Uh, if the cops bothered to show up they aren't going to fine you for calling. They really don't do that unless it's a prank. Hell, something like 1/3rd of their calls are basically nothing: loud noise, suspicious person. However, having the cops present isn't a bad idea; You never know when a confrontation might occur. Perhaps some manager freaking out about losing control of the situation loses his cool or something. It could happen.
The most interesting thing about the whole affair is the insight that it provides into people's thoughts. When something sufficiently strange is going on, people get completely confused and frustrated that they don't understand your motives. Because of this misunderstanding, they tend to assume the worst. At one point they were speculating that it was some elaborate heist. "Thomas Crown Affair", funny, but at the same time fitting, given what the employees knew. Although with 80 people I might rip off a better target than Best Buy - maybe a bank or something.
I also got a kick out of the human resources woman going undercover to take snap shots of those involved. Don't they have security cameras? Still, I can understand her feeling the need to do something, so that later she can explain it and not look lazy. There's a reason why the managers freaked out the most - they're used to having control. A regular employee just shrugs his shoulders and laughs. And as usual, the cops freak out the most and try to intimidate the guy with the camera.
I think the part that resonated with me the most was when a manager claimed that filming in Best Buy violated her "civil rights". Perhaps they were at the fringes of the law by partially concealing their cameras, but the right to privacy is not guarenteed in an essentially public place. And while it may be against Best Buy policy, unless you commit an actual crime in the legal sense, all they can do is ask you to leave.
However, I do think that at some point they should have just explained the whole thing rather than leave on such bad terms. They freaked people out and then left in an arrogant huff, that shows a basic lack of curtesy. On the whole, the act and documentation offer interesting insights into society, true performance art.
Imagine the average space between objects in the universe is increasing (it is).
Or, at a basic conceptual level, you can just imagine time slowing down. I doubt that that idea is valid for all of physics, but it works for the basic travel between planets scenario.
Difficult to imagine, but oddly entertaining.
>Your crowd wouldn't be happy with the entire Iraq war and occupation costing one life, and you know it!
You're right, I wouldn't be happy with the Iraq war no matter how many Americans die. It was an illegal war, and the public was duped into supporting it. Saddam was a son of a bitch, but that isn't reasonable justification to go to war, under international law. The fact that many Americans have died just makes it worse.
You can't compare the invasion of Iraq with World War II, it just isn't at all similar. As far as the word disaster is concerned, was Katrina a disaster? Chernobyl? What's the magic number for disaster? Damn, its not like I called Iraq a Holocaust.
I don't think that I'm exploiting dead people my mentioning their deaths. Do you think they would want to be forgotten? To have people afraid to suggest the administration should be ashamed of itself for causing them?
>But, right now, the fix isn't going to be found bitching online and spreading hate.
Dude, if I had the power to change the situation, it would be done yesterday. If you're telling me I shouldn't speak my mind, you can STFU. Thanks.
No, I'm not misrepresenting anything. Being high is illegal, period. Being drunk is not, except in a few fairly narrow circumstances. The point is, despite the fact that alcohol causes many problems directly, it remains legal and regulated. Illegal drugs are treated differently. I know a few people who have been arrested for being in posession of drugs. Meanwhile, cops often let underage drinkers off the hook, so even when its illegal it isn't always a big deal. Way to be pedantic and completely miss the point.
As far as Iraq, what national interests have been furthered by the adventure in Iraq? Because there have been real consequences, besides the thousands dead, and injured. Such as the situation in Iran, where our hands are now tied. Or the situation in Sudan. There are daily assasinations, bombings, the fucking electricity doesn't work half the time. So how, exactly, is that not a disaster?
Just because I don't reach the same conclusions doesn't mean I'm misrepresenting anything. It just means we don't agree.
No, I wouldn't be shocked. But the question is, are you calling for a rebellion? Because I don't think that's a practical solution. Maybe campaign finance reform, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Our living standards are currently pretty high, wars take that away. I imagine you'll get plenty of recruits when things really go to shit for the average person, but hopefully we can fix things before we get to that point.
But I'm not misrepresenting anything. I'm glad you follow the sentiment, but don't be afraid to accept the reality. Some people may not have their facts straight, but what I speak is truth.
Regarding Iraq: They are Americans dying as a result of our government policy, which was the point. That they were aware of the risk they were taking does not make their deaths any less tragic, or "count less" as you seem to imply.
You can't honestly compare marijuana prohibition with alcohol regulation With alcohol, you are penalized for how you behave under the influence, not the fact that you have a receipt in your wallet. And you don't get arrested for being drunk in a bar, unless you start a fight or cause a great disturbance. The liquor store can't sell you liquor if you already look trashed, but that's to stop you from hurting yourself, and you don't get in trouble for it. We learned the hard way that people can't drive when drunk, but we didn't turn around and ban alcohol, did we?
>Likewise I imagine if you are getting busted for drugs you are being busted in a public location, are cultivating it outside, or selling significant amounts.
Cops go after the most visible targets, sure, and as a result most arrests are for mere posession. (see bottom) Because of the demand, economics dictates that a black market will exist. As the legal deterrants increase (jail time, property seizure, mandatory minimums), dealers will become increasingly dangerous, as their freedom is on the line. Meanwhile, the steady stream of arrests, especially in certain minority communities, erodes public trust in the police, and crime increases. The only reason this hasn't exploded already is because a lot of the people affected are still locked up.
"There have been more than 3.7 million marijuana arrests this decade [1990-2000]. Eighty-three percent of these arrests were for possession only. Marijuana arrests rose every year since 1991, reaching an all time high of 695,200 in 1997. Marijuana arrests increased 59 percent during this period. Conversely, use of marijuana by adults remained unchanged." http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4015
Are you serious? Stock dividends are pitiful compared to what they once were. The real money is in prediction of hype. The market sustains itself by drawing more money in, not returning it. The money isn't going to your grandma unless she picks the next microsoft or dell. Instead, the money is going into the hands of a relatively small group. The group is just a little larger now.
Guarenteed that all top oil execs are making tens of millions of dollars right now, once you throw in stock options, benefits, bonuses, and pensions. Meanwhile, it costs over 40 dollars to fill up your gas tank. Not that oil is unique, its just a good example. Which leads us to:
Don't you mean the war on drug users and suspicious arabs?
Because let's face it, when all the money in the world fails to make a difference, you're approaching the problem the wrong way.
Thought: are Americans more or less likely to die at the hands of terrorists after our invasion of Iraq? With over 2,000 dead, and thousands more left injured, the current situation is basically a complete disaster. And angering millions in the Arab world makes us a bigger target. Face it, you can't scare people who are willing to die, period.
Thought: should being "high" be illegal if being "drunk" is not? Because certainly a compelling case could be made to prohibit alcohol because of drunken driving, violence, accidents, and abuse potential. More so than marijuana, even. But alcohol prohibition in the 1920s was a failure because it didn't curb demand, yet created crime to fuel an underground market, just like with the war on drugs today. But for prohibition to be repealed, people had to talk openly about the problem. Hard to do that with drugs, because the government misrepresents the facts to demonize drugs.
I have one of these as well. And I have to say, the fake leather is extremely comfortable, especially at the angle it is at. The keys give soft resistance, which is comfortable at first, but eventually becomes tiresome. Still, it is a really nice keyboard, and a step forward in ergonomics.
I'm with you on the number pad. I wish I could find a detachable one, or a natural keyboard without one attached. I'd put it to my left so I could enter numbers and mouse at the same time.
Here's a source on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/WMD/treaty/
It's the fact that we're not disarming AND invading soverign countries that is inspiring the likes of N. Korea and Iran to develop weapons.
Anyway, the central tenant of missile defense, that partial protection will make us safer, is patently false. The reason the antibalistic missile treaty was signed in the first place was because both sides realized that a partially-effective shield was inherently unstabilizing. The arms race was bad enough without a shield inspire extra nuke-building.
As for N. Korea... what a joke. They don't have missiles that can hit us now anyway, and with a shield up, guess what, a suitcase bomb will suffice.
If you follow missile defense history you see fudged and failed tests, and congressional support for manufacture in home states. It's been a series of back-scratchings that have cost the taxpayers over 150 billion to date. And the damn prototype can't hit a known launch in ideal conditions, traveling slower than ICBMs, siloutted by the sun, with a homing device inside. If that isn't a complete failure, what is?
I know, it's still a prototype you say. However, it isn't a problem of technology, but one of physics. It is simply 1000 times easier to design countermeasures than to design against unknown countermeasures. Hell, a mylar balloon like the shiny ones in the supermarket look identical to missiles in outer space (the mid-course trajectory of an ICBM), and would certainly foil the system if it could even hit what it was aiming at. I'm sorry, but NMD is not like the lightbulb, because the lightbulb isn't trying to stop you from lighting it.
This has very little to do with left vs right and way more to do with a cozy relationship between congressmen and military contractors. But you just go and believe that the stupid liberals are the problem.
And what of sperm then? Each one, potentially could develop into a human - just like an embryonic stem cell. Yes, stem cell are simply potential lives also. They need the right conditions to continue to develop and grow. Which is why no one except some weird alien worshiping cult says they can clone people yet.
An understanding of consciousness is necessary to really have a meaningful debate on this topic. Do you honestly believe that consciousness is created miraculously at the instant of conception? No, it is created over time. Hence, an embryo has no more consciousness than your tonsils, although an infinitely higher potential.
We also need to recognize our own fears and the root of our feelings to question the ethical implications of stem cell research. Most people naturally fear situations where they have no control of the outcome. Especially when we are younger, we are afraid of things happening to us in our sleep, afraid of the dark, afraid of water...basically, afraid of being vulnerable. What could be more vulnerable than an unborn baby? Nothing, of course, hence the resistance to abortion - despite the fact that responsible abortions are an overall benefit to society.
Here's my ultimate problem with the whole debate: it is callously abstract. While we argue about the fate of single cells that might, potentially, become people some day, 20,000 people die every day from poverty. Our neglect of the poor is criminal, and some day our age will be looked down on, like the dark ages. Because while we marvel in our own ingenuity in technology and science, we ignore the suffering of 1/6th of the world that lives in extreme poverty. We know they're there. We know their suffering. We can even now predict when a country will be hit by a drought and resulting famine ahead of time - http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/chi- 0508100129aug10,0,6732993.story?coll=ny-leadworldn ews-headlines/ yet they are still not averted.
When there aren't millions of kids waiting for adoption or food, and we our overpopulation concerns are gone, then perhaps, it might be appropirate to restrict the use of stem cells.
Well said, and I agree completely. Current DEA marijuana regulations list marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug, meaning it has the highest abuse potential, and in this case no legal medical use*.
"Schedule I drugs are classified as having a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States and lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision." - http://www.dfaf.org/marijuana/excuse.php/
To put this in perspective, crack cocaine, oxycodone (aka percoset or oxycontin), methamphetamine (speed) and PCP, are all schedule 2 drugs, which makes it easier to obtain approval to conduct research using them, or approve a new medical application of them. (DEA Drug Scheduling: http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling.html/)
*Marinol is available in pill form, but it is the synthesis of only one of the active drugs in marijuana smoke, leaving other, potentially useful counterparts out. While I understand the refusal of the FDA to approve of smoke administered drugs, vaporizers eliminate the harms of smoking, and have existed since the 1970s. Recent models such as the "Volcano" eliminate any realistic health objections (evidence: http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/vaporizerstudy2.html/ and pictures here: http://www.storz-bickel.com/en_home.htm/ )
Overall, inhalation is a superior delivery mechanism for pain that comes on quickly. This is because ingested marijuana (or Marinol alone) takes some time to be released and will remain in the body for long periods of time, making it ineffective in alleviating flare-ups.
It would be a helpful first step if marijuana were rescheduled given the fact that it does not possess the abuse potential the FDA claims. Marijuana has never been shown to be physically/chemically addicting, unlike all of the schedule 2 drugs I mentioned, as well as tobacco. Furthermore, marijuana doesn't have a significant lethal dose potential, unlike all of the schedule 2 drugs I mentioned, or even alcohol for that matter! It's time we got over our government propaganda induced fear and approve beneficial medical applications as a minimal first step. Our irrational fear hurts those with chronic pain, forcing ordinary people to choose between breaking the law or suffering needlessly.
Re: lethal dose of Marijuana and Alcohol -
"There is a major health risk of acute alcohol use that is not shared with cannabis. In large doses alcohol can cause death by asphyxiation, alcohol poisoning, cardiomyopathy and cardiac infarct. There are no recorded cases of overdose fatalities attributed to cannabis, and the estimated lethal dose for humans extrapolated from animal studies is so high that it cannot be achieved by recreational users." (Source: http://www.legalisieren.at/studien/who/comparison. htm/)
...further recognizing that marijuana prohibition, like alcohol prohibition in its heyday, creates more problems then it solves would be icing on the cake. I'm not holding my breath for that one, especially given the White House's historic position and the recent Bush Supreme Court nominee.
Having read the responses thusfar, I'm dismayed at the lack of relevant science-knowledgeable responses. I just got back from a conference put on by the Nuclear Policy Research Institute http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/conferences.cfm/ on this very topic - what the military is calling "Full Spectrum Dominance" - the ability to attack in, from, and through space, and achieve control of outer space.
Moral arguements aside, (although I do believe they are relevant when people are dying of hunger, et cetera,) space simply cannot be controlled. It is not a teritory that can be occupied like a country can, and there are several basic reasons for this.
First off, weapons placed in space cannot be hidden, so they sit in plain view of everyone. As an extension of this, they can also be tracked easily because they follow simple orbits, and thinking forward, this makes the weapons themselves vulnerable to attack. The United States and Russia have both already demonstrated effective precision anti-satellite capabilities, but a simpler approach would be to simply explode a nuclear weapon relatively nearby - something any major nuclear power could already do. Of course, a nuclear blast would damage other satellites as well, and not only directly. The destruction of satellites would create a huge amount of space debris, already a significant problem. In fact, intentionally launching debris would be another basic anti-satellite technique.
The United States has the most to lose - it already has the largest world share of satellite-based commerce, its military relies on satellites to function more than any other military. By shifting battle into outer space, the U.S. is effectively threatening its own interests.
Also, anti-satellite weapons cost orders of magnitude less than outer space weapons in terms of cost to develop or deploy, meaning there is no strategic advantage to being the first country to deploy space weapons. In fact, by deploying such weapons first, the United States may end up committing itself to an asymmetrical arms race in an attempt to protect its space assets - especially asymmetrical because of the prohibitive cost of space launches.
Finally, you have to examine the motivation for space weaponization. The U.S. military is already by far the dominant world force. No other country in the world is currently undertaking serious research to weaponize space. Russia has unilaterally pledged not to be the first country to weaponize space and China is considering such a declaration itself. The allocation of money is not neutral, it must come from somewhere. This means either a decrease in other military forces or in domestic programs.
Space weaponization is a waste of money, does nothing to solve current problems, and may very well create new international tensions, something that both the Russian and Chinese ambassadors have made quite clear.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, if the cops bothered to show up they aren't going to fine you for calling. They really don't do that unless it's a prank. Hell, something like 1/3rd of their calls are basically nothing: loud noise, suspicious person. However, having the cops present isn't a bad idea; You never know when a confrontation might occur. Perhaps some manager freaking out about losing control of the situation loses his cool or something. It could happen.
The most interesting thing about the whole affair is the insight that it provides into people's thoughts. When something sufficiently strange is going on, people get completely confused and frustrated that they don't understand your motives. Because of this misunderstanding, they tend to assume the worst. At one point they were speculating that it was some elaborate heist. "Thomas Crown Affair", funny, but at the same time fitting, given what the employees knew. Although with 80 people I might rip off a better target than Best Buy - maybe a bank or something.
I also got a kick out of the human resources woman going undercover to take snap shots of those involved. Don't they have security cameras? Still, I can understand her feeling the need to do something, so that later she can explain it and not look lazy. There's a reason why the managers freaked out the most - they're used to having control. A regular employee just shrugs his shoulders and laughs. And as usual, the cops freak out the most and try to intimidate the guy with the camera.
I think the part that resonated with me the most was when a manager claimed that filming in Best Buy violated her "civil rights". Perhaps they were at the fringes of the law by partially concealing their cameras, but the right to privacy is not guarenteed in an essentially public place. And while it may be against Best Buy policy, unless you commit an actual crime in the legal sense, all they can do is ask you to leave.
However, I do think that at some point they should have just explained the whole thing rather than leave on such bad terms. They freaked people out and then left in an arrogant huff, that shows a basic lack of curtesy. On the whole, the act and documentation offer interesting insights into society, true performance art.
Imagine the average space between objects in the universe is increasing (it is). Or, at a basic conceptual level, you can just imagine time slowing down. I doubt that that idea is valid for all of physics, but it works for the basic travel between planets scenario. Difficult to imagine, but oddly entertaining.
>Your crowd wouldn't be happy with the entire Iraq war and occupation costing one life, and you know it!
You're right, I wouldn't be happy with the Iraq war no matter how many Americans die. It was an illegal war, and the public was duped into supporting it. Saddam was a son of a bitch, but that isn't reasonable justification to go to war, under international law. The fact that many Americans have died just makes it worse.
You can't compare the invasion of Iraq with World War II, it just isn't at all similar. As far as the word disaster is concerned, was Katrina a disaster? Chernobyl? What's the magic number for disaster? Damn, its not like I called Iraq a Holocaust.
I don't think that I'm exploiting dead people my mentioning their deaths. Do you think they would want to be forgotten? To have people afraid to suggest the administration should be ashamed of itself for causing them?
>But, right now, the fix isn't going to be found bitching online and spreading hate.
Dude, if I had the power to change the situation, it would be done yesterday. If you're telling me I shouldn't speak my mind, you can STFU. Thanks.
No, I'm not misrepresenting anything. Being high is illegal, period. Being drunk is not, except in a few fairly narrow circumstances. The point is, despite the fact that alcohol causes many problems directly, it remains legal and regulated. Illegal drugs are treated differently. I know a few people who have been arrested for being in posession of drugs. Meanwhile, cops often let underage drinkers off the hook, so even when its illegal it isn't always a big deal. Way to be pedantic and completely miss the point.
As far as Iraq, what national interests have been furthered by the adventure in Iraq? Because there have been real consequences, besides the thousands dead, and injured. Such as the situation in Iran, where our hands are now tied. Or the situation in Sudan. There are daily assasinations, bombings, the fucking electricity doesn't work half the time. So how, exactly, is that not a disaster?
Just because I don't reach the same conclusions doesn't mean I'm misrepresenting anything. It just means we don't agree.
No, I wouldn't be shocked. But the question is, are you calling for a rebellion? Because I don't think that's a practical solution. Maybe campaign finance reform, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Our living standards are currently pretty high, wars take that away. I imagine you'll get plenty of recruits when things really go to shit for the average person, but hopefully we can fix things before we get to that point.
But I'm not misrepresenting anything. I'm glad you follow the sentiment, but don't be afraid to accept the reality. Some people may not have their facts straight, but what I speak is truth.
Regarding Iraq: They are Americans dying as a result of our government policy, which was the point. That they were aware of the risk they were taking does not make their deaths any less tragic, or "count less" as you seem to imply.
You can't honestly compare marijuana prohibition with alcohol regulation With alcohol, you are penalized for how you behave under the influence, not the fact that you have a receipt in your wallet. And you don't get arrested for being drunk in a bar, unless you start a fight or cause a great disturbance. The liquor store can't sell you liquor if you already look trashed, but that's to stop you from hurting yourself, and you don't get in trouble for it. We learned the hard way that people can't drive when drunk, but we didn't turn around and ban alcohol, did we?
>Likewise I imagine if you are getting busted for drugs you are being busted in a public location, are cultivating it outside, or selling significant amounts.
Cops go after the most visible targets, sure, and as a result most arrests are for mere posession. (see bottom) Because of the demand, economics dictates that a black market will exist. As the legal deterrants increase (jail time, property seizure, mandatory minimums), dealers will become increasingly dangerous, as their freedom is on the line. Meanwhile, the steady stream of arrests, especially in certain minority communities, erodes public trust in the police, and crime increases. The only reason this hasn't exploded already is because a lot of the people affected are still locked up.
"There have been more than 3.7 million marijuana arrests this decade [1990-2000]. Eighty-three percent of these arrests were for possession only.
Marijuana arrests rose every year since 1991, reaching an all time high of 695,200 in 1997. Marijuana arrests increased 59 percent during this period. Conversely, use of marijuana by adults remained unchanged."
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4015
Look at the graphs supplied by the US Department of Justice:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/enforce.htm
The arrests just go up and up. And yet we underfund drug rehabilitation programs. Good policy. Can't stop now, there's a war going on.
Don't be an ass, you know what I mean. We have the power to change this.
Well, the disclaimer you added at the end is necessary because deterrance doesn't really stop crime.
But the real questions is, if the majority don't think that it is a crime, why is it? Is this not a democracy?
Are you serious? Stock dividends are pitiful compared to what they once were. The real money is in prediction of hype. The market sustains itself by drawing more money in, not returning it. The money isn't going to your grandma unless she picks the next microsoft or dell. Instead, the money is going into the hands of a relatively small group. The group is just a little larger now.
i on
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P110762.asp
Guarenteed that all top oil execs are making tens of millions of dollars right now, once you throw in stock options, benefits, bonuses, and pensions. Meanwhile, it costs over 40 dollars to fill up your gas tank. Not that oil is unique, its just a good example. Which leads us to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_stratificat
Don't you mean the war on drug users and suspicious arabs?
Because let's face it, when all the money in the world fails to make a difference, you're approaching the problem the wrong way.
Thought: are Americans more or less likely to die at the hands of terrorists after our invasion of Iraq? With over 2,000 dead, and thousands more left injured, the current situation is basically a complete disaster. And angering millions in the Arab world makes us a bigger target. Face it, you can't scare people who are willing to die, period.
Thought: should being "high" be illegal if being "drunk" is not? Because certainly a compelling case could be made to prohibit alcohol because of drunken driving, violence, accidents, and abuse potential. More so than marijuana, even. But alcohol prohibition in the 1920s was a failure because it didn't curb demand, yet created crime to fuel an underground market, just like with the war on drugs today. But for prohibition to be repealed, people had to talk openly about the problem. Hard to do that with drugs, because the government misrepresents the facts to demonize drugs.
Obligatory: Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, 15 minute video: http://leap.cc/audiovideo/LEAPpromo.htm
America needs a change of direction, and honesty in politics.
I have one of these as well. And I have to say, the fake leather is extremely comfortable, especially at the angle it is at. The keys give soft resistance, which is comfortable at first, but eventually becomes tiresome. Still, it is a really nice keyboard, and a step forward in ergonomics.
I'm with you on the number pad. I wish I could find a detachable one, or a natural keyboard without one attached. I'd put it to my left so I could enter numbers and mouse at the same time.
Here's a source on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/WMD/treaty/ It's the fact that we're not disarming AND invading soverign countries that is inspiring the likes of N. Korea and Iran to develop weapons. Anyway, the central tenant of missile defense, that partial protection will make us safer, is patently false. The reason the antibalistic missile treaty was signed in the first place was because both sides realized that a partially-effective shield was inherently unstabilizing. The arms race was bad enough without a shield inspire extra nuke-building. As for N. Korea... what a joke. They don't have missiles that can hit us now anyway, and with a shield up, guess what, a suitcase bomb will suffice. If you follow missile defense history you see fudged and failed tests, and congressional support for manufacture in home states. It's been a series of back-scratchings that have cost the taxpayers over 150 billion to date. And the damn prototype can't hit a known launch in ideal conditions, traveling slower than ICBMs, siloutted by the sun, with a homing device inside. If that isn't a complete failure, what is? I know, it's still a prototype you say. However, it isn't a problem of technology, but one of physics. It is simply 1000 times easier to design countermeasures than to design against unknown countermeasures. Hell, a mylar balloon like the shiny ones in the supermarket look identical to missiles in outer space (the mid-course trajectory of an ICBM), and would certainly foil the system if it could even hit what it was aiming at. I'm sorry, but NMD is not like the lightbulb, because the lightbulb isn't trying to stop you from lighting it. This has very little to do with left vs right and way more to do with a cozy relationship between congressmen and military contractors. But you just go and believe that the stupid liberals are the problem.
An understanding of consciousness is necessary to really have a meaningful debate on this topic. Do you honestly believe that consciousness is created miraculously at the instant of conception? No, it is created over time. Hence, an embryo has no more consciousness than your tonsils, although an infinitely higher potential.
We also need to recognize our own fears and the root of our feelings to question the ethical implications of stem cell research. Most people naturally fear situations where they have no control of the outcome. Especially when we are younger, we are afraid of things happening to us in our sleep, afraid of the dark, afraid of water...basically, afraid of being vulnerable. What could be more vulnerable than an unborn baby? Nothing, of course, hence the resistance to abortion - despite the fact that responsible abortions are an overall benefit to society.
Here's my ultimate problem with the whole debate: it is callously abstract. While we argue about the fate of single cells that might, potentially, become people some day, 20,000 people die every day from poverty. Our neglect of the poor is criminal, and some day our age will be looked down on, like the dark ages. Because while we marvel in our own ingenuity in technology and science, we ignore the suffering of 1/6th of the world that lives in extreme poverty. We know they're there. We know their suffering. We can even now predict when a country will be hit by a drought and resulting famine ahead of time - http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/chi- 0508100129aug10,0,6732993.story?coll=ny-leadworldn ews-headlines/ yet they are still not averted.
When there aren't millions of kids waiting for adoption or food, and we our overpopulation concerns are gone, then perhaps, it might be appropirate to restrict the use of stem cells.
To put this in perspective, crack cocaine, oxycodone (aka percoset or oxycontin), methamphetamine (speed) and PCP, are all schedule 2 drugs, which makes it easier to obtain approval to conduct research using them, or approve a new medical application of them. (DEA Drug Scheduling: http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling.html/)
*Marinol is available in pill form, but it is the synthesis of only one of the active drugs in marijuana smoke, leaving other, potentially useful counterparts out. While I understand the refusal of the FDA to approve of smoke administered drugs, vaporizers eliminate the harms of smoking, and have existed since the 1970s. Recent models such as the "Volcano" eliminate any realistic health objections (evidence: http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/vaporizerstudy2 .html/ and pictures here: http://www.storz-bickel.com/en_home.htm/ )
Overall, inhalation is a superior delivery mechanism for pain that comes on quickly. This is because ingested marijuana (or Marinol alone) takes some time to be released and will remain in the body for long periods of time, making it ineffective in alleviating flare-ups.
It would be a helpful first step if marijuana were rescheduled given the fact that it does not possess the abuse potential the FDA claims. Marijuana has never been shown to be physically/chemically addicting, unlike all of the schedule 2 drugs I mentioned, as well as tobacco. Furthermore, marijuana doesn't have a significant lethal dose potential, unlike all of the schedule 2 drugs I mentioned, or even alcohol for that matter! It's time we got over our government propaganda induced fear and approve beneficial medical applications as a minimal first step. Our irrational fear hurts those with chronic pain, forcing ordinary people to choose between breaking the law or suffering needlessly.
Re: lethal dose of Marijuana and Alcohol - "There is a major health risk of acute alcohol use that is not shared with cannabis. In large doses alcohol can cause death by asphyxiation, alcohol poisoning, cardiomyopathy and cardiac infarct. There are no recorded cases of overdose fatalities attributed to cannabis, and the estimated lethal dose for humans extrapolated from animal studies is so high that it cannot be achieved by recreational users." (Source: http://www.legalisieren.at/studien/who/comparison. htm/)
...further recognizing that marijuana prohibition, like alcohol prohibition in its heyday, creates more problems then it solves would be icing on the cake. I'm not holding my breath for that one, especially given the White House's historic position and the recent Bush Supreme Court nominee.
-Scott
Moral arguements aside, (although I do believe they are relevant when people are dying of hunger, et cetera,) space simply cannot be controlled. It is not a teritory that can be occupied like a country can, and there are several basic reasons for this.
First off, weapons placed in space cannot be hidden, so they sit in plain view of everyone. As an extension of this, they can also be tracked easily because they follow simple orbits, and thinking forward, this makes the weapons themselves vulnerable to attack. The United States and Russia have both already demonstrated effective precision anti-satellite capabilities, but a simpler approach would be to simply explode a nuclear weapon relatively nearby - something any major nuclear power could already do. Of course, a nuclear blast would damage other satellites as well, and not only directly. The destruction of satellites would create a huge amount of space debris, already a significant problem. In fact, intentionally launching debris would be another basic anti-satellite technique.
The United States has the most to lose - it already has the largest world share of satellite-based commerce, its military relies on satellites to function more than any other military. By shifting battle into outer space, the U.S. is effectively threatening its own interests.
Also, anti-satellite weapons cost orders of magnitude less than outer space weapons in terms of cost to develop or deploy, meaning there is no strategic advantage to being the first country to deploy space weapons. In fact, by deploying such weapons first, the United States may end up committing itself to an asymmetrical arms race in an attempt to protect its space assets - especially asymmetrical because of the prohibitive cost of space launches. Finally, you have to examine the motivation for space weaponization. The U.S. military is already by far the dominant world force. No other country in the world is currently undertaking serious research to weaponize space. Russia has unilaterally pledged not to be the first country to weaponize space and China is considering such a declaration itself. The allocation of money is not neutral, it must come from somewhere. This means either a decrease in other military forces or in domestic programs. Space weaponization is a waste of money, does nothing to solve current problems, and may very well create new international tensions, something that both the Russian and Chinese ambassadors have made quite clear.