Maybe there IS some kind of crazy connection between the moon hoax idiots and the twits who claim Obama is a "secret muslim". People have been making the same claims about Neil Armstrong for years...
, but on a more realistic scale of political parties worldwide, the GOP would be a very conservative nationalist party, and the dems a center-right party.
We DO have genuinely left-wing parties here in the states, but they aren't allowed into the debates (which are controlled by the 2 major parties) so most folks never hear about them. I'm talking about the Green Party, Socialist Party USA, Socialist Worker's party, Revolutionary Communist Party, Worker's World Party, etc.
Anyone who thinks Obama or the Dems represent any kind of "left" or progressive ideology really need to wake up.
, who help fund election campaigns. Legalizing drugs would piss off:
The Law Enforcement lobby (fewer cops needed, those who remain would need to actually work for a living rather than relying on drug users and street dealers for easy busts).
The Prison-Industrial Complex (Fewer prison guards needed, no more new cells being built, corporations lose access to cheap prison labor for call centers and the like)
The Pharmaceutical Industry (people start self-medicating some conditions with plants they can grow themselves, rather than patented chemicals)
The Liquor/Beer Industry (beer sales might take a nosedive if it was just as legal to smoke some Buds as to drink a Bud).
Organized Religion (A psychedelic/entheogenic renaissance wouldn't bode too well for the traditional religion industry)
And of course the petrochenical/energy/paper/agricultural interests who profit by keeping industrial hemp illegal might not care for legalization efforts, either...
I would tend to agree, but a worst-case EMP event over the US wouldn't exactly be a victimless event. We have become so dependent on technology that in many cases it is literally a matter of life and death. Hospital life support systems, control/cooling systems at nuke plants or chemical plants, aircraft in the air at the time of the blast, emergency communications and response vehicles, etc.
Such an event would cause a substantial loss of life almost immediately, with residual losses ongoing for quite a while afterwards as the society breaks down...
The Starfish Prime test was conducted in 1962, back before "street lamps, circuit breakers, cars and radio stations" were all packed full of semiconductor devices.
Older electromechanical or vacuum tube based systems were far more robust against EMP than modern VLSI electronics would be.
Depending on what line of BS they try to use, you go right into one of the followup questions from the linked website:
The first possible answer is yes, you agree.
The second possible answer is no, you do not agree, in which case you should be able to provide a list of studies of drug policy comparable in quality and quantity to the list I have provided.
The third possible answer is that you don't have a clue what the scholarly evidence says because you have never read the most basic research on the subject. Their Answer
The answers that I have gotten to this question include:
The scholarly evidence is not important. (From Bob Martinez, former Drug Czar)
Is the scholarly evidence not important in science, medicine, and every other field of law? Or is it not important only when it comes to drug policy?
I don't think anyone really knows the answer.
Can you name any major study of drug policy which supported what we are currently doing? (They probably can't.) So we have ten major studies, including the largest studies ever conducted by the governments of the United States, Britain, and Canada, which supported decriminalization and none that supported the current policy. Wouldn't you say that is the overwhelming weight of the evidence?
Everyone has their list of studies which they can make up to show anything they want.
OK, so show me any comparable list of studies that you have in support of the drug war. (So far, in more than six years of debates, no opponent has ever mentioned a single major study of drug policy which supports the current drug war.)
I don't have a clue.
That is precisely the problem. You want to tell us what drug policy should be when you have not even bothered to read the most basic research on the subject.
Here is a list of studies . . . .
A few people have tried to bluff their way through by citing studies about organized crime, alcohol, or something else. They may also cite magazine articles, books by particular authors, editorials or other opinion pieces, etc. Examine each one carefully. Is it really a comprehensive study of the history and facts relating to these drug laws, or is it just one person's view? Did it consider all evidence and all views? Was it comprehensive, or was it a simple magazine article of a few pages? Did the author have an axe to grind or something to gain from the opinion expressed? Does the work contain a complete discussion of the history of the laws? Does it consider the laws in the context of similar facts about tobacco and alcohol?
People have mentioned a lot of different things in response to this question, but none of them have met the criteria of a serious study of drug policy. Smokescreen
Excuse me for interrupting, but that was not an essay question. That was multiple choice. What is your answer; yes, no, or don't have a clue?
I have here a list of every major study of drug policy in the last fifty years. Every one of them recommended decriminalization. Do you agree that the overwhelming weight of the scholarly evidence on drug policy supports decriminalization?
It costs about half a million dollars to put a single drug user in prison, which includes $150,000 for arrest and prosecution, about $150,000 for a new prison cell, and about $30,000 per year times at least five years. For the same cost we can provide treatment or education for more than one hundred people. Which do you think is the better deal?
And, similar to Baldwin, he is no friend of religious freedom. He was responsible for trying to ban the practice of the Wiccan faith from US military bases:
Some vendors of CAD/CAM software require each machine running their software to be able to communicate with a "license server" on your network before the software will run. If you buy a sitewide license for say, GibbsCAM, you need to designate a single box on your network as the "license server", and each workstation or machine running the package will "phone home" to the license server periodically to make sure that you have a valid license.
Because having Hillary on the ticket would have also solidified the right-wing whackos who are only lukewarm on McCain to vote for him as a vote AGAINST Hillary, who they see as some kind of antichrist figure?
Slashdot Mirror
Couldn't competitors make equally functional, if incompatible, building blocks with square or hexagonal studs?
Studs that aren't round would pose a problem when you tried to build a hinged assembly, where one block pivots on the stud of another.
Would you ban sales of PVC pipe? Hairspray?? Potatoes???
Exactly what type of restrictions would have prevented such a Darwin Award contestant from blowing up his basement?
Maybe there IS some kind of crazy connection between the moon hoax idiots and the twits who claim Obama is a "secret muslim". People have been making the same claims about Neil Armstrong for years...
http://urbanlegends.about.com/b/2006/09/16/was-neil-armstrong-the-first-muslim-on-the-moon.htm
, but on a more realistic scale of political parties worldwide, the GOP would be a very conservative nationalist party, and the dems a center-right party.
We DO have genuinely left-wing parties here in the states, but they aren't allowed into the debates (which are controlled by the 2 major parties) so most folks never hear about them. I'm talking about the Green Party, Socialist Party USA, Socialist Worker's party, Revolutionary Communist Party, Worker's World Party, etc.
Anyone who thinks Obama or the Dems represent any kind of "left" or progressive ideology really need to wake up.
, who help fund election campaigns. Legalizing drugs would piss off:
The Law Enforcement lobby (fewer cops needed, those who remain would need to actually work for a living rather than relying on drug users and street dealers for easy busts).
The Prison-Industrial Complex (Fewer prison guards needed, no more new cells being built, corporations lose access to cheap prison labor for call centers and the like)
The Pharmaceutical Industry (people start self-medicating some conditions with plants they can grow themselves, rather than patented chemicals)
The Liquor/Beer Industry (beer sales might take a nosedive if it was just as legal to smoke some Buds as to drink a Bud).
Organized Religion (A psychedelic/entheogenic renaissance wouldn't bode too well for the traditional religion industry)
And of course the petrochenical/energy/paper/agricultural interests who profit by keeping industrial hemp illegal might not care for legalization efforts, either...
They did that one already.
Twice, in fact.
First one failed to get airborne, but it did get moving pretty fast.
On the revisit, the (much larger) rocket motors failed immediately on ignition, destroying the car in a huge fireball.
except their prices are higher, their quality generally lower, and they will not sell to the general public....
I would tend to agree, but a worst-case EMP event over the US wouldn't exactly be a victimless event. We have become so dependent on technology that in many cases it is literally a matter of life and death. Hospital life support systems, control/cooling systems at nuke plants or chemical plants, aircraft in the air at the time of the blast, emergency communications and response vehicles, etc.
Such an event would cause a substantial loss of life almost immediately, with residual losses ongoing for quite a while afterwards as the society breaks down...
The Starfish Prime test was conducted in 1962, back before "street lamps, circuit breakers, cars and radio stations" were all packed full of semiconductor devices.
Older electromechanical or vacuum tube based systems were far more robust against EMP than modern VLSI electronics would be.
Mmmm... beer.
Ewww... BAD beer.
Depending on what line of BS they try to use, you go right into one of the followup questions from the linked website:
The first possible answer is yes, you agree.
The second possible answer is no, you do not agree, in which case you should be able to provide a list of studies of drug policy comparable in quality and quantity to the list I have provided.
The third possible answer is that you don't have a clue what the scholarly evidence says because you have never read the most basic research on the subject.
Their Answer
The answers that I have gotten to this question include:
The scholarly evidence is not important. (From Bob Martinez, former Drug Czar)
Is the scholarly evidence not important in science, medicine, and every other field of law? Or is it not important only when it comes to drug policy?
I don't think anyone really knows the answer.
Can you name any major study of drug policy which supported what we are currently doing? (They probably can't.) So we have ten major studies, including the largest studies ever conducted by the governments of the United States, Britain, and Canada, which supported decriminalization and none that supported the current policy. Wouldn't you say that is the overwhelming weight of the evidence?
Everyone has their list of studies which they can make up to show anything they want.
OK, so show me any comparable list of studies that you have in support of the drug war. (So far, in more than six years of debates, no opponent has ever mentioned a single major study of drug policy which supports the current drug war.)
I don't have a clue.
That is precisely the problem. You want to tell us what drug policy should be when you have not even bothered to read the most basic research on the subject.
Here is a list of studies . . . .
A few people have tried to bluff their way through by citing studies about organized crime, alcohol, or something else. They may also cite magazine articles, books by particular authors, editorials or other opinion pieces, etc. Examine each one carefully. Is it really a comprehensive study of the history and facts relating to these drug laws, or is it just one person's view? Did it consider all evidence and all views? Was it comprehensive, or was it a simple magazine article of a few pages? Did the author have an axe to grind or something to gain from the opinion expressed? Does the work contain a complete discussion of the history of the laws? Does it consider the laws in the context of similar facts about tobacco and alcohol?
People have mentioned a lot of different things in response to this question, but none of them have met the criteria of a serious study of drug policy.
Smokescreen
Excuse me for interrupting, but that was not an essay question. That was multiple choice. What is your answer; yes, no, or don't have a clue?
do you think we ought to put prison for drugs in order to have the best results?
http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/ACTIVIST/showstop.htm
I have here a list of every major study of drug policy in the last fifty years. Every one of them recommended decriminalization. Do you agree that the overwhelming weight of the scholarly evidence on drug policy supports decriminalization?
It costs about half a million dollars to put a single drug user in prison, which includes $150,000 for arrest and prosecution, about $150,000 for a new prison cell, and about $30,000 per year times at least five years. For the same cost we can provide treatment or education for more than one hundred people. Which do you think is the better deal?
Me Too!
Politicians and DEA bureaucrats PROscribe certain drugs...
...I'm voting for him because a vote for someone who wants to put me in prison for smoking pot and hiring hookers is WORSE than a wasted vote.
You do know that Bob Barr was one of the most committed supporters of the War on Drugs in the congress, right?
http://forums.cannabisculture.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showthreaded&Number=1416835
And, similar to Baldwin, he is no friend of religious freedom. He was responsible for trying to ban the practice of the Wiccan faith from US military bases:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/burn_aw2.htm
Such a record qualifies him to run on the Libertarian Party ticket?
It just might provide enough time for a DUI suspect to sober up enough to pass the test.
But since court records are public, wouldn't any source code entered as an exhibit in a courtroom automatically become a matter of public record?
Some vendors of CAD/CAM software require each machine running their software to be able to communicate with a "license server" on your network before the software will run. If you buy a sitewide license for say, GibbsCAM, you need to designate a single box on your network as the "license server", and each workstation or machine running the package will "phone home" to the license server periodically to make sure that you have a valid license.
, which hosts an onboard amateur station using the callsign NA1SS:
http://www.arrl.org/ARISS/
Many of the astronauts have ham radio licenses.
If they went to college in India, and came here on an H1B.....
, relax, and twist up a fatty:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E66lier98PI
or does "free range" sand not cause cancer?
Because having Hillary on the ticket would have also solidified the right-wing whackos who are only lukewarm on McCain to vote for him as a vote AGAINST Hillary, who they see as some kind of antichrist figure?