I'm sure the lads at the Congressional budget office also wrote their data to favor clinton (*rolls eyes*). Theres a difference between debt and deficit. Clinton, in his final years, is the only president not to have a deficit in recent history. That means money could actually be put to paying interest without having to borrow more money. Whether he covered principal or not doesnt matter.
Yes, if you are already in debt and you make just as much as you spend, you can still end up further in debt. Thats how interest works.
When inflation skyrockets, the real debt goes down anyway.
So you are, lets say, 25 now. Probably weigh at least twice what you did when you were in 3rd grade, with completely different metabolism levels. And you are taking the same dosage you took when you were 10? If anything, the dose should have increased simply because of increased body mass.
But regardless, its anecdotal evidence. Studies have shown amphetamines have a high abuse potential, which is defined by tolerance buildup and withdrawal. Its why its a controlled substance.
You are quite wrong, clearly not a doctor or pharmacist, and I hope you dont try to spread these ideas as fact easily. First, tolerance buildup in amphetamine (dexedrine and adderall) as well as amphetamine derivatives is very easy and happens very quickly. It happens with children all the time. By the time kids reach high school or college, if they have taken amphetamine for a while, they are definitely on a significantly higher dosage than before and/or redosing more often (twice a day, three times a day, or taking time released amphetamines to make up for it) just to achieve baseline.
To compare first doses of amphetamine to cocaine and reach a conclusion is ridiculous, as they are completely different drugs. Are you serious? By the same standard you can say "a quick back of the envelope calculation suggests that first doses of MDMA are substantially lower than cocaine, so tolerance should not be an issue." Which is, of course, completely false. Amphetamine and amphetamine derivatives are notorious for having tolerance buildup as well as a substantial, though not terrible, comedown.
As far as ritalin vs. dexedrine vs. amphetamine comedowns, your suggestion that its because of metabolism rates is at best greatly overly simplified. It may be, but it also probably lends more to the fact that different amphetamine salts tend to have different affinities for serotonin vs. dopamine vs. adrenaline levels and this would be expected to play a significant role.
I agree that they can be used to train the brain though. Although, that is purely anecdotal and I dont know of any studies that have looked into this.
methylphenidate is a derivatized amphetamine, and works generally in the same sense by blocking monoamine transport from the synaptic gap into the presynaptic neuron. Although methylphenidate may show a higher affinity for dopamine over adrenaline or serotonin. I am not sure. But they all work generally in the same way.
francis crick, nobel prize winner of DNA double helix fame, reportedly took daily doses of LSD (although below the threshold for true tripping, although i believe he did that as well).
Plus, they can _always_ throw something like "not having driver's license on person" or the even more vague "obstruction of a law enforcement officer." (Regardless of whether or not its true).
If you think I am paranoid, look up Kathryn Johnston. The police lied to a judge, got a no-knock warrant, and shot up a house with *no* history of drugs or drug suspicion. Then they tried to cover it up. If they are willing to do all that, believe that they will lie about a traffic offense. The police got caught because it happened to be an 88 year old woman. If it were a 22 year old black male, noone would have thought twice. Just another thug. Of course it doesn't happen in your neighborhood, but dont think that means it doesnt happen at all.
In atlanta they can search any part of your car search incident to arrest, except for *possibly* the glovebox and trunk (it will take a court challenge to see about these two spots). What is vague is if you are arrested outside the car (for something like, say, DUI), then are they allowed to search in the car. Since, technically the arrest did not happen in the car and therefore the car isn't the immediate area, and possibly not subject to a search. Of course, if you can afford to hire a lawyer that can make these arguments, chances are the DA is going to negotiate a plea deal down to some misdemeanor that will come off your record and some community service.
In Atlanta it was illegal (an arrestable offense) to be in certain areas of the city that were unless you lived in the immediate area. You could get arrested just for driving through a certain part of the city, and have your car searched *search incident to arrest*. Just for driving in a certain area, and doing nothing else wrong.
Heres the problem with all your doctrines. They work for people who have money and can challenge them. Thats not the majority of the population. So what happens is (in Atlanta at least), if you get pulled over, arrested, and your car searched without your consent-- if they find something then you are arrested for whatever they find, and the original charges get lost in the wrap sheet (Sure, the rich upper class kids get a lawyer that beats the charge, but thats not most of the population). If they don't find anything, you go to jail for the original charge which is almost always dropped at first hearing. Its incredible how many of the charges on people in jail are for a vague traffic offense (like making an illegal turn), then finding some sort of contraband. And guess what, most people (especially the people targeted by police, and I am talking race among other things) don't have a good enough lawyer to challenge the initial traffic offense.
And no, there is no right to possess contraband. But there is a right to privacy. You are supposed to have to *consent* to a search, or have a judge rule there is reasonable evidence. The way it is now, a police officer makes that decision and that is overstepping the powers of law enforcement officers. You get pulled over for driving in a certain neighborhood, a cop asks to search your car. You *have* to say yes, or else you get arrested (lawfully) JUST for being in the wrong part of town and your car gets searched anyway.
Clearly you dont know what "search incident to arrest" means. It really is one of the most egregious laws on the books.
A policeman can arrest you for anything, whether its valid or not is to be decided in the courts later. After the arrest, they can search the "area" you were arrested in. Anything they find, even if its not related to why you were arrested, is fair game to be used against you for new charges.
I will give you an example (that actually happened). You are pulled over for speeding. The cop asks if he can search your car, you say "no" and are within your rights to do so. The cop arrests you for the speeding offense (plus, if he wants he can throw something vague on there like 'obstruction' that will get thrown out by a judge), and then searches your card "search incident to arrest." Anything he finds, whether it be your laptop or anything else can be used against you. If you dont have anything bad in your car, well the judge will drop the obstruction charge and most likely the speeding at your first hearing. You can't complain, because nothing was done that was illegal.
No warrant. No 'probable cause' to deal with. Just police discretion. It happens all the time. Maybe its time to call you.
I am not talking about electrolysis. That is where your issue comes in. That would mean using photovoltaic cells to convert solar energy into electricity, then using the electricity to drive H2O redox. There would be no net affect here (other than for transportation).
I am referring more along the lines of synthetic photosynthesis. Clearly, it has not been accomplished yet. But it is the long term solution.
By 2050, estimates say we will need an additional 15-20TW of energy. And we will, eventually, either run out of oil or heat our planet to death. IF we max out every other method of fuel we can achieve:
biomass: 7 TW available from the entire agricultural land mass of the planet (excluding the area required to house a population of 9 billion people);
wind on land, 2.1 TW from saturating the entire class 3 (the wind speed required for sustainable energy generation, 5.1 m/s at 10 m above the ground) global land mass with wind mills;
nuclear, 8 TW of nuclear energy requiring the construction of 8000 new nuclear power plants (to generate this energy, one new nuclear power plant needs to be built every 2 days until 2050);
and hydroelectric, 1.5 TW left to tap by damming all available rivers.
And that only adds up to ~19TW. ANd clearly those scenarios are theoeretical maximum, if we cover the entire planet in biomass and wind mills and build a new nuke plant every 2 days. The ONLY long term solution, unless a miracle paradigm shifting discovery is made, is to use solar power. Convert the solar energy into chemical energy that can be transported. Most likely this will involve H2O --> oxygen and some form of reduced hydrogen (just like what biofuels already are).
When you say "solar power is already expensive" you are talking about the process direct conversion of light into electricity. Which is NOT what I am talking about. I am not talking about using a photovoltaic cell to drive electrolytic cleavage of water, just so that Hydrogen can be transported. I am talking about developing chemical transport to convert light energy into chemical energy (synthetic photosynthesis, in principle). It is not here yet. There is a nobel prize waiting for someone who can accomplish it.
So, uh, how do you get the electricity from the currently-in-the-sunshine Sahara to my currently-in-the-dark house in Canada? Big wires? And you expect to have anything left at my end?
Of course, we have to build those giant solar panels too. Computer chip manufacturers have taken quite a bit of flack for the toxic chemicals used in their manufacturing processes. Their product is measured in square millimetres. I know! Let's scale that up and pump out some stuff measured in square kilometres! I dont get why so many people take your viewpoint. Yeah, it would require a lot. But look at what we currently do now: We dig deep into the ground in the Mideast and Alaska and then have huge oil pipelines shipping the stuff to refineries, then refine it, package it, etc. Its a huge operation just as solar would be once the technology arrives. Think about if wind was our main power source now and someone suggested switching to oil. Your response would probably be:
" So, uh, how do you get the oil from the 10000 feet underground wells in Iraq into my current house in Canada? Big pipelines? And you expect to have anything left at my end?"
the best long term solution is to use solar energy to power some endothermic reaction, (ideally) such as the oxidation of H2O to hydrogen gas and oxygen. Hydrogen gas can then be used as fuel, generating water as the byproduct. Then water goes back into the reaction. Totally cyclical and reusable.
They already filter many search strings related to finding credit card numbers or social security numbers. Search strings like:
"visa 4356000000000000..4356999999999999" ; which normally could be used to turn up a list of visa credit card numbers. Something similar can be done with social security numbers, although I dont remember the exact number range.
isn't this ultimately what it comes to, though? It's okay to kill cows for food (way past levels that are "neccessary" for survival). It is okay to kill a plant or organisms with no central nervous system. It is okay to kill fish or deer for sport. It is not okay to kill dogs as part of a gambling operation.
It is okay to kill some people (saddam Hussein). It is not okay to kill other people (JFK). In some cultures it is okay to kill people for sacrifice to gods, not okay to kill them in other situations. etc. etc. etc.
The point is exactly as you said. Killing is wrong when it makes you feel bad. You can try to clarify your ground rules as much as you want ("killing is bad if you are killing cells that could eventually become a human, but okay if the cells couldnt develop"). But in the end, thats only trying to define what makes you feel bad and what doesnt. Otherwise, you must either take the position that "all killing is bad" or that "all killing is okay."
That's correct, the scores are normalized so that the distributions are the same. This means you *can't* compare scores across years. If you did, you would find that, amazingly, the distributions were the same. But have the students stayed the same? Nope. Have the questions stayed the same? No again. You are wrong. Each SAT has a section that doesnt count for that year's grading but is for future tests. So lets say I take the SAT and get a 1400, and then on the experimental section I get 80% of the questions right. Well, this experimental section will be used next year as part of the test, and a correlation will be done where 80% correct = 1400.
So it is not normalized based on the year you take it. It is correlated to the kids who took it last year, and what score they got. Of course, its a much more complicated algorithm spread out over millions of students. But, in essence, the questions *are the same* and the statistics are mind numbing so that it stays fair. Its actually a very smart system.
So, if thats the case, then why dont we just make it illegal to smoke marijuana and then drive. Instead of making it illegal to smoke marijuana at all?
Look man, I dont know how to tell you this, but you are wrong. The rules of blackjack vary by state and casino, so there are no "definite odds". However, the only way the player can get the edge is if EVERY rule is in favor of the player (dealer stands on soft 17, late surrender allowed, lose only original bet on dealer blackjack, unlimited splits on any card including hit/split aces, etc) AND only one deck is used AND the cards are shuffled after every time.
Otherwise, the odds are in the houses favor. Two decks or greater(which there almost always are): house has advantage almost regardless of rules.
Placeholder cards instead of reshuffling every hand (which there almost always are): House gets the edge.
Cant hitsplit aces (common rule): house gets edge.
The only time i have EVER seen the rules configured in a way that the player has the edge was on a cruise for a limited time only. Every other casino/reservation has them tuned to at least give the house a slight edge.
Supposedly the cat which we were repeteadly shown in the beginning but not in the end, and didnt know if he was killed or not, represented shroedingers cat. Which is what ended up happening to Tony.
Dont forget another big one: driving while white through an all black neighborhood. In fact, this is a big one since cops assume that there is no reason for a white person to be in black neighborhoods other than to buy drugs.
Here they will pull you over, put you in the backseat of their car with cuffs (although this does not mean you are arrested), and search your car without saying a word. I believe that certain areas are designated high drug areas which means that just by being in them there is probable cause for search. Either way, if they search your car and find something and it doesnt matter whether it was legal or not. Leave that up to the lawyers. If they search your car and dont find anything, well you shouldnt have been driving through that part of town anyway.
Its called obstruction of justice followed by search incident to arrest.
What it means is this: you refuse a search from a police officer. He arrests you for obstuction of a law enforcement officer. Note that this, by law, is an action which impedes on the investigation of a police officer. It can be justified by almost ANYTHING. Here in georgia it was used when a guy tried to take a picture of the police on a public street. It can refer to you being an asshole to the cop (most common), but not outside your rights. Basically, if a cop wants to arrest you for something but you havent really done anything wrong, he can find a way to allege obstruction of justice.
Once you are arrested, a cop can search you and your car via search incident to arrest. If they find something, well great that obstruction charge just gets lost and you are a criminal cause they found something. If they dont find anything, you go to jail, go to court, get the charges dropped, and its all just a huge pain in the ass. Unless you live in fulton county (atlanta), in which case you go to jail, go to court, get the case dropped, then go back to jail and sit there for 3 days because fulton county is so badly understaffed.
Yeah, because the Batista government before Castro, who was heavily supported by the USA by the way, was SO much better than Catro.
What makes you think if there was a USA supported 'democracy' in Cuba it would be better than Castro? It has already happened, and it was much worse. There's a reason Castro came into power under amazingly popular support. It was the USA...
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure the lads at the Congressional budget office
also wrote their data to favor clinton (*rolls eyes*). Theres a difference between debt and deficit. Clinton, in his final years, is the only president not to have a deficit in recent history. That means money could actually be put to paying interest without having to borrow more money. Whether he covered principal or not doesnt matter.
Yes, if you are already in debt and you make just as much as you spend, you can still end up further in debt. Thats how interest works.
When inflation skyrockets, the real debt goes down anyway.
Look at the Congressional budget office historical links:
www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf ..
The only time there was a budget SURPLUS (meaning we made more than we spent) in recent history is under Clinton.
maybe this is what you are looking for?
So you are, lets say, 25 now. Probably weigh at least twice what you did when you were in 3rd grade, with completely different metabolism levels. And you are taking the same dosage you took when you were 10? If anything, the dose should have increased simply because of increased body mass.
But regardless, its anecdotal evidence. Studies have shown amphetamines have a high abuse potential, which is defined by tolerance buildup and withdrawal. Its why its a controlled substance.
You are quite wrong, clearly not a doctor or pharmacist, and I hope you dont try to spread these ideas as fact easily. First, tolerance buildup in amphetamine (dexedrine and adderall) as well as amphetamine derivatives is very easy and happens very quickly. It happens with children all the time. By the time kids reach high school or college, if they have taken amphetamine for a while, they are definitely on a significantly higher dosage than before and/or redosing more often (twice a day, three times a day, or taking time released amphetamines to make up for it) just to achieve baseline.
To compare first doses of amphetamine to cocaine and reach a conclusion is ridiculous, as they are completely different drugs. Are you serious? By the same standard you can say "a quick back of the envelope calculation suggests that first doses of MDMA are substantially lower than cocaine, so tolerance should not be an issue." Which is, of course, completely false. Amphetamine and amphetamine derivatives are notorious for having tolerance buildup as well as a substantial, though not terrible, comedown.
As far as ritalin vs. dexedrine vs. amphetamine comedowns, your suggestion that its because of metabolism rates is at best greatly overly simplified. It may be, but it also probably lends more to the fact that different amphetamine salts tend to have different affinities for serotonin vs. dopamine vs. adrenaline levels and this would be expected to play a significant role.
I agree that they can be used to train the brain though. Although, that is purely anecdotal and I dont know of any studies that have looked into this.
But please, dont give advice about stimulants.
methylphenidate is a derivatized amphetamine, and works generally in the same sense by blocking monoamine transport from the synaptic gap into the presynaptic neuron. Although methylphenidate may show a higher affinity for dopamine over adrenaline or serotonin. I am not sure. But they all work generally in the same way.
francis crick, nobel prize winner of DNA double helix fame, reportedly took daily doses of LSD (although below the threshold for true tripping, although i believe he did that as well).
Speeding gets you a ticket if you are non-suspicious, cooperative, and not in the wrong neighborhood. Otherwise, expect to be arrested. Its called police discretion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atwater_v._City_of_Lago_Vista
Plus, they can _always_ throw something like "not having driver's license on person" or the even more vague "obstruction of a law enforcement officer." (Regardless of whether or not its true).
If you think I am paranoid, look up Kathryn Johnston. The police lied to a judge, got a no-knock warrant, and shot up a house with *no* history of drugs or drug suspicion. Then they tried to cover it up. If they are willing to do all that, believe that they will lie about a traffic offense. The police got caught because it happened to be an 88 year old woman. If it were a 22 year old black male, noone would have thought twice. Just another thug. Of course it doesn't happen in your neighborhood, but dont think that means it doesnt happen at all.
In atlanta they can search any part of your car search incident to arrest, except for *possibly* the glovebox and trunk (it will take a court challenge to see about these two spots). What is vague is if you are arrested outside the car (for something like, say, DUI), then are they allowed to search in the car. Since, technically the arrest did not happen in the car and therefore the car isn't the immediate area, and possibly not subject to a search. Of course, if you can afford to hire a lawyer that can make these arguments, chances are the DA is going to negotiate a plea deal down to some misdemeanor that will come off your record and some community service.
In Atlanta it was illegal (an arrestable offense) to be in certain areas of the city that were unless you lived in the immediate area. You could get arrested just for driving through a certain part of the city, and have your car searched *search incident to arrest*. Just for driving in a certain area, and doing nothing else wrong.
Heres the problem with all your doctrines. They work for people who have money and can challenge them. Thats not the majority of the population. So what happens is (in Atlanta at least), if you get pulled over, arrested, and your car searched without your consent-- if they find something then you are arrested for whatever they find, and the original charges get lost in the wrap sheet (Sure, the rich upper class kids get a lawyer that beats the charge, but thats not most of the population). If they don't find anything, you go to jail for the original charge which is almost always dropped at first hearing. Its incredible how many of the charges on people in jail are for a vague traffic offense (like making an illegal turn), then finding some sort of contraband. And guess what, most people (especially the people targeted by police, and I am talking race among other things) don't have a good enough lawyer to challenge the initial traffic offense.
And no, there is no right to possess contraband. But there is a right to privacy. You are supposed to have to *consent* to a search, or have a judge rule there is reasonable evidence. The way it is now, a police officer makes that decision and that is overstepping the powers of law enforcement officers. You get pulled over for driving in a certain neighborhood, a cop asks to search your car. You *have* to say yes, or else you get arrested (lawfully) JUST for being in the wrong part of town and your car gets searched anyway.
Clearly you dont know what "search incident to arrest" means. It really is one of the most egregious laws on the books.
A policeman can arrest you for anything, whether its valid or not is to be decided in the courts later. After the arrest, they can search the "area" you were arrested in. Anything they find, even if its not related to why you were arrested, is fair game to be used against you for new charges.
I will give you an example (that actually happened). You are pulled over for speeding. The cop asks if he can search your car, you say "no" and are within your rights to do so. The cop arrests you for the speeding offense (plus, if he wants he can throw something vague on there like 'obstruction' that will get thrown out by a judge), and then searches your card "search incident to arrest." Anything he finds, whether it be your laptop or anything else can be used against you. If you dont have anything bad in your car, well the judge will drop the obstruction charge and most likely the speeding at your first hearing. You can't complain, because nothing was done that was illegal.
No warrant. No 'probable cause' to deal with. Just police discretion. It happens all the time. Maybe its time to call you.
I am not talking about electrolysis. That is where your issue comes in. That would mean using photovoltaic cells to convert solar energy into electricity, then using the electricity to drive H2O redox. There would be no net affect here (other than for transportation).
I am referring more along the lines of synthetic photosynthesis. Clearly, it has not been accomplished yet. But it is the long term solution.
By 2050, estimates say we will need an additional 15-20TW of energy. And we will, eventually, either run out of oil or heat our planet to death. IF we max out every other method of fuel we can achieve:
biomass: 7 TW available from the entire agricultural land mass of the planet (excluding the area required to house a population of 9 billion people);
wind on land, 2.1 TW from saturating the entire class 3 (the wind speed required for
sustainable energy generation, 5.1 m/s at 10 m above the ground) global land mass with wind mills;
nuclear, 8 TW of nuclear energy requiring the construction of 8000 new nuclear power plants (to generate this energy, one new nuclear power plant needs to be built every 2 days until 2050);
and hydroelectric, 1.5 TW left to tap by damming all available rivers.
And that only adds up to ~19TW. ANd clearly those scenarios are theoeretical maximum, if we cover the entire planet in biomass and wind mills and build a new nuke plant every 2 days. The ONLY long term solution, unless a miracle paradigm shifting discovery is made, is to use solar power. Convert the solar energy into chemical energy that can be transported. Most likely this will involve H2O --> oxygen and some form of reduced hydrogen (just like what biofuels already are).
When you say "solar power is already expensive" you are talking about the process direct conversion of light into electricity. Which is NOT what I am talking about. I am not talking about using a photovoltaic cell to drive electrolytic cleavage of water, just so that Hydrogen can be transported. I am talking about developing chemical transport to convert light energy into chemical energy (synthetic photosynthesis, in principle). It is not here yet. There is a nobel prize waiting for someone who can accomplish it.
Of course, we have to build those giant solar panels too. Computer chip manufacturers have taken quite a bit of flack for the toxic chemicals used in their manufacturing processes. Their product is measured in square millimetres. I know! Let's scale that up and pump out some stuff measured in square kilometres! I dont get why so many people take your viewpoint. Yeah, it would require a lot. But look at what we currently do now: We dig deep into the ground in the Mideast and Alaska and then have huge oil pipelines shipping the stuff to refineries, then refine it, package it, etc. Its a huge operation just as solar would be once the technology arrives. Think about if wind was our main power source now and someone suggested switching to oil. Your response would probably be:
" So, uh, how do you get the oil from the 10000 feet underground wells in Iraq into my current house in Canada? Big pipelines? And you expect to have anything left at my end?"
the best long term solution is to use solar energy to power some endothermic reaction, (ideally) such as the oxidation of H2O to hydrogen gas and oxygen. Hydrogen gas can then be used as fuel, generating water as the byproduct. Then water goes back into the reaction. Totally cyclical and reusable.
They already filter many search strings related to finding credit card numbers or social security numbers. Search strings like:
"visa 4356000000000000..4356999999999999" ; which normally could be used to turn up a list of visa credit card numbers. Something similar can be done with social security numbers, although I dont remember the exact number range.
Thats not an embryo, dickhead.
isn't this ultimately what it comes to, though? It's okay to kill cows for food (way past levels that are "neccessary" for survival). It is okay to kill a plant or organisms with no central nervous system. It is okay to kill fish or deer for sport. It is not okay to kill dogs as part of a gambling operation.
It is okay to kill some people (saddam Hussein). It is not okay to kill other people (JFK). In some cultures it is okay to kill people for sacrifice to gods, not okay to kill them in other situations. etc. etc. etc.
The point is exactly as you said. Killing is wrong when it makes you feel bad. You can try to clarify your ground rules as much as you want ("killing is bad if you are killing cells that could eventually become a human, but okay if the cells couldnt develop"). But in the end, thats only trying to define what makes you feel bad and what doesnt. Otherwise, you must either take the position that "all killing is bad" or that "all killing is okay."
So it is not normalized based on the year you take it. It is correlated to the kids who took it last year, and what score they got. Of course, its a much more complicated algorithm spread out over millions of students. But, in essence, the questions *are the same* and the statistics are mind numbing so that it stays fair. Its actually a very smart system.
So, if thats the case, then why dont we just make it illegal to smoke marijuana and then drive. Instead of making it illegal to smoke marijuana at all?
Look man, I dont know how to tell you this, but you are wrong. The rules of blackjack vary by state and casino, so there are no "definite odds". However, the only way the player can get the edge is if EVERY rule is in favor of the player (dealer stands on soft 17, late surrender allowed, lose only original bet on dealer blackjack, unlimited splits on any card including hit/split aces, etc) AND only one deck is used AND the cards are shuffled after every time.
Otherwise, the odds are in the houses favor. Two decks or greater(which there almost always are): house has advantage almost regardless of rules.
Placeholder cards instead of reshuffling every hand (which there almost always are): House gets the edge.
Cant hitsplit aces (common rule): house gets edge.
The only time i have EVER seen the rules configured in a way that the player has the edge was on a cruise for a limited time only. Every other casino/reservation has them tuned to at least give the house a slight edge.
Supposedly the cat which we were repeteadly shown in the beginning but not in the end, and didnt know if he was killed or not, represented shroedingers cat. Which is what ended up happening to Tony.
so something like this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Yd99gyE4jCk
Dont forget another big one: driving while white through an all black neighborhood. In fact, this is a big one since cops assume that there is no reason for a white person to be in black neighborhoods other than to buy drugs.
Here they will pull you over, put you in the backseat of their car with cuffs (although this does not mean you are arrested), and search your car without saying a word. I believe that certain areas are designated high drug areas which means that just by being in them there is probable cause for search. Either way, if they search your car and find something and it doesnt matter whether it was legal or not. Leave that up to the lawyers. If they search your car and dont find anything, well you shouldnt have been driving through that part of town anyway.
Its called obstruction of justice followed by search incident to arrest.
What it means is this: you refuse a search from a police officer. He arrests you for obstuction of a law enforcement officer. Note that this, by law, is an action which impedes on the investigation of a police officer. It can be justified by almost ANYTHING. Here in georgia it was used when a guy tried to take a picture of the police on a public street. It can refer to you being an asshole to the cop (most common), but not outside your rights. Basically, if a cop wants to arrest you for something but you havent really done anything wrong, he can find a way to allege obstruction of justice.
Once you are arrested, a cop can search you and your car via search incident to arrest. If they find something, well great that obstruction charge just gets lost and you are a criminal cause they found something. If they dont find anything, you go to jail, go to court, get the charges dropped, and its all just a huge pain in the ass. Unless you live in fulton county (atlanta), in which case you go to jail, go to court, get the case dropped, then go back to jail and sit there for 3 days because fulton county is so badly understaffed.
Yeah, because the Batista government before Castro, who was heavily supported by the USA by the way, was SO much better than Catro.
What makes you think if there was a USA supported 'democracy' in Cuba it would be better than Castro? It has already happened, and it was much worse. There's a reason Castro came into power under amazingly popular support. It was the USA...