Open Government Brainstorm Defies Wisdom of Crowds 709
theodp writes "In May, the White House launched what it called an 'unprecedented online process for public engagement in policymaking.' Brainstorming was conducted in an effort to identify ways to 'strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness by making government more transparent, participatory, and collaborative.' So, what were some of the top vote-getters? Currently near the top of the list are Legalize Marijuana And Solve Many Tax Issues / Prison Issues (#2) and Remove Marijuana from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (#3). For those who remember Obama's earlier Online Town Hall, it's deja vu all over again."
Re:We all laugh (Score:5, Informative)
There are really bigger issues behind this.
The entire War on Drugs would be a farce, if only it weren't such a disaster with such bad side-effects. Not only does our drug policy not work, it has destabilized governments of many other nations, particularly in the western hemisphere south of the US, and is a root cause of a heck of a lot of deaths and human-rights violations. In addition, at least partly due to our drug policy, we have criminalized a larger percentage of our population than any first-world nation, perhaps the highest overall.
IMHO we should focus on treatment (demand reduction) and stopping crimes of financing (stealing money for the next fix) that harm uninvolved innocents, as well as any other related violent acts. Trying to restrict supply while taking a "Just Say NO!" policy on demand is not only doomed to failure, it HAS been failing for decades. The side-effect is that it raises the price of drugs, pushing a LOT of money into the drug business, and saps more money out of the "good" economy by people buying their drugs.
Related, in a way (Score:5, Informative)
I used to think that all drugs were bad, and all that stuff. But after reading the second linked thread, the Schedule I thread [ideascale.com], specifically the bits about
* marijuana not killing people as much as tobacco and alcohol;
* pure THC being ranked as a Schedule III drug and marijuana as a Schedule I drug (see comment by user pbrigando13);
* Oxycontin et al., more damaging and causing more of a dependency than marijuana (which creates none), not being on the Controlled Substances List altogether;
* (taking this one with a grain of salt) the advantages of marijuana, rarer use of violence and driving accidents from users than alcoholics, etc. (see comment by user onegod1world)
, I'm reconsidering that stance.
Also, I'd like to point out that #1 is End Imperial Presidency [ideascale.com] -- with 755 votes against #2's 351 --, heavily criticizing Bush's presidency and calling out what happened in Iraq as war crimes, as they should be called. That is a serious one, and I for one am glad that it got voted up top.
Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (Score:4, Informative)
Why are you under the impression that cannabis intoxication is a traffic problem? (There's science done on the subject that I doubt you're aware of)
Cannabis != alcohol. Those two drugs to not have the same issues.
Re:Painful to Watch (Score:3, Informative)
And the majority (I believe, I have no reference) is related to marijuana.
Estimates range from 10% to 20%, but nobody really knows. This includes those who are in for both pot-related and other offenses, however. If I were to learn that the majority of prisoners had at least one drug-related charge I would not be surprised (I'm not claiming that's the case, just speculating).
Erratum (Score:3, Informative)
#2 has 531 votes, not 351. Typos rule.
Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (Score:5, Informative)
Research from the Dutch "Nederlands Forensisch Instituut" (Dutch Forensics Institute) shows that the effect of a single joint equates to about 1.1 ppt alcohol in the blood. In 2006, out of 730 casualties in lethal accidents, 75 were drugsrelated (also cocaine, speed etc. but that doesnt impact driving as much as marihuana). Currently experiments are underway to determine intoxication level with drugs out of the cheekslime. To this date a bloodtest is required, which is done on suspects (smells like having smoked pot, eyes looking decidedly vague, reactions not very coordinated etc.)
See http://thecoffeeshops.wordpress.com/tag/jointje/ for the Dutch article.
So it's not FUD, and research has been done over here where its legal to smoke it, and yes it does cause serious traffic accidents.
Note: I am completely in favor of legalizing it. But don't say it's harmless - driving after smoking, especially given current THC levels in joints, is NOT harmless. Oh, and don't compare your homegrown weed with the stuff you buy in the coffeeshops over in Holland. The THC of the current export-quality pot is nothing to scoff at and can knock you out quite easily.
Re:Democracy is the problem (Score:5, Informative)
Civilization declining? No way. It's getting better all the time. These are very groovy times. Try to look objectively at history. The amount of suck in life is decreasing at a fantastic rate.
Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know if you're referring to the full legalization thread (#2) or just the Schedule reclassification thread (#3), but here goes.
[T]here is a considerable legal difference between "drunk" and driving while "intoxicated" and "under the influence". The concept of drunk, as used in public drunk statutes, refers to a person who is so inebriated that he is incapable of caring for his own safety. This is a considerably greater degree of inebriation than "intoxicated" or "under the influence". This latter condition is often legally defined as that physical state in which the liquor has so far affected the nervous system, brain or muscles as to impair the ability to operate a vehicle in a manner like that of an ordinarily prudent or cautious person under like conditions in the full possession of his faculties using reasonable care. source [google.ca]
[Emphasis mine, from "Drunk driving defense" by Lawrence Taylor & Steven Oberman]
The effects of THC on the body [web4health.info] do include relaxation of the muscles, therefore would fall under the term "under the influence" as defined in law. However,
Although marijuana's share of fatal crashes is much lower than those attributed to alcohol, researchers say the results show that marijuana use, even in low doses, significantly increases the risk of fatal car accidents. source [webmd.com]
While the quote could be used in an argument on both sides, if marijuana were only reclassified under another Schedule, not fully legalized, the rate of use would be lower than with full legalization (with a law already in place for "intoxicated driving" as above!), so it all comes down to what you'd rather avoid: even more driving accidents than in the current situation; another cause of driving accidents; or perhaps the fact that the "new" cause of accidents is less well detectable by simple behavioral analysis therefore less enforceable. But the point of rescheduling marijuana (#3) is that the current legislation doesn't make sense. See my other comment [slashdot.org] in this thread for a summary of why.
Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (Score:2, Informative)
If this is what you really believe then I would urge you to support a limited federal government in all matters.
The issue is this: If you give them the power to regulate X, they invariably regulate Y and Z. On the other hand if you do not want Z to be regulated then you may have to settle for X and Y going unregulated as well. It's not to say your state government could not be more proactive. Invariably power over one object extends to power over other objects until power over all things is obtained. Just consider the velocity US policy in the 20th century.
So, if you do not want your morals controlled you may have to give up federal control of say education and healthcare. Let the states handle it. There is something to be said about 50 competing solutions. Eventually someone will get it right. On the other hand if we have a single solution and get it wrong... It really makes for a mess. I believe any inefficiencies are made up for by the robustness of a decentralized solution.
I would urge you to read the Constitution and see if those words justify: 1) Any of the bailout nonsense, including the take over of GM. 3) Marijuana prohibition. 4) A central bank. 5) Universal healthcare or indeed medicare or medicaid.
For what it's worth I agree whole heartedly with you about MJ. It can be harmful. Hell, you may eventually get lung cancer from smoking it someday, but (at least in my eyes) you own yourself and you are as free to make your own decisions as you are free to deal with their consequences.
Anyway, please think how control begets more control.
Re:Painful to Watch (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Painful to Watch (Score:3, Informative)
It's not taboo, it's just retarded.
It's basically just a hope for a huge deus ex machina to let "their team" win. "Yay! Obama didn't really win because he's not really a US citizen!"
The problem is, despite pressing the law for their deus ex machina, they don't know shit about the law.
In the case that something happens to the president, the vice president takes power. This happened when Kennedy was assassinated, and it happened when Nixon was impeached. If something were to happen to the vice president, the speaker of the house takes power -- Nancy Pelosi. This deus ex would basically have to be, by far, the biggest scandal in the history of American politics for the Republicans to get someone in the presidency.
Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (Score:4, Informative)
First off, as someone who does smoke marijuana, I can definitely attest to levels of intoxication that would prevent me from driving coherently, and do avoid such scenarios. Second, I have been involved in a major traffic collision when a driver intoxicated on marijuana pulled out in front of me causing me to t-bone him, totaling both cars. Luckily no one was severely injured.
So yes, marijuana should be legal, however there should be ways to ensure it's use is responsible and does not endanger others. And frankly, driving is the only dangerous thing I can currently think of because I'm surely not dangerous in any other way while high.
And would someone please mod the OP out of troll hell. His comment was neither inflammatory nor fallacious.
Re:Related, in a way (Score:2, Informative)
Oxycontin et al., are very much controlled substances:
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling.html [usdoj.gov]
Pretty much any opiate derivative is going to be on one of the schedules (and I think most of them are going to be I and II; it looks like low dosages are sometimes III).
Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (Score:1, Informative)
No it doesn't. (2) prohibits driving while using any controlled substance. (7) prohibits driving while there are drug metabolites in your body, even if you are not intoxicated. For cocaine, as an example, these metabolites take about three days to become undetectable. So if you were to do a gram, you would not be allowed to drive for three days. They do, however, specifically exclude marijuana, so if you were to smoke tonight, you could drive in the morning (despite the metabolites potentially staying in your system for more than a month)
Re:It's an important thing (Score:3, Informative)
Not to mention that the prohibition sends tons of money out of the country, causes violent crime, and is destroying the countries that grow and transport the stuff.
Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not sure why this is flamebait... it is well known that THC reduces your response time. If/when I have driven stoned, i've been real careful, but once I tried to turn into a bus stop which I thought was a driveway.
I don't think legalizing will make the problem worse, however, and I don't think it is nearly the issue that alcohol is.
Nice quote from "The Wire" (Score:5, Informative)
The HBO show "The Wire" summed up the war on drugs nicely:
Det. Ellis Carver: You can't even call this shit a war.
Det. Thomas Hauk: Why not?
Det. Ellis Carver: Wars end.
Re:Related, in a way (Score:2, Informative)
No -- what he's saying is that ENFORCEMENT (not cannabis) is hurting people.
(how can you not understand this?)
Rescheduling Cannabis is Just Science and Logic (Score:3, Informative)
This is a simple matter of paying attention to science and obeying the law as written.
The rules for Schedule I are:
A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
The best available scientific and medical evidence and opinion clearly shows that criteria B and C do not apply (the US Institute of Medicine refuted B a decade ago, for example). The only way one can claim A applies is via a circular argument: all cannabis use DEFINED as abuse, therefore it has a high potential for abuse.
If the rules of classification are objectively and scientifically applied the it would rank no higher than Schedule IV!
The logic of scheduling Cannabis at Schedule IV (or V) is further shown by the DEA itself - by scheduling pure 100% THC at Schedule III. Clearly a preparation that is only about 10% as potent should have a lower ranking. One should note that Schedule V consists entirely of drugs with higher rankings (from I down to III) in reduced potency preparations.
This is simply a matter of getting science and reason back into regulation. Regrettably the DEA has been given a pass on these by both parties form the very beginning.
Portugal (Score:4, Informative)
Five years later, the number of deaths from street drug overdoses dropped from around 400 to 290 annually, and the number of new HIV cases caused by using dirty needles to inject heroin, cocaine and other illegal substances plummeted from nearly 1,400 in 2000 to about 400 in 2006, according to a report released recently by the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C, libertarian think tank.
Amazing how little press it's gotten.
Bad math, many assumptions...what're you, stoned? (Score:1, Informative)
>> the effect of a single joint equates to about 1.1
>> ppt alcohol in the blood
In that case, a typical smoker hits the road with the same impairment as someone who drank a fraction of a beer. I've been a regular pot smoker for 25 years, and a single joint of typical Dutch weed would be sufficient to get me high /at least/ half a dozen times (even considering that when you extinguish and relight repeatedly, you end up wasting about 1/4-1/3 of it).
>> In 2006, out of 730 casualties in lethal accidents,
>> 75 were drugs related
Bullshit; the role of drugs in most accidents is just not quantifiable - if there's a joint in the ashtray when you crash from talking on your cellphone, it goes into the "drugs related" column. There have been NUMEROUS studies - government and non - that came to the opposite conclusion. A small sampling:
"...The largest study ever done linking road accidents with drugs and alcohol has found drivers with cannabis in their blood were no more at risk than those who were drug-free. In fact, the findings by a pharmacology team from the University of Adelaide and Transport SA showed drivers who had smoked marijuana were marginally less likely to have an accident than those who were drug-free...."
http://www.norml.org.nz/Marijuana/Driving.htm
"...research into impairment and traffic accident reports from several countries shows that marijuana taken alone in moderate amounts does not significantly increase a driver's risk of causing an accident..."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/03/990325110700.htm
For more:
http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/bibliography/driving/index.cfm