industry of racial divisiveness is still alive and well. This won't make the Jesse Jacksons or Al Sharptons go away. Just wait for the reaction when people start criticizing President Obama.
MLK's dream wasn't that a black man be elected president, but that "my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
Obama's election did not fulfill the dream; it proves that the dream had already been fulfilled.
Dem and Rep candidates would have NO problem gaining the needed number of signatures.
Fine, then what's wrong with making them jump through the same hoops as everyone else? Why should someone have an advantage just because they have an R or a D after their name? And did it occur to you that there may be so little interest in 3rd party candidates precisely because they don't get comparable public exposure?
I'm not saying that every Tom, Dick, and Harry should be listed, just that the registered parties get a legitimate shot at having their voices heard. That's really not an unreasonable request.
He was a billionaire who could buy plenty of publicity and made it into the debates.
There, that's more like it.
You might not be aware, but 3rd parties often have different criteria to get on the ballot than the establishment parties. In Pennsylvania during the 2006 election cycle, for example, independent and minor party candidates were required to collect over 67,000 valid signatures simply to get on the state-wide ballot. Democratic and Republican candidates required no signatures to get on the state-wide ballot.
If you don't see anything wrong with that, you're part of the problem.
There has to be a way to challenge such barriers in the courts on constitutional grounds, as the people who benefit from stifling competition certainly can't be trusted with correcting this problem.
Whether you moderate something as Troll or Overrated, you still burn a mod point. The only use I see for Overrated is to mod down legitimate posts without risk of reprisal for moderation abuse.
I invite you to read a Reader's Digest assessment of how we arrived at our current financial situation. You may notice the lack of blame for any political entity, Republican or Democrat.
Of course, you may simply dismiss any analysis that doesn't fault the Bush administration. Prove me wrong.
"Efforts like "Rock the Vote" to raise awareness really are worthwhile. If you haven't voted lately, please do."
I have to take issue with that. I tend towards "If you can't bother to educate yourself on the candidates' platforms and make an informed choice, please leave that responsibility to those who will."
Too much is at stake to let these elections be decided by party-line or single-issue voters.
"If anything, [more drilling] would simply delay the inevitable and slow our development and adoption of cleaner, sustainable fuel sources."
Why does the left see everything as a zero-sum game? Investment in fossil fuel development doesn't necessarily result in a lack of alternative energy research. Wanting to provide fuel for current technology doesn't make one opposed to develop new technology.
That's why the left has a credibility problem when it comes to energy policy; they see it as a black-and-white issue with no overlap and no room for compromise. It's a divisive, unproductive stance that smacks of petty politics over progress.
So you favor "win at all costs" over a pure measure of naturally-developed athletic ability? Is that the kind of values you're going to impart on your kids? Sad.
"IOC just accepts the document as presented. It isn't world gov or world cop. If the national govs want to bend/break their own rules, then IOC has to live with it. IOC doesn't have an teeth to beat a national government with and no one really would want it to have any either."
It's called disqualifying the cheating gymnastics team and revoking their medals. Or do you also believe the IOC lacks the authority to disqualify athletes who break anti-doping rules too?
And the person or persons responsible for producing the original work, regardless of the fact that the digital nature of their creation allows for infinite copies of it, isn't entitled to some compensation for their efforts?
"That's obviously not the case with stealing from someone's house, where you actually deprive the person of their property and the person is left worse off than they were before."
I didn't say anything about stealing from the home.
Yes, copyright infringement doesn't physically take anything away from the copyright owners. That's not what I'm addressing. What I don't understand is where the sense of entitlement comes from.
I'm not willing to pay $1000 for Adobe Creative Suite. By what reasoning am I, therefore, entitled to a copy of the software? I have yet to hear a rational answer to that question.
"The presence of DRM or other software locking/security mechanisms are the result of greedy software makers knowing that not everyone is willing to pay their prices and are attempting to punish those who want to use their software anyway."
This sentiment always strikes me as odd, as it is a concept that, while obvious to me, is lost on software freeloaders. What if I were to suggest:
"The presence of locks/security systems are the result of greedy homeowners knowing that not everyone is willing to knock on their door and are attempting to punish those who want to come in anyway."
Our choice is to feed millions of people who would otherwise die of malnutrition with the remote (and entirely unproven) possibility of complications later in life, or simply let them die for the sake ideological paranoia halfway around the globe.
"They would gladly poison millions of people or induce birth defects or do ANYTHING if it would increase their profits and if they could get away with it."
I'm sure you were about to explain how poisoning millions of your customers can be good for your bottom line...
Slashdot Mirror
Good Christ, thread over in one post.
I don't see how making drugs available for free does anything to diminish demand for the product. People will still want to get high, and it will only be easier for them to do so if they can get it for free.
I believe that selling it and using that money to fund treatment and education programs is the best we can do. But we're definitely in agreement that legalizing it makes the worst problems associated with the drug trade go away overnight.
Want to get rid of the drug dealers? It only takes a few easy and cheap steps.
Step 1: Provide free high quality drugs to people already addicted with no criminal penalties or consequences to people who come forward and ask for them.
It's quite one thing to legalize and regulate drugs, with which I heartily agree. It's quite another to ask taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction. Taxpayers don't subsidize booze or tobacco, and that hasn't created any black market worth mentioning.
"This changes everything. The politics of fear will end. Black people won't be seen 'out of place' in any place from now on."
You might think so, but I assure you that the industry of racial divisiveness is still alive and well. This won't make the Jesse Jacksons or Al Sharptons go away. Just wait for the reaction when people start criticizing President Obama.
MLK's dream wasn't that a black man be elected president, but that "my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
Obama's election did not fulfill the dream; it proves that the dream had already been fulfilled.
Yeah, that will show them. And by "show them" I mean "validate their case for more DRM". Brilliant!
Dem and Rep candidates would have NO problem gaining the needed number of signatures.
Fine, then what's wrong with making them jump through the same hoops as everyone else? Why should someone have an advantage just because they have an R or a D after their name? And did it occur to you that there may be so little interest in 3rd party candidates precisely because they don't get comparable public exposure?
I'm not saying that every Tom, Dick, and Harry should be listed, just that the registered parties get a legitimate shot at having their voices heard. That's really not an unreasonable request.
He was a billionaire who could buy plenty of publicity and made it into the debates.
There, that's more like it.
You might not be aware, but 3rd parties often have different criteria to get on the ballot than the establishment parties. In Pennsylvania during the 2006 election cycle, for example, independent and minor party candidates were required to collect over 67,000 valid signatures simply to get on the state-wide ballot. Democratic and Republican candidates required no signatures to get on the state-wide ballot.
If you don't see anything wrong with that, you're part of the problem.
Perhaps if the playing field were (more) level for other parties (for starters, stop arresting presidential candidates for trying to participate in a presidential debate), we'd have more viable options.
There has to be a way to challenge such barriers in the courts on constitutional grounds, as the people who benefit from stifling competition certainly can't be trusted with correcting this problem.
Whether you moderate something as Troll or Overrated, you still burn a mod point. The only use I see for Overrated is to mod down legitimate posts without risk of reprisal for moderation abuse.
IIRC, over/under are also not subject to metamoderation, making them even more prone to abuse.
I invite you to read a Reader's Digest assessment of how we arrived at our current financial situation. You may notice the lack of blame for any political entity, Republican or Democrat.
Of course, you may simply dismiss any analysis that doesn't fault the Bush administration. Prove me wrong.
"Efforts like "Rock the Vote" to raise awareness really are worthwhile. If you haven't voted lately, please do."
I have to take issue with that. I tend towards "If you can't bother to educate yourself on the candidates' platforms and make an informed choice, please leave that responsibility to those who will."
Too much is at stake to let these elections be decided by party-line or single-issue voters.
Too many people don't want to be free anymore. They want to be taken care of. No good can come from that mindset.
Right, and if the Gore campaign had succeeded in changing Florida election law in the middle of the election... blah blah blah.
Don't we have enough problems NOW to deal with NOW?
You mean like yachting? =)
And by that you mean "the rich", correct? Is there anything they shouldn't pay for?
"If anything, [more drilling] would simply delay the inevitable and slow our development and adoption of cleaner, sustainable fuel sources."
Why does the left see everything as a zero-sum game? Investment in fossil fuel development doesn't necessarily result in a lack of alternative energy research. Wanting to provide fuel for current technology doesn't make one opposed to develop new technology.
That's why the left has a credibility problem when it comes to energy policy; they see it as a black-and-white issue with no overlap and no room for compromise. It's a divisive, unproductive stance that smacks of petty politics over progress.
So you favor "win at all costs" over a pure measure of naturally-developed athletic ability? Is that the kind of values you're going to impart on your kids? Sad.
"IOC just accepts the document as presented. It isn't world gov or world cop. If the national govs want to bend/break their own rules, then IOC has to live with it. IOC doesn't have an teeth to beat a national government with and no one really would want it to have any either."
It's called disqualifying the cheating gymnastics team and revoking their medals. Or do you also believe the IOC lacks the authority to disqualify athletes who break anti-doping rules too?
And the person or persons responsible for producing the original work, regardless of the fact that the digital nature of their creation allows for infinite copies of it, isn't entitled to some compensation for their efforts?
"That's obviously not the case with stealing from someone's house, where you actually deprive the person of their property and the person is left worse off than they were before."
I didn't say anything about stealing from the home.
Yes, copyright infringement doesn't physically take anything away from the copyright owners. That's not what I'm addressing. What I don't understand is where the sense of entitlement comes from.
I'm not willing to pay $1000 for Adobe Creative Suite. By what reasoning am I, therefore, entitled to a copy of the software? I have yet to hear a rational answer to that question.
"The presence of DRM or other software locking/security mechanisms are the result of greedy software makers knowing that not everyone is willing to pay their prices and are attempting to punish those who want to use their software anyway."
This sentiment always strikes me as odd, as it is a concept that, while obvious to me, is lost on software freeloaders. What if I were to suggest:
"The presence of locks/security systems are the result of greedy homeowners knowing that not everyone is willing to knock on their door and are attempting to punish those who want to come in anyway."
Umm... isn't that the whole point?
Our choice is to feed millions of people who would otherwise die of malnutrition with the remote (and entirely unproven) possibility of complications later in life, or simply let them die for the sake ideological paranoia halfway around the globe.
The EU is currently choosing the latter. Bravo.
"They would gladly poison millions of people or induce birth defects or do ANYTHING if it would increase their profits and if they could get away with it."
I'm sure you were about to explain how poisoning millions of your customers can be good for your bottom line...