After prohibition of alcohol ended it took decades for per capita consumption of alcohol to reach previous levels. Public health improved in several respects.
The idea that our nation’s prisons are overflowing with otherwise lawabiding people convicted for nothing more than simple possession of marijuana is treated by many as conventional wisdom.
But this, in fact, is a myth—an illusion conjured and aggressively perpetuated by drug advocacy groups seeking to relax or abolish America’s marijuana laws. In reality, the vast majority of inmates in state and federal prison for marijuana have been found guilty of much more than simple possession. Some were convicted for drug trafficking, some for marijuana possession along with one or more other offenses. And many of those serving time for marijuana pled down to possession in order to avoid prosecution on much more serious charges.
In 1997, the year for which the most recent data are available, just 1.6 percent of the state inmate population were held for offenses involving only marijuana, and less than one percent of all state prisoners (0.7 percent) were incarcerated with marijuana possession as the only charge, according to the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). An even smaller fraction of state prisoners in 1997 who were convicted just for marijuana possession were first time offenders (0.3 percent).
The numbers on the federal level tell a similar story. Out of all drug defendants sentenced in federal court for marijuana crimes in 2001, the overwhelming majority were convicted for trafficking, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Only 2.3 percent—186 people—received sentences for simple possession, and of the 174 for whom sentencing information is known, just 63 actually served time behind bars.
As the media freaks out over Donald Trump’s latest tweet, this one on criminalizing the burning of the American flag, here’s something you probably won’t read a lot about: Hillary Clinton agrees with the president-elect (or at least she used to):
Well, good then, he is simply exercising his free speech and expressing an opinion about what the law should be. Wake me if he actually tries to impose unconstitutional speech codes like college campuses.
Someone needs to remind him during his discourses.
Trump not only isn't a dictator, he isn't a warlock either. His powers of conjuring are limited to the powers of the presidency, not the realm of magic. The law is still the law, and both the White House counsel and Attorney General will inform him of that should he want something that isn't legal.
On the other hand, he does seem to have an almost magical power to cause butt hurt and insanity in some segments of society - mainly those that discovered they hate him after he decided to run as a Republican much as has happened to those that ran before.
Where is the proof of riots resulting from Obama's election? That's what you imply you have, that's what I've been looking for, and you haven't delivered. That's not me "moving the goalpost," that is you being unable to back up your claim. There is no surprise there because it is rubbish. Conservatives/Republicans didn't riot over their loss in the election.
And no, "I don't have time" is just a poor excuse for not wanting to face that facts.
No, it is a statement of prioritization of my use of time in which replying on Slashdot falls far below the other demands on my time. That isn't hard to understand.
But tell you what, I'll grant you a minor indulgence.
An anti-Trump rally in Portland, Oregon, revved up as protesters confronted police Thursday night. What started out as a peaceful march, with more than 4,000 people, quickly turned violent. Over the course of the evening, "anarchists" in the crowd threw objects at officers, vandalized local businesses and damaged cars, Portland Police Sgt. Pete Simpson said. Police publicly declared a "riot" due to "extensive criminal and dangerous behavior" and called the protest "unlawful," according to posts on the department's Twitter page. The crowd was dispersed using "less lethal munitions" and at least 26 protesters were arrested, police said.
Some of the roughly 1,000 protesters in Oakland broke store windows, left graffiti on buildings and threw M-80 firecrackers, Molotov cocktails and bottles at police officers, authorities said. Eleven people were arrested in Oakland, including someone who had seven Molotov cocktails in his possession, police said. Some of those arrested are accused of assaulting police officers.
There are voter suppression tactics that are illegal -- those that involve voter intimidation. But what the Trump operation described is more along the lines of discouraging voters from turning out with messaging through media buys and events.
So, you weren't able to come up with any actual riots by Republicans and conservatives?
No surprise there. I would say that makes it pretty one-sided.
A pity I don't have more time today, it would be fun to take your links apart. Even when what is at the link is true, much of it is misleading, or overstated. Other links border on fabrications. .
I wonder if this is the work of the Chinese intelligence agencies? That would almost certainly be everyone's explanation if it happened in a phone from a US company.
Ah, I see. You must be here to tell me that 'metadata doesn't matter'....
Nope. Don't even imply it.
and 'if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear'
Silly
and 'no warrants shall issue' only applies to actual physical 'papers'.
For at least phone records, they aren't your papers, and aren't in your possession. They are ordinary business records of the phone company. That is settled law. You'll have to invent new law to do what you want the 4th Amendment to do as it doesn't apply.
Justice Marshal, in his dissent of Smith v. Maryland....
Justice Marshal is astute, and there are certainly areas of concern. However Justice Marshal writes in dissent to the actual state of the law. What is the price of Liberty again? Eternal something or another? Hmmm..... interesting question..... certainly the governed have to watch the government, but how does the government watch the people trying to harm its citizens if they aren't allowed to look?
So once more, Senator Wyden has my utmost appreciation for being a champion of our constitutional right to privacy.
No doubt he does. The man is reckless. Let's hope he doesn't create conditions that manage to get lots of Americans or other people killed. The corks he likes to play with don't tend to go back in the bottle once pulled.
I'm glad to see you seem to have some guiding principle. Lots of people on Slashdot seem to be driven by narcissism, they don't care how high the body count is as long as the government has no notion of their existence. As a practical matter they view truck bombs going off in crowded shopping malls as proof that we are free - Die bravely in the food court for our freedom! Certainly you wouldn't go there, would you?
A very nice post on counting, but counting isn't the controversy. The controversy is votes illegally cast. So far the evidence seems to strongly suggest that votes that were cast by people without the legal right to vote probably tipped the election to Al Franken who cast the deciding vote for Obamacare.
The margin of victory was far below the margin of illegal, fraudulent votes.
Once again, you should be condemning Wyden for his reckless stunt.
Of course you have rights as an American citizen, but they are what the law says they are, and not necessarily what misinformed opinion holds them to be. Much of the opinion on Slashdot is long on wind and short on knowledge.
I'm familiar with the 4th Amendment. Are you aware that it is not an all-purpose, all-encompassing, unlimited shield against any scrutiny under any and all circumstances?
Article II of the Constitution. Does it sound familiar to you at all?
And again, you're spewing lies that have been proven to be lies over and over again. Many studies have shown that there's very little to no election fraud that could be "fixed" by voter ID laws. There's real, actual election manipulation by people (Republicans) trying to prevent people from voting legally.
MVA found 941 ineligible felons who were allowed to vote in 2008 alone, exceeding the 312 vote margin separating DFL candidate Al Franken and GOP Sen. Norm Coleman after a grueling recount.
This is stunning. It was Franken’s razor-thin “victory” over incumbent Senator Norm Coleman that allowed the Democrats to ram Obamacare down the throats of the American people. If we assume that 80% of the 941 ineligible felons voted for Al Franken–a conservative assumption, as nearly all convicted felons are Democrats–then Franken’s victory is attributable to voter fraud. And the 941 ineligible votes are just a fraction of those that could have been identified if the Democratic Secretary of State had not stonewalled, refusing to turn over the full list of ineligible voters.
As federal courts wrestle with voter ID laws in several states just months before a national election, there is considerably less attention being brought to other constitutional rights that require ID.
Do you not care about citizens being able to exercise their rights other than voting?
Do countries like China and Russia have copies of the Snowden documents? I believe the answer is certainly yes . ..
Bruce then tries to create wiggle room for Snowden - it's not his fault! But it is. Even if we assume that Snowden isn't dirty, a defector, those documents wouldn't have been anywhere nearly as vulnerable had he not taken them and distributed multiple copies to journalists and others.
If you can't accept that possibility I don't think you are being intellectually honest. The Snowden cache of documents is one of the great prizes of all time for intelligence agencies. How can you not believe they have expected considerable resources to get their hands on a copy?
Did you not notice the changes that both Russia and China made to their computer intelligence and cyberwar infrastructure after those documents got loose?
I don't think you've got that right. Let's imagine for a minute that what you write has some truth to it, that Jamie Dimon would have engaged lobbyist while at Goldman Sachs. Do you think he would have done that out of personal interest and out of his own pocket? Or would he have been pursuing the goals and interests of his employer? It seems pretty likely that it is the goals and interests of his employer, doesn't it? Suppose he went to work for American Express... do you think he would continue to work towards the goals and interests of Goldman Sachs, or that of his new employer? If he was picked for the job of Secretary of the Treasury he would be responsible to President Trump, not Goldman Sachs. He would have a broader portfolio of responsibilities. His actions would also have to withstand scrutiny by Congress, President Trump, the Courts, the public, and the financial community. I doubt he would last long in that job if he started making decisions to specifically benefit Goldman Sachs, the many other companies in the market would complain and file lawsuits. He would be out for ethical problems before too long, and then be radioactive to most employers.
Slashdot Mirror
Well ....
The switch in time that saved nine
Look how well that worked out for drugs.
After prohibition of alcohol ended it took decades for per capita consumption of alcohol to reach previous levels. Public health improved in several respects.
Did Prohibition Really Work? Alcohol Prohibition as a Public Health Innovation
Locking people up for small amounts of marijuana sure destroyed demand for marijuana oh wait...
"Oh wait" indeed .....
Who’s Really in Prison for Marijuana?
The idea that our nation’s prisons are overflowing with otherwise lawabiding people convicted for nothing more than simple possession of marijuana is treated by many as conventional wisdom.
But this, in fact, is a myth—an illusion conjured and aggressively perpetuated by drug advocacy groups seeking to relax or abolish America’s marijuana laws. In reality, the vast majority of inmates in state and federal prison for marijuana have been found guilty of much more than simple possession. Some were convicted for drug trafficking, some for marijuana possession along with one or more other offenses. And many of those serving time for marijuana pled down to possession in order to avoid prosecution on much more serious charges.
In 1997, the year for which the most recent data are available, just 1.6 percent of the state inmate population were held for offenses involving only marijuana, and less than one percent of all state prisoners (0.7 percent) were incarcerated with marijuana possession as the only charge, according to the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). An even smaller fraction of state prisoners in 1997 who were convicted just for marijuana possession were first time offenders (0.3 percent).
The numbers on the federal level tell a similar story. Out of all drug defendants sentenced in federal court for marijuana crimes in 2001, the overwhelming majority were convicted for trafficking, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Only 2.3 percent—186 people—received sentences for simple possession, and of the 174 for whom sentencing information is known, just 63 actually served time behind bars.
Trump will soon have the power and authority to launch a Preemptive Nuclear Strike and you are worried about the misuse of the WEA's Text Messages?!
I wouldn't worry about that, there is no profit in nuclear war so no reason to do it unless absolutely necessary. Great concern trolling though.
You seem to have an active fantasy life. Interesting that it involves fantasies about me.
-1 Troll = Q.E.D.
... People have a problem with separating fantasy from reality. What else is new?
FTFY
If these people were not willing to kill, maim ... and slaughter to support their fantasy, it would not be much of a problem.
Among the worst are the people trying to build a "heaven on earth," also known as a "worker's paradise." Oddly enough they tend to be atheists.
You sound a lot like the winner. Who's ranted against free speech, and freedom of the press. And that's just this week.
Priceless: That moment when the MSM realizes Trump just took a position advocated by Hillary Clinton in 2005
As the media freaks out over Donald Trump’s latest tweet, this one on criminalizing the burning of the American flag, here’s something you probably won’t read a lot about: Hillary Clinton agrees with the president-elect (or at least she used to):
Trump drives certain people nuts.
FTFY
Huh .... what an odd coincidence ....
So he hasn't actually gone so far as college campuses in limiting and punishing speech?*
Well, good then, he is simply exercising his free speech and expressing an opinion about what the law should be. Wake me if he actually tries to impose unconstitutional speech codes like college campuses.
Concerned about repression on college campuses? Consider a gift to: FIRE - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
*And whose Secretary of Education may very well review those unconstitutional rules?
He's elected president. Not dictator.
Someone needs to remind him during his discourses.
Trump not only isn't a dictator, he isn't a warlock either. His powers of conjuring are limited to the powers of the presidency, not the realm of magic. The law is still the law, and both the White House counsel and Attorney General will inform him of that should he want something that isn't legal.
On the other hand, he does seem to have an almost magical power to cause butt hurt and insanity in some segments of society - mainly those that discovered they hate him after he decided to run as a Republican much as has happened to those that ran before.
Just keep moving the goalposts there, brother. Eventually it'll work for you.
Remember this post of yours??
So we're just completely forgetting the actual rioting that happened both times Obama was elected?
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundi...
Where is the proof of riots resulting from Obama's election? That's what you imply you have, that's what I've been looking for, and you haven't delivered. That's not me "moving the goalpost," that is you being unable to back up your claim. There is no surprise there because it is rubbish. Conservatives/Republicans didn't riot over their loss in the election.
And no, "I don't have time" is just a poor excuse for not wanting to face that facts.
No, it is a statement of prioritization of my use of time in which replying on Slashdot falls far below the other demands on my time. That isn't hard to understand.
But tell you what, I'll grant you a minor indulgence.
Remember this link of yours above?
http://www.snopes.com/anti-tru...
or as I render it:
Squeaky Wheels Get the Greece
A photograph purportedly showing a violent anti-Trump protest in the U.S. was actually taken in Greece in 2012.
What a strange link. Are you trying to imply that there really weren't anti-Trump riots going on? That rubbish is easily disposed of:
Anti-Trump protesters march for 3rd night; Portland police call it a 'riot'
An anti-Trump rally in Portland, Oregon, revved up as protesters confronted police Thursday night. What started out as a peaceful march, with more than 4,000 people, quickly turned violent. Over the course of the evening, "anarchists" in the crowd threw objects at officers, vandalized local businesses and damaged cars, Portland Police Sgt. Pete Simpson said. Police publicly declared a "riot" due to "extensive criminal and dangerous behavior" and called the protest "unlawful," according to posts on the department's Twitter page. The crowd was dispersed using "less lethal munitions" and at least 26 protesters were arrested, police said.
Some of the roughly 1,000 protesters in Oakland broke store windows, left graffiti on buildings and threw M-80 firecrackers, Molotov cocktails and bottles at police officers, authorities said. Eleven people were arrested in Oakland, including someone who had seven Molotov cocktails in his possession, police said. Some of those arrested are accused of assaulting police officers.
From your link:
Trump campaign talks about its "voter suppression" efforts
There are voter suppression tactics that are illegal -- those that involve voter intimidation. But what the Trump operation described is more along the lines of discouraging voters from turning out with messaging through media buys and events.
So, you weren't able to come up with any actual riots by Republicans and conservatives?
No surprise there. I would say that makes it pretty one-sided.
A pity I don't have more time today, it would be fun to take your links apart. Even when what is at the link is true, much of it is misleading, or overstated. Other links border on fabrications.
.
I wonder if this is the work of the Chinese intelligence agencies? That would almost certainly be everyone's explanation if it happened in a phone from a US company.
Ah, I see. You must be here to tell me that 'metadata doesn't matter' ....
Nope. Don't even imply it.
and 'if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear'
Silly
and 'no warrants shall issue' only applies to actual physical 'papers'.
For at least phone records, they aren't your papers, and aren't in your possession. They are ordinary business records of the phone company. That is settled law. You'll have to invent new law to do what you want the 4th Amendment to do as it doesn't apply.
Justice Marshal, in his dissent of Smith v. Maryland ....
Justice Marshal is astute, and there are certainly areas of concern. However Justice Marshal writes in dissent to the actual state of the law. What is the price of Liberty again? Eternal something or another? Hmmm..... interesting question ..... certainly the governed have to watch the government, but how does the government watch the people trying to harm its citizens if they aren't allowed to look?
So once more, Senator Wyden has my utmost appreciation for being a champion of our constitutional right to privacy.
No doubt he does. The man is reckless. Let's hope he doesn't create conditions that manage to get lots of Americans or other people killed. The corks he likes to play with don't tend to go back in the bottle once pulled.
I'm glad to see you seem to have some guiding principle. Lots of people on Slashdot seem to be driven by narcissism, they don't care how high the body count is as long as the government has no notion of their existence. As a practical matter they view truck bombs going off in crowded shopping malls as proof that we are free - Die bravely in the food court for our freedom! Certainly you wouldn't go there, would you?
A very nice post on counting, but counting isn't the controversy. The controversy is votes illegally cast. So far the evidence seems to strongly suggest that votes that were cast by people without the legal right to vote probably tipped the election to Al Franken who cast the deciding vote for Obamacare.
The margin of victory was far below the margin of illegal, fraudulent votes.
Once again, you should be condemning Wyden for his reckless stunt.
Of course you have rights as an American citizen, but they are what the law says they are, and not necessarily what misinformed opinion holds them to be. Much of the opinion on Slashdot is long on wind and short on knowledge.
I'm familiar with the 4th Amendment. Are you aware that it is not an all-purpose, all-encompassing, unlimited shield against any scrutiny under any and all circumstances?
Article II of the Constitution. Does it sound familiar to you at all?
I refer you to the Supreme Court decision: Smith v. Maryland
Intelligence isn't the same thing as law enforcement.
Do you think the Republic should be unable to defend itself from invasion due to "No Trespassing" signs?
You should be condemning Wyden for this reckless stunt, not thanking him.
Blame Wyden, not Clapper, for ‘lie’ to Congress on NSA surveillance
The Clapper “Lie,” and the Senate Intelligence Committee
You don't seem to be familiar with some important background information on this issue:
The Clapper “Lie,” and the Senate Intelligence Committee
Blame Wyden, not Clapper, for ‘lie’ to Congress on NSA surveillance
It seems you don't really understand everything that is going on.
And again, you're spewing lies that have been proven to be lies over and over again. Many studies have shown that there's very little to no election fraud that could be "fixed" by voter ID laws. There's real, actual election manipulation by people (Republicans) trying to prevent people from voting legally.
Rubbish. Election fraud is an ongoing problem.
A SAMPLING OF ELECTION FRAUD CASES FROM ACROSS THE COUNTRY (pdf - open in new window)
Americans had Obamacare inflicted on them as due to election fraud resulting in the "election" of Senator Al Franken:
Rampant Voter Fraud Alleged In Minnesota
This fact is particularly explosive:
MVA found 941 ineligible felons who were allowed to vote in 2008 alone, exceeding the 312 vote margin separating DFL candidate Al Franken and GOP Sen. Norm Coleman after a grueling recount.
This is stunning. It was Franken’s razor-thin “victory” over incumbent Senator Norm Coleman that allowed the Democrats to ram Obamacare down the throats of the American people. If we assume that 80% of the 941 ineligible felons voted for Al Franken–a conservative assumption, as nearly all convicted felons are Democrats–then Franken’s victory is attributable to voter fraud. And the 941 ineligible votes are just a fraction of those that could have been identified if the Democratic Secretary of State had not stonewalled, refusing to turn over the full list of ineligible voters.
Poor and Disadvantaged are Most Likely to Have Their Vote Stolen
Someone ought to write a book. Oh, hey! Look at that! -- Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy
Amid Voter ID Battles, Here Are 7 Things the Government Requires IDs For
As federal courts wrestle with voter ID laws in several states just months before a national election, there is considerably less attention being brought to other constitutional rights that require ID.
Do you not care about citizens being able to exercise their rights other than voting?
Really? That isn't what Bruce Schneier thinks.
Bruce Schneier: China and Russia Almost Definitely Have the Snowden Docs
Do countries like China and Russia have copies of the Snowden documents? I believe the answer is certainly yes . . .
Bruce then tries to create wiggle room for Snowden - it's not his fault! But it is. Even if we assume that Snowden isn't dirty, a defector, those documents wouldn't have been anywhere nearly as vulnerable had he not taken them and distributed multiple copies to journalists and others.
The Snowden Operation: Assessing the Damage
If you can't accept that possibility I don't think you are being intellectually honest. The Snowden cache of documents is one of the great prizes of all time for intelligence agencies. How can you not believe they have expected considerable resources to get their hands on a copy?
Did you not notice the changes that both Russia and China made to their computer intelligence and cyberwar infrastructure after those documents got loose?
Some of it is pretty black and white: did Republicans riot? No. Did Democrats / Progressives / the Left riot? Yes.
It's not a new story.
Death Threats Against Bush at Protests Ignored for Years
I don't think you've got that right. Let's imagine for a minute that what you write has some truth to it, that Jamie Dimon would have engaged lobbyist while at Goldman Sachs. Do you think he would have done that out of personal interest and out of his own pocket? Or would he have been pursuing the goals and interests of his employer? It seems pretty likely that it is the goals and interests of his employer, doesn't it? Suppose he went to work for American Express... do you think he would continue to work towards the goals and interests of Goldman Sachs, or that of his new employer? If he was picked for the job of Secretary of the Treasury he would be responsible to President Trump, not Goldman Sachs. He would have a broader portfolio of responsibilities. His actions would also have to withstand scrutiny by Congress, President Trump, the Courts, the public, and the financial community. I doubt he would last long in that job if he started making decisions to specifically benefit Goldman Sachs, the many other companies in the market would complain and file lawsuits. He would be out for ethical problems before too long, and then be radioactive to most employers.
Wonder no more:
Blame Wyden, not Clapper, for ‘lie’ to Congress on NSA surveillance
The Clapper “Lie,” and the Senate Intelligence Committee