Oh, good grief. Don't you get pedantic with me. You know quite well that "reduce drug use" means "reduce the number of people who use drugs," not "get drug users to cut back a little." It means the same thing.
As for your second example... first of all, that homeless man is part of society as much as you are. I think that if I murdered you, or a member of your family, you'd consider it an unacceptable social loss. Second, I was speaking pragmatically -- if the drug war was actually successful in stopping drug cartels and whatnot, the case of its proponents would be stronger. But the opposite is true: rather than having a legal industry which can be regulated, we've got a black market which encourages things like crack cocaine because they're easier to transport due to their higher concentration.
Furthermore, because we treat drug users as criminals and jail them rather than offering them treatment, we are treating a social problem as a criminal one. Drug users are legitimate members of society, and jailing them unjustly is harmful to them. Denying them treatment if they need it is harmful to them. And it's harmful to society.
You want to see what happens when drugs are legalized? Look at the Netherlands. Hard drug use, especially among the young, is on a gradual decline, and marijuana use is no higher than in neighboring countries where it is illegal. Check out the link someone else posted in reply to my original post.
How does that happen? If a single disk has some chance of failure, say 0.01, in a given time period, then it seems like n disks should have a 0.01^n chance of all failing. For reasonable values of 0.01 and n (heh), the odds against simultaneous failure should be vanishingly small even if single disks fail fairly often. Is there a cascade failure effect or something?
No, but it would suck the blood right out of your neck.
Hey, at least blood has iron in it.'
What's the deal with iron and magnets, anyway? Why just iron? Why's it so special?
There's a good reason for making the point that people are going to use drugs whether or not they're illegal. That reason is that the stated intent of the drug war is to stop people from using drugs. Clearly it is not accomplishing that stated goal. All it has succeeded in doing is making drug use more dangerous and harmful, while lining the pockets of those who continue to push the anti-drug agenda.
I think that, when possible, it's better to evaluate things in terms of benefit or cost to society rather than moral imperatives, simply because it's difficult to achieve consensus on the latter. Sure, for murder it's much easier. But how many people really believe that drug use, particularly for light drugs such as marijuana, is inherently immoral, so much so that we as a society cannot tolerate it regardless of whether it produces tangible detriment? It's a vice, to be sure, but so are things like alcohol and voting Republican.
Re:MARIJUANA IN NEVADA!!!
on
Indecision 2002
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
But that's precisely the point -- people ARE smoking dope, and buying it and selling it and being put into jail for absurdly long times on account of it. I don't have statistics handy but surely you know the score -- our prisons are bursting at the seams, and the racial socioeconomic divide is still prevalent, thanks mostly to the drug war. It doesn't matter if you think people should smoke pot or not, or if you think that most pro-legalization advocates only want to get high themselves. What matters is that the drug war is a terribly expensive, destructive mistake and it needs to stop, now. Think about it.
$65,000 is not sued out of existence, nor is it something you can retire on. It is the amount of money this woman would have earned through honest work, doing her job.
Now, since she didn't actually have to go to the trouble to do that work, and can spend that time pursuing some other opportunity, then perhaps a full $65,000 reimbursement would be excessive.
It doesn't matter how big the ISP is. They went into business; that involves risk. They had the opportunity to limit their liability via the language in their user agreement. They could have insured themselves against such things, perhaps. If they failed to take any precautions, then why do you defend them from having to take responsibility for losses that are a direct result of their own incompetence?
That's not insightful, it's idiotic. What's wrong with email? It usually works. There's a reasonable expectation that when a professional publishes her email address, that's an effective way to get into contact with her.
Do you follow up every email with a phone call?
You say maybe "she/Discovery" should have been smart enough... she didn't even realize they wanted to talk to her, precisely because she didn't get the email! Did you read the article?
Not all bounced mail gets returned to the sender. If the account holder has a contact form on their website that emails them the results, there's a good chance that bouncing those messages will result in lost messages (e.g., sent back to nobody@webserver.)
Generally, when an account is suspended, the ISP doesn't keep their website up. Kind of lacks teeth when you do it that way.
Typical American attitude (I can say that, I'm one too). Everybody has an accent -- just because you sound like the people you see on TV doesn't mean that you're talking the normal way and other people have a weird accent that's a deviation from that. Sorry, just... no.
Anyway, how about instead of the usual Joisey jokes, we make fun of you all for being too damn defensive?
Slashdot Mirror
Hang on... which words were misspelled?
I kid, I kid...
As for your second example... first of all, that homeless man is part of society as much as you are. I think that if I murdered you, or a member of your family, you'd consider it an unacceptable social loss. Second, I was speaking pragmatically -- if the drug war was actually successful in stopping drug cartels and whatnot, the case of its proponents would be stronger. But the opposite is true: rather than having a legal industry which can be regulated, we've got a black market which encourages things like crack cocaine because they're easier to transport due to their higher concentration.
Furthermore, because we treat drug users as criminals and jail them rather than offering them treatment, we are treating a social problem as a criminal one. Drug users are legitimate members of society, and jailing them unjustly is harmful to them. Denying them treatment if they need it is harmful to them. And it's harmful to society.
You want to see what happens when drugs are legalized? Look at the Netherlands. Hard drug use, especially among the young, is on a gradual decline, and marijuana use is no higher than in neighboring countries where it is illegal. Check out the link someone else posted in reply to my original post.
Never put salt in your eyes.
Never put salt in your eyes.
Never put salt in your eyes.
Always put salt in your eyes.
AAAAAAUUUGH!!!!
God I miss kids in the hall. Thanks for the reminder.
How does that happen? If a single disk has some chance of failure, say 0.01, in a given time period, then it seems like n disks should have a 0.01^n chance of all failing. For reasonable values of 0.01 and n (heh), the odds against simultaneous failure should be vanishingly small even if single disks fail fairly often. Is there a cascade failure effect or something?
And, let you think I'm asking because I'm simply thickheaded, "Daisy."
I thought you weren't supposed to put aluminum in the microwave...
Do they still think they're the Beatles?
She's pregnant.
No, but it would suck the blood right out of your neck. Hey, at least blood has iron in it.' What's the deal with iron and magnets, anyway? Why just iron? Why's it so special?
That's great -- a new standard unit. For area, it's football fields or the state of Texas. For temperature, it's Winnipeg.
There's a good reason for making the point that people are going to use drugs whether or not they're illegal. That reason is that the stated intent of the drug war is to stop people from using drugs. Clearly it is not accomplishing that stated goal. All it has succeeded in doing is making drug use more dangerous and harmful, while lining the pockets of those who continue to push the anti-drug agenda. I think that, when possible, it's better to evaluate things in terms of benefit or cost to society rather than moral imperatives, simply because it's difficult to achieve consensus on the latter. Sure, for murder it's much easier. But how many people really believe that drug use, particularly for light drugs such as marijuana, is inherently immoral, so much so that we as a society cannot tolerate it regardless of whether it produces tangible detriment? It's a vice, to be sure, but so are things like alcohol and voting Republican.
But that's precisely the point -- people ARE smoking dope, and buying it and selling it and being put into jail for absurdly long times on account of it. I don't have statistics handy but surely you know the score -- our prisons are bursting at the seams, and the racial socioeconomic divide is still prevalent, thanks mostly to the drug war. It doesn't matter if you think people should smoke pot or not, or if you think that most pro-legalization advocates only want to get high themselves. What matters is that the drug war is a terribly expensive, destructive mistake and it needs to stop, now. Think about it.
Like anyone would take that bet. Blow me a freakin' smoke ring, Gandalf. Yoda 0wnZ j00.
Yeah.
I'll trade it for a copy of that pre-release DVD-rip of the movie. No, not TTT. ROTK. :)
Anyone who makes a Monty Python joke out of this will be sacked.
There must be somebody you can sue!
Okay, you can say "pneumatic" instead, then.
Or, um, just watching it at all really.
Now, since she didn't actually have to go to the trouble to do that work, and can spend that time pursuing some other opportunity, then perhaps a full $65,000 reimbursement would be excessive.
It doesn't matter how big the ISP is. They went into business; that involves risk. They had the opportunity to limit their liability via the language in their user agreement. They could have insured themselves against such things, perhaps. If they failed to take any precautions, then why do you defend them from having to take responsibility for losses that are a direct result of their own incompetence?
Do you follow up every email with a phone call?
You say maybe "she/Discovery" should have been smart enough... she didn't even realize they wanted to talk to her, precisely because she didn't get the email! Did you read the article?
Generally, when an account is suspended, the ISP doesn't keep their website up. Kind of lacks teeth when you do it that way.
Hypocrisy does not invalidate a point. Besides, "discrete"/"discreet" is a particularly geek-friendly flub to make fun of.
Typical American attitude (I can say that, I'm one too). Everybody has an accent -- just because you sound like the people you see on TV doesn't mean that you're talking the normal way and other people have a weird accent that's a deviation from that. Sorry, just... no.
Anyway, how about instead of the usual Joisey jokes, we make fun of you all for being too damn defensive?