>The Teddy Roosevelt saying is "speak softly...". >Many people say "talk softly", which sounds >like "walk softly".
Sure, but "walk TALL and carry a big stick" is a whole generation of irony removed from TR.
In other words, there's no need to speak or walk softly if you have no qualms against USING the big stick... And don't intend to do any talking anyhow.
I am thoroughly convinced that more people who use this epithet are quoting the 1973 film "Walking Tall" than are quoting Teddy Roosevelt. Roosevelt's meaning was, you could avoid using the stick.
Buford's meaning was, the stick is the solution. You won't have to speak, because dead men don't ask questions.
>Uhh... state employees... I highly doubt any >significant amount of them have been using >Windows XP or Office XP on a regular basis.
*Mass* *Tax* *Department*. We're not talking about social workers or the parole board! I'd be surprised if any of them have a vehicle older than 2002, and every consumer shiny-thing you can name, including the big tv, and a late-model computer with the os that it came with -- Windows XP.
>Oh how I wish that were true...or perhaps I'm >working for the wrong international company.
Your fundamental misunderstanding is that the comment applies to you -- working for a corporation. There is a world of difference between a civic or functionary position and a corporate one. It's not 100% of course, but there are lots of state government jobs where you practically can't be fired. Or rather, in practice you won't be fired just for being incompetent or lazy. More likely you will get promoted, on schedule, regardless of merit.
>Oh, so if I'm found not guilty, and the >government appeals, I'm free to go?
The same government cannot appeal. The Federal and State governments are considered separate, and can both try you if the crime was committed in both State and Federal jurisdictions. That may or may not be reasonable in your opinion, but it is an expression of the general will of the people, and it is a policy that could be changed if there were significant interest in changing it. (Never mind that the "will of the people" is expressed via apathy, instead of action).
>You have a fucked up legal system. Be man enough >to admit it.
Every legal, political, social, and economic system in the world has issues, and no system is even close to perfect. There is a matter of observer bias when evaluating the US system. More reports of problems, together with the enormous size of the systems (a huge Federal government, 50 State governments of various sizes and structures, and uncounted municipalities with their own legal systems), and a widespread prejudice which assumes the system is broken, all add up to "a fucked up legal system." This ignores the fact that, in general, the system works. There are certain enormous problems of course, and certain failings of the system are so outrageous as to be difficult to understand. But when the system works, which it does most of the time, it isn't newsworthy.
Nobody shouts from the rooftops about all the lawsuits that DIDN'T bankrupt the defendant, or about all the murders on death row that DID kill somebody.
Now, show me the country whose judicial system really works 100% of the time. Please choose only a country with a population of at least 100 million.
>[C]onsidering how much longer China has been here.
You cannot compare feudal China or imperial China to Communist China. Politically, what we know as "China" has only been in existance since 1949. The current "China" has thorougly eliminated all vestiges of the old "China", and today's economic, social, and political parameters are very different than everything before.
If you want to claim that "China" has been around for "much longer" than say, America, you would need to make a comparison based on the history of civilization, not contemporary politics.
We've all "been here" for the same amount of time, and "here" depends on your understanding of plate tectonics!
"If you're accused of a crime and prosecuted under state law in the state you reside, then acquitted, you can be tried again for the same crime by the feds."
The doctrine at work is Dual Sovreignty. The State cannot try you twice for the same crime, another State cannot try you, but since the State and the Federal government both have sovreignty over you, then you are subject to separate prosecution by both governments. It was an open question but was settled by the Supreme Court in one of the first Federal prosecutions for liquor under prohibition, US v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377 (1922).
So you can thank the War on Some Drugs for it, but it goes back much further than most people seem to realize.
The situation that made the double jeopardy clause seem so important to the framers of the US Constitution was that oppressive governments can and do repeatedly prosecute people until they reach the verdict they wanted. Because the government has unlimited resources to accomplish this, compared to those of any defendant, the situation is fundamentally unfair. But what's important to know about doctrines against double jeopardy is that they are not written into government documents just because some wise pre-industrial politician thought it would be a good idea, but because they were already absolutely sick and tired of seeing the exact same means of oppression being used against them. It was an issue that people were willing to kill or die over, and not some absract ideal that would be nice to have.
>My brother-in-law was in prison, and it's a >fucking resort.
Something tells me that if given the choice to return, he would not go. I'm sorry to have to disagree with you, but I have real doubts that your brother-in-law could get "anything he wanted, whenever he wanted" in prison. Cocaine? Civilian clothes? A handgun?
"so many students are in dept from loans to pay for college in the first place."
You're stepping a little closer to the root of society's problems here:
Many people believe they are entitled to things they cannot afford to pay for. They do not own their houses or cars, and even their clothes are often financed. They spend money they do not have and do not know how or when they will repay. And this is the *norm*.
You are only regarding the stereotype that the media portrays to you. The period after WWI was quite rough for America, and we were still recovering from this when WWII started.
Are you saying, shooting wars in South America? The difference between South America and Southeast Asia is that you couldn't drive to Vietnam and support the enemy:-) You could WALK to Colombia...
>Because terrorists are muslim, the religion of >islam should be banned.
Well, I'm not sure banning books would do much, because Americans do not really value literacy anymore. But banning "Islam" might actually affect more voters than banning "weed" did... There is a limit to how much power a government can grab for itself before an opposition party takes it away from them (and uses the same power for different ends). I don't think the current Administration has quite found its floor, but it's feeling for it.
>Hispanics are estimated to be 50% of the US' >population.
One thing I learned while working on the '92 campaign in Texas, was that many Latin people embrace systems of control. The Hispanic vote definitely helped Bush Sr. win Texas. Mexican Americans are not exactly known for their Libertarian views, and in Texas, they tend to vote Republican.
"You're assuming people would think intelligently about the subject, instead of just changing the status of what the majority were complaining about, instead of the whole category."
If I'm wrong then why does Marijuana == Heroin today?
>Why not? Because the people don't want it, or >because the Imperial Federal Government won't >allow it?
Both. The people who protest for reform are in denial about this, but the vast majority of Americans support the current policy. In situations where the people did successfully decriminialize controlled drugs, for example California 215, the Federal government rejected the States' authority to pass such laws.
>>Our society does not tolerate the use of >>dangerous drugs. > >False! Alcohol use and abuse is tolerated. >Furthermore, marijuana is not a dangerous drug.
If our society tolerates the use, manufacture, and distribution of dangerous drugs, why would we spend $11 billion dollars this year alone in attempting to suppress them?
>>Federal enforcement of drug control regulations >>is a success. > >False! The government can't keep drugs out of >prisons. What makes you think they do a good job >keeping it out of the hands of non-inamtes?
Your opinions are not shared by your representatives in Washington, nor by the majority of your countrymen. I take it you have personally tried to obtain narcotics in prison and succeeded? While I am sure that there are ways to get whatever you want in prison if you try hard enough, I would also suggest that you not count on it yourself if you happen to find yourself there.
>[T]here is no evidence that anything outside of >education is any more than marginally effective >at getting people to not use some drugs.
Precisely. But I cannot think of a better way to illustrate that point, than by applying the Federal government's case consistently, rather than making the arbitrary choices of what is allowed, and what is not, that we see today.
Was Laguardia overestimating, underestimating, or making up numbers that he thought sounded outrageous? He was speaking against nationwide enforcement, but let us consider NYC.
Today, New York City has 11 million people, and supports 82,000 police officers.
In 1930, the population was almost 7 million. The population has indeed grown, but perhaps not by as high a factor as one might expect. I have not found a reliable source for the number of NYC police officers in 1930, but I expect that if one compares the extent of the crime problems they faced to the dearth of any real ability to fight crime, the issue will not boil down as simply as "prohibition caused organized crime."
So in other words, you favor mob rule over rational legislation?
Do the "pub owners" have rights that coca growers did not? (Cocaine was not only legal, it was one of the main ingredients of over-the-counter drugs until 1914, when a lot of producers were put out of business by the Harrison act).
Whether our not you can control your drug habit, the fact remains that half of all automotive fatalities are caused by people who cannot.
There are also people who can handle amphetimines, heroin, cocaine, and almost everything else on the list. Why is it so clear that alcohol must be an exception?
"It seems obvious to me that if alcohol were classified as Schedule II, restrictions on all drugs in that category would have to be reduced to avoid riots."
We have a winner! You saw right through my argument and came back from the other side.
I believe if my case could be made more thorougly, with sufficient logos, even the staunchest conservative would see there is really no future for the current strategy.
So many people are arguing directly for reform, but they run up against the status quo, and an enormous problem of cognitive dissonance -- we spent $8 billion last year basically trying to stop people from smoking marijuana, and, somewhat collaterally managed to stop a relative few from using cocaine and heroin. This year we are spending $11 billion to accomplish the same goal.
It is precisely because we have so much invested in the strategy that the very idea of changing it will be rejected. Rejected so vehemently that even State laws are being ignored by Federal prosecutors. And protected so forcefully that the affected States do not even pretend to stand up for their authority.
A direct argument for reform will only be met with an even stricter interpretation of the current policy!
I propose that if by allowing the Federal government to strengthen the policy to its logical extent, simply by applying consistent reasoning to it, people will finally see that the direction the government has taken does not represent their interests or their will. I believe that will engender enormous changes for the greater good.
Despite what the millions in prison would say, the current government still manages to only oppress and disemfranchise a small fringe element. But if the erosion of rights represented in issues such as the "drug war" were applied to other areas that affected less of a minority, less of a fringe, the process of reform will gain the momentum it needs.
I believe it takes a minimum of 12 years for such changes to truly come about under the American system. Unfortunately, the American people lose interest in anything that does not render instant gratification.
No. They were already well on their way. One of the strongest arguments the prohibitionists had was that liquor establishments were already engaging in corrupt business practices, and that saloons were as much about gambling and prostitution (already crimes) as they were about liquor.
The proliferation of organized crime was one of the factors that led to prohibition, not something that directly resulted from it.
"Organized crime" rose from the government's inability to fight crime during the post-war depression of the 1920s. How convenient is it that the depression coincides so nicely with the Prohibition period!
Note that my proposal is that Alcohol be Schedule II. It has known medical uses. Likewise, if tobacco has no medical uses, it belongs on Schedule I.
I believe the case against dangerous drugs has been made. Why are these drugs treated so fundamentally differently than say, heroin, marijuana, and cocaine?
The argument that there are huge amounts of money at stake in these industries will not sway me, nor should it be allowed to drive our national policy.
"In some states it is illegal to own/sell a bong... its consider drug paraphernalia. In other states it is perfectly legal and there are head shops all over the place."
Correct, and irrelevant. The problem is that online merchants are doing interstate commerce. The government's position is that even selling between states where the items are legal, the interstate commerce is not. Therefore it falls under Federal jurisdiction to prosecute.
Either through action or inaction, we have all been part of the process that put the current government in power. It didn't happen overnight, or with a single botched election, or any other one thing. I'm worried at the thought that the current government just might actually represent the will of the people... My God, what if it does?
Slashdot Mirror
>The Teddy Roosevelt saying is "speak softly...".
>Many people say "talk softly", which sounds
>like "walk softly".
Sure, but "walk TALL and carry a big stick" is a whole generation of irony removed from TR.
In other words, there's no need to speak or walk softly if you have no qualms against USING the big stick... And don't intend to do any talking anyhow.
I am thoroughly convinced that more people who use this epithet are quoting the 1973 film "Walking Tall" than are quoting Teddy Roosevelt. Roosevelt's meaning was, you could avoid using the stick.
Buford's meaning was, the stick is the solution. You won't have to speak, because dead men don't ask questions.
>Uhh... state employees... I highly doubt any
>significant amount of them have been using
>Windows XP or Office XP on a regular basis.
*Mass* *Tax* *Department*. We're not talking about social workers or the parole board! I'd be surprised if any of them have a vehicle older than 2002, and every consumer shiny-thing you can name, including the big tv, and a late-model computer with the os that it came with -- Windows XP.
Massachusetts. Not Arkansas or Kentucky.
>Oh how I wish that were true...or perhaps I'm
>working for the wrong international company.
Your fundamental misunderstanding is that the comment applies to you -- working for a corporation. There is a world of difference between a civic or functionary position and a corporate one. It's not 100% of course, but there are lots of state government jobs where you practically can't be fired. Or rather, in practice you won't be fired just for being incompetent or lazy. More likely you will get promoted, on schedule, regardless of merit.
>No living thing has any inherent rights. Such
>things are imagined by man, and bestowed by man.
The whole basis of the American government is that there are some things that come from a source higher than government, or man.
>Oh, so if I'm found not guilty, and the
>government appeals, I'm free to go?
The same government cannot appeal. The Federal and State governments are considered separate, and can both try you if the crime was committed in both State and Federal jurisdictions. That may or may not be reasonable in your opinion, but it is an expression of the general will of the people, and it is a policy that could be changed if there were significant interest in changing it. (Never mind that the "will of the people" is expressed via apathy, instead of action).
>You have a fucked up legal system. Be man enough
>to admit it.
Every legal, political, social, and economic system in the world has issues, and no system is even close to perfect. There is a matter of observer bias when evaluating the US system.
More reports of problems, together with the enormous size of the systems (a huge Federal government, 50 State governments of various sizes and structures, and uncounted municipalities with their own legal systems), and a widespread prejudice which assumes the system is broken, all add up to "a fucked up legal system." This ignores the fact that, in general, the system works. There are certain enormous problems of course, and certain failings of the system are so outrageous as to be difficult to understand. But when the system works, which it does most of the time, it isn't newsworthy.
Nobody shouts from the rooftops about all the lawsuits that DIDN'T bankrupt the defendant, or about all the murders on death row that DID kill somebody.
Now, show me the country whose judicial system really works 100% of the time. Please choose only a country with a population of at least 100 million.
>[C]onsidering how much longer China has been here.
You cannot compare feudal China or imperial China to Communist China. Politically, what we know as "China" has only been in existance since 1949.
The current "China" has thorougly eliminated all vestiges of the old "China", and today's economic, social, and political parameters are very different than everything before.
If you want to claim that "China" has been around for "much longer" than say, America, you would need to make a comparison based on the history of civilization, not contemporary politics.
We've all "been here" for the same amount of time, and "here" depends on your understanding of plate tectonics!
>Your numbers are crap.
My statistics are taken directly from official reports of the DEA.
If you have a problem, take it up with them, not me.
"If you're accused of a crime and prosecuted under state law in the state you reside, then acquitted, you can be tried again for the same crime by the feds."
The doctrine at work is Dual Sovreignty. The State cannot try you twice for the same crime, another State cannot try you, but since the State and the Federal government both have sovreignty over you, then you are subject to separate prosecution by both governments. It was an open question but was settled by the Supreme Court in one of the first Federal prosecutions for liquor under prohibition, US v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377 (1922).
So you can thank the War on Some Drugs for it, but it goes back much further than most people seem to realize.
The situation that made the double jeopardy clause seem so important to the framers of the US Constitution was that oppressive governments can and do repeatedly prosecute people until they reach the verdict they wanted. Because the government has unlimited resources to accomplish this, compared to those of any defendant, the situation is fundamentally unfair. But what's important to know about doctrines against double jeopardy is that they are not written into government documents just because some wise pre-industrial politician thought it would be a good idea, but because they were already absolutely sick and tired of seeing the exact same means of oppression being used against them. It was an issue that people were willing to kill or die over, and not some absract ideal that would be nice to have.
"Name five?"
It's not a secret Or anything
"Believe me, it's much faster to drive across the country than try to take my battle axe on a plane."
Is that you Ulfur Lann?
>My brother-in-law was in prison, and it's a
>fucking resort.
Something tells me that if given the choice to return, he would not go. I'm sorry to have to disagree with you, but I have real doubts that your brother-in-law could get "anything he wanted, whenever he wanted" in prison. Cocaine? Civilian clothes? A handgun?
"Since when were universities law-enforcement? "
At mine, the campus cops were State Police...
It was much safer to break the law off campus than on.
"so many students are in dept from loans to pay for college in the first place."
You're stepping a little closer to the root of society's problems here:
Many people believe they are entitled to things they cannot afford to pay for. They do not own their houses or cars, and even their clothes are often financed. They spend money they do not have and do not know how or when they will repay.
And this is the *norm*.
"everybody had money"
In the 20's? Just like the 90's, huh?
You are only regarding the stereotype that the media portrays to you. The period after WWI was quite rough for America, and we were still recovering from this when WWII started.
"Everybody" had money, my ass.
>"Vietnam type conflict"
:-) You could
Are you saying, shooting wars in South America?
The difference between South America and Southeast Asia is that you couldn't drive to Vietnam and support the enemy
WALK to Colombia...
>Because terrorists are muslim, the religion of
>islam should be banned.
Well, I'm not sure banning books would do much, because Americans do not really value literacy anymore. But banning "Islam" might actually affect more voters than banning "weed" did...
There is a limit to how much power a government can grab for itself before an opposition party takes it away from them (and uses the same power for different ends). I don't think the current Administration has quite found its floor, but it's feeling for it.
>Hispanics are estimated to be 50% of the US'
>population.
One thing I learned while working on the '92 campaign in Texas, was that many Latin people embrace systems of control. The Hispanic vote definitely helped Bush Sr. win Texas. Mexican Americans are not exactly known for their Libertarian views, and in Texas, they tend to vote Republican.
"You're assuming people would think intelligently about the subject, instead of just changing the status of what the majority were complaining about, instead of the whole category."
If I'm wrong then why does Marijuana == Heroin today?
>So punish the people that do it, not the cause.
There are severe penalties against drinking and driving in every State today. Obviously this is
far short of a solution.
>Why not? Because the people don't want it, or
>because the Imperial Federal Government won't
>allow it?
Both. The people who protest for reform are in denial about this, but the vast majority of Americans support the current policy. In situations where the people did successfully decriminialize controlled drugs, for example California 215, the Federal government rejected the States' authority to pass such laws.
>>Our society does not tolerate the use of
>>dangerous drugs.
>
>False! Alcohol use and abuse is tolerated.
>Furthermore, marijuana is not a dangerous drug.
If our society tolerates the use, manufacture, and distribution of dangerous drugs, why would we spend $11 billion dollars this year alone in attempting to suppress them?
>>Federal enforcement of drug control regulations
>>is a success.
>
>False! The government can't keep drugs out of
>prisons. What makes you think they do a good job
>keeping it out of the hands of non-inamtes?
Your opinions are not shared by your representatives in Washington, nor by the majority of your countrymen. I take it you have personally tried to obtain narcotics in prison and succeeded? While I am sure that there are ways to get whatever you want in prison if you try hard enough, I would also suggest that you not count on it yourself if you happen to find yourself there.
>[T]here is no evidence that anything outside of
>education is any more than marginally effective
>at getting people to not use some drugs.
Precisely. But I cannot think of a better way to illustrate that point, than by applying the Federal government's case consistently, rather than making the arbitrary choices of what is allowed, and what is not, that we see today.
>The population also grew, so...
Was Laguardia overestimating, underestimating, or making up numbers that he thought sounded outrageous? He was speaking against nationwide enforcement, but let us consider NYC.
Today, New York City has 11 million people, and supports 82,000 police officers.
In 1930, the population was almost 7 million. The population has indeed grown, but perhaps not by as high a factor as one might expect. I have not found a reliable source for the number of NYC police officers in 1930, but I expect that if one compares the extent of the crime problems they faced to the dearth of any real ability to fight crime, the issue will not boil down as simply as "prohibition caused organized crime."
>several hundred pub owners
So in other words, you favor mob rule over rational legislation?
Do the "pub owners" have rights that coca growers did not? (Cocaine was not only legal, it was one of the main ingredients of over-the-counter drugs until 1914, when a lot of producers were put out of business by the Harrison act).
Whether our not you can control your drug habit, the fact remains that half of all automotive fatalities are caused by people who cannot.
There are also people who can handle amphetimines, heroin, cocaine, and almost everything else on the list. Why is it so clear that alcohol must be an exception?
"It seems obvious to me that if alcohol were classified as Schedule II, restrictions on all drugs in that category would have to be reduced to avoid riots."
We have a winner! You saw right through my argument and came back from the other side.
I believe if my case could be made more thorougly, with sufficient logos, even the staunchest conservative would see there is
really no future for the current strategy.
So many people are arguing directly for reform, but they run up against the status quo, and an enormous problem of cognitive dissonance -- we spent $8 billion last year basically trying to stop people from smoking marijuana, and, somewhat collaterally managed to stop a relative few from using cocaine and heroin. This year we are spending $11 billion to accomplish the same goal.
It is precisely because we have so much invested in the strategy that the very idea of changing it will be rejected. Rejected so vehemently that even State laws are being ignored by Federal prosecutors. And protected so forcefully that the affected States do not even pretend to stand up for their authority.
A direct argument for reform will only be met with an even stricter interpretation of the current policy!
I propose that if by allowing the Federal government to strengthen the policy to its logical extent, simply by applying consistent reasoning to it, people will finally see that the direction the government has taken does not represent their interests or their will. I believe that will engender enormous changes for the greater good.
Despite what the millions in prison would say, the current government still manages to only oppress and disemfranchise a small fringe element. But if the erosion of rights represented in issues such as the "drug war" were applied to other areas that affected less of a minority, less of a fringe, the process of reform will gain the momentum it needs.
I believe it takes a minimum of 12 years for such changes to truly come about under the American system. Unfortunately, the American people lose interest in anything that does not render instant gratification.
"Prohibition fueled the mob's rise to prominence"
No. They were already well on their way. One of the strongest arguments the prohibitionists had was that liquor establishments were already engaging in corrupt business practices, and that saloons were as much about gambling and prostitution (already crimes) as they were about liquor.
The proliferation of organized crime was one of the factors that led to prohibition, not something that directly resulted from it.
"Organized crime" rose from the government's inability to fight crime during the post-war depression of the 1920s. How convenient is it that the depression coincides so nicely with the Prohibition period!
[health benefits of alcohol]
Note that my proposal is that Alcohol be Schedule II. It has known medical uses. Likewise, if tobacco has no medical uses, it belongs on Schedule I.
I believe the case against dangerous drugs has been made. Why are these drugs treated so fundamentally differently than say, heroin, marijuana, and cocaine?
The argument that there are huge amounts of money at stake in these industries will not sway me, nor should it be allowed to drive our national policy.
"In some states it is illegal to own/sell a bong... its consider drug paraphernalia. In other states it is perfectly legal and there are head shops all over the place."
Correct, and irrelevant. The problem is that online merchants are doing interstate commerce. The government's position is that even selling between states where the items are legal, the interstate commerce is not. Therefore it falls under Federal jurisdiction to prosecute.
Either through action or inaction, we have all been part of the process that put the current government in power. It didn't happen overnight, or with a single botched election, or any other one thing. I'm worried at the thought that the current government just might actually represent the will of the people... My God, what if it does?