> I used to get complaints from friends and family after erasing the browser history and temporary files to clean out > junk. They don't see it like a volatile history like I do, I use mine but only if I see it. People I know use it as a > primary way of getting to websites!
Hell, I do that a lot of the time.
but yes, a persons environment is theirs. I used to flip out on people because they would maximize windows and stuff, then close firefox. Firefox would dutifully remember it was maximized...then when I unmaximized it, found it had forgotten my window size and jus became unmaximized, but the full size of the screen.
Then one day my wifes friend added her accounts to pidgin and... I dunno what she did but the next time I launched it, the window was maximized and wouldn't move. I ended up having to screw around in its configs behind its back to restore it to working.
After that I went into my sawfish theme and removed the maximize buttons (never use em myself)
But really, the user switcher tab is the best.... I try not to let people use my desktop at all now. My wife threw a hissy fit when I offered to make her an account, which was strange I mean... we have an open relationship... shes appologized for having an emergency that made me come home when I was out with a friend that I occasionally have relations with.... we tell each other about the other people we try to date occasionally.... yet... it was still like I was suddenly trying to hide something from her because I offered to make her her own account.
People are very strange.
Actually the one that gets me is google searches. I have never. Not once, in my entire life, typed things into an address bar and expected, or even wanted, what I typed to become a google search. If i had, I would have gone to google and typed it there. In fact this "feature" has only ever caused me grief. Because now that I am done typing the URL, it forwards and changes to a google url, and now I can't even go back and edit my typo. Thanks firefox.
Actually looking again, that doesn't make sense. Thats a compile time option from the config. Strange. What I do find is this: grep HZ/boot/config-2.6.28-6-386 CONFIG_HZ=250 # CONFIG_HZ_100 is not set # CONFIG_HZ_1000 is not set CONFIG_HZ_250=y # CONFIG_HZ_300 is not set CONFIG_MACHZ_WDT=m # CONFIG_NO_HZ is not set
Looking now at the options for kernels. Its not exactly clear whether I am using the wrong kernel image or not.
Admittedly, my system isn't a clean install... it was installed several revs back. To give you an idea of how long, I had issues when Ubuntu started supporting hard drive encryption because I was already using it and their cryptsetup script for initrd conflicted with mine (I removed mine in lieu of theirs)
In any case.... not all ubuntu are created equal:
grep CONFIG_NO_HZ/boot/config-`uname -r` # CONFIG_NO_HZ is not set
Last I heard, the "tickless" kernel was more of a "tick less" kernel in that you could give it a clock divider to tick less often. So you could have it tick 100 times a second or 10 times a second instead of 1000 times a second as it does by default.
Of course, I have only encountered this in the realm of running VMs. You can get some pretty impressive clock skew under ESX with an older stock kernel and no tuning (hours a day)
This would give a broken keyboard a truely pathological failure mode. "Yes I have a sev 1 issue here: the keyboard is broken" "Sir, sev 1 is reserved for site-wide outages that are user impacting" "If you don't get a new keyboard here before the thermite goes off, I garauntee user impact"
Yes, emotional pain and physical pain may be the same in the brain. I buy that one, it makes a lot of sense on a number of levels. However, does that follow that all laws that we made that involved physical harm in some way translate to emotional harm?
I just don't think it is that cut and dry. Whether the experience in the brain is the same or not is less relevant, than the question of what you are asking to be expected of people.
To show where I think the physical analogy breaks down, if I walk into the room with a baseball bat. I can tell pretty easily how much damage I can do to you with the bat. I can see where the empty space ends, and where your nose begins. I can choose to take a few extra steps away from you and swing my bat in peace, without worrying about smashing any part of you.
Then if I do hit you, whether through malice or negligence, the damage is done, and can be seen, and quantified, and the time it will take to heal will be directly proportional to the harndess with which I hit you, and indirectly so with how well you treat your wound.
Psychological pain is harder. I can swing my bat, lightly or hard. I can't really even say where you are that I might hit you, much less where I hit you. It doesn't matter how hard I swing, I can use all my might and do no damage, or merely move the wrong way, and do catastrophic damage.
Also, a miss now, can turn into a hit later, based only on whats going on in your head. In fact, you may unproductively relive the event and pain over and over in many different ways. Amplifying the pain far beyond anything that I could have done.
I really think this is a dangerous place to be asking the law to tread. Will we outlaw private clubs? Will we legislate the need to say hello and how are you doing with sincerity to every person we meet? Will we outlaw turning down people for dates? for sex? Perhaps cheating on your unmarried partner?
We can outlaw the burka. Then require that all men and women walk around covered head to ankle to prevent offending anyone.
I know this is ridiculous but... I just don't see how what you seem to be arguing for is really viable as a principal. It seems like it would quickly require too high a standard. A standard that would then be mostly ignored throughout society.
It reminds me of the standards proposed by the Sexual harassment trainers. "Policy is we the incident will be judged based on what the person filing the complaint felt, and not the intention of the speaker". Nice, take a bad situation, and flip it around so its a bad situation for innocent people instead of the original victim.
Maybe you should have read the links before commenting. The cited clauses (4 and 6) are:
1. A person commits the crime of harassment if he or she:...
(3) Knowingly... causes emotional distress to another person by anonymously making... any electronic communication; or
(4) Knowingly communicates with another person who is... seventeen years of age or younger and in so doing and without good cause recklessly... causes emotional distress to such other person; or...
(6) Without good cause engages in any other act with the purpose to... cause emotional distress to another person, cause such person to be... emotionally distressed, and such person's response to the act is one of a person of average sensibilities considering the age of such person.
So, while the cases are not exactly the same, my reading of this definition of what is sufficient to claim harassment is pretty broad (as was stated) and might be said to fit. So actually, its so relevant, that I wouldn't be shocked if the original suit cited this case directly.
30 days and 3 years probation actually. Probation is still a form of punishment, just one where you aren't rotting in a cell providing no benefit to society at all. It also means that, during that period, his probation could become jail time, if he violates the terms of his probation.
It seems like it could be a fair sentance. Admittedly the damages are greater than normal here since the victim has such an appearance oriented profession. However, he still got drunk, lost his temper, and hit someone. Bad? Yes. In need of correction, yes. Best dealt with by a lengthy prison stay? probably not.
Absolutely true.... there is an easy way to avoid that problem in two simple steps. Either one will work: 1. Don't do anything that will raise the ire of someone with access to an appropriate microsocope. 2. If you can't do one, then stop using hard drives from the 1980s. Dude, where do you even find disk controllers for them that work in modern machines?
Um no, we are married, and both ex-catholics. We may not have kept much of the faith but, that belief that marriage is for life and divorce is missing the point. Then again, the church would probably frown on some aspects of our marriage too... like that we have no plans for kids, and are not monogamous.
But hey... marriage isn't about who you have sex with. Its about who you spend your time with and leave your assets to. Now thats romance:)
OH, I tried giving her some good stuff to read.... I tried. She even likes Shakespear... but no.... no she wants to read vampire erotica. Vampires and zombies.... now thats classy reading.
I have found the same thing. Though years of IRC and IM have definitely made me lean further and further towards typing how I speak, and further away from how I would write a formal paper. Here, I tend towards speech... because....well.... fuck the gramar and speling nazis in their asses.
Though marrying a southie girl has actually caused me to remember many of my grammar rules.
That this probably applies to movies, books, and several other ways that a person can blow off steam and escape from the day to day grind for a while without getting exercise.
Shock! Awe!
I thought I had seen obsessive escapist book reading before, then my wife got a kindle. Actually, I wonder if these addictions are not worst than many drugs. Afterall, reading is healthy and good, and nobody wants to bother someone reading a book. (nor do they usually want to be bothered)
Though, once you have spent all your free time reading for a month to the exclusion of household chores and social interaction.... well I doubt its much better or worst if its a video game.
As you and I probably know...but in case anyone else is reading this.... from wikipedia:
A form of asset forfeiture is roadside forfeiture during a vehicle stop. Usually enforcing State policies by Highway police, local law enforcement have built up seized funds and spent them with oversight only from local judges who sometimes benefit from the expenditures of such expenditures. The presumption is that travelers hiding large amounts of cash are transporting drug money. Often, the vehicle occupants are required to simply sign a waiver that they will leave the State and not return, thus also not attempt to retrieve their funds. Some complain that this is law enforcement action requires more oversight in order to minimize the impact on travelers who are not involved in drug money but who simply wish to avoid further involvement with law enforcement agents and sign the waiver anyway. Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, chair of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee is investigating the Tenaha, Texas Police seizures scandal.
Bzzt wrong. Actually, I have looked this up before. I never found what it is exactly, but there is some product thats used to train dogs to sniff for pot. Its some substance that smells similar in some way.
You need to select a scent that you will have your dog detect. This could be interesting. I suppose in the early days, people were forced to use illegal substances to work with their dogs. But now, there are these interesting things, called "pseudo chemicals," which simulate the scent of the REAL drug or explosive, so that trainers don't get in trouble with the law by using the real thing.
It does have that effect on some people (which is one thing that many people forget, every drug affects different people differently. I have smoked tobacco a number of times, but never developed a habbit. To this day I smoke maybe three or four times a year) I know people who say cocaine does little for them. Of course, they tend not to become users of it.
I highly disagree that the ONLY thing an addicts wants is to get high. You yourself mentioned several things that become more important, so you stopped. Most people have other things they care about, addict or not. However, drugs are well... if your talking about the amount of money a person really NEEDS to live, the amount you need to take from them to actually bottom them out and bring their choices to the point where they have to choose life or drugs.... well.... drugs are cheap compared to that (for a while). Worst, drugs have a markup that makes dealing to support your habbit look very attractive.
In the end it just doesn't work.
Now... lets take another view. What if it wasn't illegal? What if importers didn't need to hide their imports? So they had no real reason to extract the coke and sell it in a mostly pure powder form?
Look at columbia where it litterally grows on trees. People there chew the leaves for a little pick up much like coffee. It could be sold in a gum for or in some other way... less exposure to benzene. No abrasive powders up the nose, lower doses leading to less tolerance.
Same for heroin. Why sell it in pure form? Why inject it? Only because of the price/benefit ratio. If the price of the drug comes down, we can expect to see people adding it to a smoking mix, or ingesting it orally.
Simply put, the harm can be reduced in many ways. None of those ways are available under the Prohibitionist Harm Amplification policies.
I understand where you are coming from. However for the purposes of public policy, some amount of generalization is needed. You say your friend had no trouble getting heroin... but is that true?
How much better off would he be if it was cheap enough that it didn't make him make hard decisions? How much better off would he be if he could buy it at a known purity, knowing there were no unsafe impurities?
A regulated, open market is cheaper, safer, lowers the risk of overdose, lowers exposure to dangerous chemicals like benzene. etc.
Opiate addiction sucks, I wouldn't wish it on anyone or their friends. I don't mean to make it sound better than it is, however, I reject a policy that aims to do nothing more than make these sick people's lives worst.
I simply reject the policy of destroying the village to save it.
Thats the best writeup I have found at the moment. Interestingly, while it mentions crime participation as one of the questions that the study was looking to answer, it doesn't address the findings on that point.
SO what you are saying is, that if someone went out and bought a bunch of methyl benzoate and started spreading the love anywhere that people were likely to encounter drug dogs, it could create some absolutely hillarious chaos....chaos rightly deserved by an organization that touts freedom out one face, while telling people what they can do from the other?
I don't know. I remember reading about some of the "drug highways" where drugs move north and south and how some little shit counties have monopolized by placing extra patrols on those rodes to try and get as much of that drug cash for themseleves. (everybody wants their cut).
Maybe its the end of the same story, but I remember reading about a guy who grabbed his whole life savings (10k or so) and jumped in his car to go live with his sick mother. Unfortunately for him he traveled on one of these roads too, and ended up having his cash confiscated even though he had no drugs.
Dude, drug prohibition is bad no matter which drug you choose. Even heroin, as bad as it is, isn't ha;f as bad as the prohibition that tries to ban it.
It all based on the idea that if you make people desperate enough, they will quit. Not entirely incorrect, some recent research shows that people quit drugs almost entirely for practical reasons.
What they ignore is the problems caused by making people desperate are worst than the original addiction. Swiss studies have shown that simply providing heroin at a price similar to what it would be on the open market decreased the amount of income that the study subjects took in through other illegal activities by 90%, in a few weeks.
Its been found they can hold down jobs (much like many alcoholics do), they can afford their habbit, afford food, etc.
Simply put, prohibition is a broken model from the very start. Cannabis is simply the largest (more cannabis smokers in the US than all other illegal drug users combined), and the one with the most ridiculous lies spread about it.
I would imagine that its both that AND then having that money rub up against other money as it goes into you wallet and then to the bank, and then through mechanical counting machines. How sensitive is the test? How many bills could one "nose straw" collect?
This is, btw, nothing new. I read this same statistic in an article on civil property seizure 10 years ago. Its been known for years.... the police can confiscate any cash you have, at any time. If even one bill tests positive for cocaine, its all suspect.
But its civil court, so no need to worry. They have to show a "preponderance of evidence" that it was used for something illegal. ALl you have to do is prove that it wasn't. Your not going to let essentially being guilty until proven innocent deter you are you? No worries though, its not criminal.... so all you lose is your cash.
Slashdot Mirror
> I used to get complaints from friends and family after erasing the browser history and temporary files to clean out
> junk. They don't see it like a volatile history like I do, I use mine but only if I see it. People I know use it as a
> primary way of getting to websites!
Hell, I do that a lot of the time.
but yes, a persons environment is theirs. I used to flip out on people because they would maximize windows and stuff, then close firefox. Firefox would dutifully remember it was maximized...then when I unmaximized it, found it had forgotten my window size and jus became unmaximized, but the full size of the screen.
Then one day my wifes friend added her accounts to pidgin and... I dunno what she did but the next time I launched it, the window was maximized and wouldn't move. I ended up having to screw around in its configs behind its back to restore it to working.
After that I went into my sawfish theme and removed the maximize buttons (never use em myself)
But really, the user switcher tab is the best.... I try not to let people use my desktop at all now. My wife threw a hissy fit when I offered to make her an account, which was strange I mean... we have an open relationship... shes appologized for having an emergency that made me come home when I was out with a friend that I occasionally have relations with.... we tell each other about the other people we try to date occasionally.... yet... it was still like I was suddenly trying to hide something from her because I offered to make her her own account.
People are very strange.
Actually the one that gets me is google searches. I have never. Not once, in my entire life, typed things into an address bar and expected, or even wanted, what I typed to become a google search. If i had, I would have gone to google and typed it there. In fact this "feature" has only ever caused me grief. Because now that I am done typing the URL, it forwards and changes to a google url, and now I can't even go back and edit my typo. Thanks firefox.
-Steve
Actually looking again, that doesn't make sense. Thats a compile time option from the config. Strange. What I do find is this: /boot/config-2.6.28-6-386
grep HZ
CONFIG_HZ=250
# CONFIG_HZ_100 is not set
# CONFIG_HZ_1000 is not set
CONFIG_HZ_250=y
# CONFIG_HZ_300 is not set
CONFIG_MACHZ_WDT=m
# CONFIG_NO_HZ is not set
Looking now at the options for kernels. Its not exactly clear whether I am using the wrong kernel image or not.
-Steve
Admittedly, my system isn't a clean install... it was installed several revs back. To give you an idea of how long, I had issues when Ubuntu started supporting hard drive encryption because I was already using it and their cryptsetup script for initrd conflicted with mine (I removed mine in lieu of theirs)
In any case.... not all ubuntu are created equal:
grep CONFIG_NO_HZ /boot/config-`uname -r`
# CONFIG_NO_HZ is not set
guess I should fix that.
-Steve
Um Linux is a tickless kernel now?
Last I heard, the "tickless" kernel was more of a "tick less" kernel in that you could give it a clock divider to tick less often. So you could have it tick 100 times a second or 10 times a second instead of 1000 times a second as it does by default.
Of course, I have only encountered this in the realm of running VMs. You can get some pretty impressive clock skew under ESX with an older stock kernel and no tuning (hours a day)
-Steve
This would give a broken keyboard a truely pathological failure mode.
"Yes I have a sev 1 issue here: the keyboard is broken"
"Sir, sev 1 is reserved for site-wide outages that are user impacting"
"If you don't get a new keyboard here before the thermite goes off, I garauntee user impact"
-Steve
Yes, emotional pain and physical pain may be the same in the brain. I buy that one, it makes a lot of sense on a number of levels. However, does that follow that all laws that we made that involved physical harm in some way translate to emotional harm?
I just don't think it is that cut and dry. Whether the experience in the brain is the same or not is less relevant, than the question of what you are asking to be expected of people.
To show where I think the physical analogy breaks down, if I walk into the room with a baseball bat. I can tell pretty easily how much damage I can do to you with the bat. I can see where the empty space ends, and where your nose begins. I can choose to take a few extra steps away from you and swing my bat in peace, without worrying about smashing any part of you.
Then if I do hit you, whether through malice or negligence, the damage is done, and can be seen, and quantified, and the time it will take to heal will be directly proportional to the harndess with which I hit you, and indirectly so with how well you treat your wound.
Psychological pain is harder. I can swing my bat, lightly or hard. I can't really even say where you are that I might hit you, much less where I hit you. It doesn't matter how hard I swing, I can use all my might and do no damage, or merely move the wrong way, and do catastrophic damage.
Also, a miss now, can turn into a hit later, based only on whats going on in your head. In fact, you may unproductively relive the event and pain over and over in many different ways. Amplifying the pain far beyond anything that I could have done.
I really think this is a dangerous place to be asking the law to tread. Will we outlaw private clubs? Will we legislate the need to say hello and how are you doing with sincerity to every person we meet? Will we outlaw turning down people for dates? for sex? Perhaps cheating on your unmarried partner?
We can outlaw the burka.
Then require that all men and women walk around covered head to ankle to prevent offending anyone.
I know this is ridiculous but... I just don't see how what you seem to be arguing for is really viable as a principal. It seems like it would quickly require too high a standard. A standard that would then be mostly ignored throughout society.
It reminds me of the standards proposed by the Sexual harassment trainers. "Policy is we the incident will be judged based on what the person filing the complaint felt, and not the intention of the speaker". Nice, take a bad situation, and flip it around so its a bad situation for innocent people instead of the original victim.
-Steve
Maybe you should have read the links before commenting. The cited clauses (4 and 6) are:
So, while the cases are not exactly the same, my reading of this definition of what is sufficient to claim harassment is pretty broad (as was stated) and might be said to fit. So actually, its so relevant, that I wouldn't be shocked if the original suit cited this case directly.
-Steve
30 days and 3 years probation actually. Probation is still a form of punishment, just one where you aren't rotting in a cell providing no benefit to society at all. It also means that, during that period, his probation could become jail time, if he violates the terms of his probation.
It seems like it could be a fair sentance. Admittedly the damages are greater than normal here since the victim has such an appearance oriented profession. However, he still got drunk, lost his temper, and hit someone. Bad? Yes. In need of correction, yes. Best dealt with by a lengthy prison stay? probably not.
-Steve
Dirty Hippie!
Absolutely true.... there is an easy way to avoid that problem in two simple steps. Either one will work:
1. Don't do anything that will raise the ire of someone with access to an appropriate microsocope.
2. If you can't do one, then stop using hard drives from the 1980s. Dude, where do you even find disk controllers for them that work in modern machines?
-Steve
Um no, we are married, and both ex-catholics. We may not have kept much of the faith but, that belief that marriage is for life and divorce is missing the point. Then again, the church would probably frown on some aspects of our marriage too... like that we have no plans for kids, and are not monogamous.
But hey... marriage isn't about who you have sex with. Its about who you spend your time with and leave your assets to. Now thats romance :)
-Steve
OH, I tried giving her some good stuff to read.... I tried. She even likes Shakespear... but no.... no
she wants to read vampire erotica. Vampires and zombies.... now thats classy reading.
-Steve
I have found the same thing. Though years of IRC and IM have definitely made me lean further and further towards typing how I speak, and further away from how I would write a formal paper. Here, I tend towards speech... because....well.... fuck the gramar and speling nazis in their asses.
Though marrying a southie girl has actually caused me to remember many of my grammar rules.
"Baby 'I saw' not 'I seen'" :)
"fuck you"
-Steve
Are you attempting to propose a new meaning for the word?
That this probably applies to movies, books, and several other ways that a person can blow off steam and escape from the day to day grind for a while without getting exercise.
Shock! Awe!
I thought I had seen obsessive escapist book reading before, then my wife got a kindle. Actually, I wonder if these addictions are not worst than many drugs. Afterall, reading is healthy and good, and nobody wants to bother someone reading a book. (nor do they usually want to be bothered)
Though, once you have spent all your free time reading for a month to the exclusion of household chores and social interaction.... well I doubt its much better or worst if its a video game.
-Steve
As you and I probably know...but in case anyone else is reading this.... from wikipedia:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture)
Bzzt wrong. Actually, I have looked this up before. I never found what it is exactly, but there is some product thats used to train dogs to sniff for pot. Its some substance that smells similar in some way.
(from http://www.dogscouts.org/Dog_Activ-_Scent_Discrim.html )
-Steve
It does have that effect on some people (which is one thing that many people forget, every drug affects different people differently. I have smoked tobacco a number of times, but never developed a habbit. To this day I smoke maybe three or four times a year) I know people who say cocaine does little for them. Of course, they tend not to become users of it.
I highly disagree that the ONLY thing an addicts wants is to get high. You yourself mentioned several things that become more important, so you stopped. Most people have other things they care about, addict or not. However, drugs are well... if your talking about the amount of money a person really NEEDS to live, the amount you need to take from them to actually bottom them out and bring their choices to the point where they have to choose life or drugs.... well.... drugs are cheap compared to that (for a while). Worst, drugs have a markup that makes dealing to support your habbit look very attractive.
In the end it just doesn't work.
Now... lets take another view. What if it wasn't illegal? What if importers didn't need to hide their imports? So they had no real reason to extract the coke and sell it in a mostly pure powder form?
Look at columbia where it litterally grows on trees. People there chew the leaves for a little pick up much like coffee. It could be sold in a gum for or in some other way... less exposure to benzene. No abrasive powders up the nose, lower doses leading to less tolerance.
Same for heroin. Why sell it in pure form? Why inject it? Only because of the price/benefit ratio. If the price of the drug comes down, we can expect to see people adding it to a smoking mix, or ingesting it orally.
Simply put, the harm can be reduced in many ways. None of those ways are available under the Prohibitionist Harm Amplification policies.
-Steve
I understand where you are coming from. However for the purposes of public policy, some amount of generalization is needed. You say your friend had no trouble getting heroin... but is that true?
How much better off would he be if it was cheap enough that it didn't make him make hard decisions? How much better off would he be if he could buy it at a known purity, knowing there were no unsafe impurities?
A regulated, open market is cheaper, safer, lowers the risk of overdose, lowers exposure to dangerous chemicals like benzene. etc.
Opiate addiction sucks, I wouldn't wish it on anyone or their friends. I don't mean to make it sound better than it is, however, I reject a policy that aims to do nothing more than make these sick people's lives worst.
I simply reject the policy of destroying the village to save it.
-Steve
http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/tlcnr.cfm
Thats the best writeup I have found at the moment. Interestingly, while it mentions crime participation as one of the questions that the study was looking to answer, it doesn't address the findings on that point.
-Steve
SO what you are saying is, that if someone went out and bought a bunch of methyl benzoate and started spreading the love anywhere that people were likely to encounter drug dogs, it could create some absolutely hillarious chaos....chaos rightly deserved by an organization that touts freedom out one face, while telling people what they can do from the other?
Good to know.
Incidentally, any idea what they key on for pot?
-Steve
I don't know. I remember reading about some of the "drug highways" where drugs move north and south and how some little shit counties have monopolized by placing extra patrols on those rodes to try and get as much of that drug cash for themseleves. (everybody wants their cut).
Maybe its the end of the same story, but I remember reading about a guy who grabbed his whole life savings (10k or so) and jumped in his car to go live with his sick mother. Unfortunately for him he traveled on one of these roads too, and ended up having his cash confiscated even though he had no drugs.
-Steve
This could be an interesting angle... clothing designed to limit the "damage" from cell phone signals....
So you line the pockets with a metalic mesh.... and as an added benefit... those milimeter wave scanners at the airport should be blinded too.
I was wondering how to market metalic mesh lined pants :)
-Steve
Dude, drug prohibition is bad no matter which drug you choose. Even heroin, as bad as it is, isn't ha;f as bad as the prohibition that tries to ban it.
It all based on the idea that if you make people desperate enough, they will quit. Not entirely incorrect, some recent research shows that people quit drugs almost entirely for practical reasons.
What they ignore is the problems caused by making people desperate are worst than the original addiction. Swiss studies have shown that simply providing heroin at a price similar to what it would be on the open market decreased the amount of income that the study subjects took in through other illegal activities by 90%, in a few weeks.
Its been found they can hold down jobs (much like many alcoholics do), they can afford their habbit, afford food, etc.
Simply put, prohibition is a broken model from the very start. Cannabis is simply the largest (more cannabis smokers in the US than all other illegal drug users combined), and the one with the most ridiculous lies spread about it.
-Steve
I would imagine that its both that AND then having that money rub up against other money as it goes into you wallet and then to the bank, and then through mechanical counting machines. How sensitive is the test? How many bills could one "nose straw" collect?
This is, btw, nothing new. I read this same statistic in an article on civil property seizure 10 years ago. Its been known for years.... the police can confiscate any cash you have, at any time. If even one bill tests positive for cocaine, its all suspect.
But its civil court, so no need to worry. They have to show a "preponderance of evidence" that it was used for something illegal. ALl you have to do is prove that it wasn't. Your not going to let essentially being guilty until proven innocent deter you are you? No worries though, its not criminal.... so all you lose is your cash.
Sounds fair doesn't it?
-Steve