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."
Painful to Watch (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey folks, it seems that the administration is at it again. All of my posts have been removed regarding Obamas legitimacy of his birth certificate. It seems all of you that feel the same way will have yours removed sonner or later so that the ideas input portion of this website seems to consist mostly of garbage that doesnt really natter to true conservatives... How Sad Obama... You can change a leopards spots but you will never change the leopard.
Are there no abuse policy/software in place to catch this?
Even the other users like a person named 'obamawatch' is ranting about the president's birth certificate. I'm embarrassed enough for all parties involved--is this the "YouTube of the Government" to them? This is really what you say when you get the chance to make suggestions to your government?
Where's the "Ron Paul Should Be President" +75,496 idea?
I hate to say it but this might almost not work for a population the size of America. I know on a smaller scale (like in Hennepin County, Minnesota) they get useful ideas from the populace with very realistic goals. I dare say the only way this could work on a national level is to require the user to put in their SSN & birthdate for verification and banning for repeated abuse. But I don't like information going through IdeaScale one bit.
Wrong Idea Form (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not going to help people articulate ideas let alone produce anything usable. Half these things read sort of like a rant. IdeaScale should implement sections like the following:
Go to corporate America and ask any CEO what he expects to see in an idea presented to him from an underling. Then you'll get an idea of what kind of data we should be seeking from people with ideas.
I mean, this site should at least try to help people from making asses of themselves and instead 90% of these posts sound like people thinking they have the floor to say whatever they want about whatever they feel like. It's not coherent, it's not helping, it's nothing but internet drivel.
We all laugh (Score:5, Insightful)
But I think the fact that this issue keeps coming up shows that marijuana legalization isn't as much of a fringe, oddball, shouldn't-even-talk-about-it issue as some people seem to think. Polls are showing around half of the people in the US could go for completely legalization, and more than 70% are in favor of medicinal legalization. It's kind of ridiculous that despite the support for this issue it is still considered such a non-issue.
Hell, the numbers in favor of legalization are *much* larger than the numbers in favor of gun control, and they still talk about trying to push that through!
Re:Painful to Watch (Score:5, Insightful)
With the little knowledge I have of the American political system (mud fight) I expect that people actually get paid to spam the Obama-website.
I think it's a lovely idea, and while the website won't reach any conclusion, the valuable information is that the Obama administration learns what people find important.
And yes, to quite a large population it is important to legalize the weed. About 1/100 of the entire population of the USA is in prison. That's more than anywhere in the world. And the majority (I believe, I have no reference) is related to marijuana.
Regardless of the fact that the open government is being abused, it will generate useful information, after it has gone through a (manual?) spam filter.
Re:Well it's a popular thing (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree - I'm not saying that this voting system is representative of public opinion (often petitions/etc are very bad indicators), but I fail to see why the perfectly valid viewpoint that perhaps people shouldn't be criminalised for doing something with their own bodies is cited as an example of the system going wrong.
I'm not sure what the point of this article is. It's not even referencing an article - it's just some random guy (theodp) making a comment based on what he's seen on the site. And it's a poor comment at that. Even if one believes that some (and only some) drugs should be criminalised, I don't see why this reflects poorly on the Open Government system.
In the UK, we have local elections coming up, and the main argument the Conservative leaflet made against the Liberal Democrats was "OMG, they don't want to put people in prison for simple possession of weed" as if that was of utmost importance with the economy going down the tubes. I was like "Wow, I didn't actually know that, another reason I'll vote Lib Dem then".
Also we have an online "No 10 Petition" system which sounds similar to this - it gets criticism that the Government never listens, but I think that's a good thing, as petitions generally allow vocal minorites to push bad laws. For every petition I agree with, there's plenty I'd hate to see acted on. It used to be the case that petitions were handed to No 10 in real life, which much media fanfare, causing the Government to think it must do something (e.g., the recent criminalisation of possession of adult images the Government doesn't like resulted from one such publicised petition).
Re:Painful to Watch (Score:5, Insightful)
You give the population the chance to shape their own society for a change, you should expect that what they create for themselves won't resemble what currently exists and won't have the same priorities or measure of success as what currently exists. If that doesn't happen, the system is corrupted. The only way that this initiative can be made consistent with the views of the established order is to corrupt it to the point of uselessness and hypocrisy.
When you say "realistic goals", all you really mean is "goals that are realistic while still holding XXX sacrosanct". What you mean is, "freedom within the narrow bounds of what the tyranny allows".
You reveal yourself to be an enemy of freedom. Wave and say hi.
Gov't logic reguarding the risk of legalization... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well it's a popular thing (Score:3, Insightful)
"For every petition I agree with, there's plenty I'd hate to see acted on."
Oh hells yes, there are some real crackpot things that get voted up on that thing. That site is a great argument against direct democracy (or mob rule at any rate).
Re:We all laugh (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:We all laugh (Score:5, Insightful)
-
It's clearly time to rethink marijuana policy. This country has too many serious problems that require attention.
Re:Wrong Idea Form (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (Score:1, Insightful)
When will there be a way to check a person's marijuana intoxication level quickly and easily at a traffic stop?
You can tell if someone's level of marijuana intoxication is interfering with their driving quite easily. Are they asleep?
Until you demonstrate some evidence that smoking marijuana actually makes one more likely to get into an accident, you're just FUDding.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We all laugh (Score:4, Insightful)
That is irrelevant to the question of legalisation.
And more likely people know that to get on in their career, they had better not espouse support for such an idea, or draw attention from law enforcement -- if you are sporting a "Legalise marijuana" bumper sticker, you'd have to be prepared to have your car, and your person, searched rather more often than otherwise, for example.
Re:The marijuana crowd is retarded (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, just like no one would ever but pre-made hamburgers at a markup if beef and bread were readily available in grocery stores...
It's an important thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Marijuana decriminalization is not simply a "stoner" issue. It's actually a very important one.
The US has disproportionately crowded jails, filled disproportionately with African-Americans, and a very large fraction of which are there on drug charges. The US "War on Drugs" has led to many many convictions over marijuana and we are paying the social and monetary cost of imprisoning lots of people.
This is not a Cheech and Chong movie - these are people in jail for doing something that is widely regarded as harmless in of itself.
So, I don't think it's any surprise when you have a very vocal segment of the population calling for decriminalization... particularly in this forum! Establishment media and other outlets for vox populi are likely to steer away from this issue due to editorial concerns - no one wants to look "pro drugs", so the issue will be touched very carefully in a newspaper.
Do _I_ think it's the most important issue? No. But then my brother isn't in jail for dealing.
Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We all laugh (Score:5, Insightful)
The experience of the pharmaceutical industry is that Americans LOVE drugs, especially the old folks.
Think again (Score:5, Insightful)
It is ridiculous to assume that because the crowd opinion does not match your own that the crowd is wrong. Perhaps legalization is the correct course of action, and you are blinded by your own puny intellect.
Legalization would save tens of billions of dollars in law enforcement and prison system fees. This money could easily be redirected to proping up companies that make cars that no one wants, making the world a better place.
Re:We all laugh (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is a hint, you can't detect oxycontin from someones breath & someone abusing that shit is about 1000 times more likely to run you off the road that someone high on pot.
The DEA should have got the memo by now (Score:5, Insightful)
The War on Drugs isn't one that they can hope to win, primarily because the enemy are their own constituents.
I don't consider marijuana a desirable substance myself (and stoners who insist on self-justification beyond all rationality, go away. Yes, I have smoked, and inhaled, despite your insistence that it is impossible for anyone who has smoked to have a negative opinion on the substance) but I also know very well that criminalisation does not work, and will never work.
As a (admittedly informally, and generally fairly secretively) practicing Shakta Hindu, I could also if I wanted, claim historical precedent for my own use of marijuana as a religious sacrament. (Although AFAIK, in India at least, marijuana is more commonly used in association with Shiva, but it has been consumed as part of the worship of Kali)
Although I hold nothing against other adherents of various religions who do so, I have made the decision not to do that, as my own experience has led me to believe that marijuana is not b primarily beneficial substance, at least in the case of my own specific physiology.
I acknowledge, however, that it is not up to me to make that decision for anyone else other than myself. I further acknowledge that the plant does have certain extremely legitimate medical uses; I have advocated at least trying it with a few people I know at times, when they have been in extreme pain.
There is a certain percentage of the population (whether they are a minority or not, I do not know specifically, and make no claim about) who whether for good or ill, are mortally determined to smoke marijuana. Given their level of adamancy on this especially, it is not the place of government to make the decision for these individuals as to whether they should be allowed to smoke or not, especially considering that such a decision is usually made against these individuals' implicit, if not explicit, consent.
It has long been my opinion that the American government is, and always has been, at its' heart, a fundamentally tyrannical and insidious institution, which will, at any opportunity afforded to it, enthusiastically act as the mortal enemy of its' own constituents. The long term war that the Drug Enforcement Administration has been waging against said constituents, is in itself compelling proof of this assertion.
The DEA, in its' own defense, would likely try to claim that many of the substances which it crusades against the use of are gravely harmful; sometimes lethally so. In the cases of heroine, cocaine, and methamphetamines in particular, I would not argue against such an assertion. However, whether the drugs themselves are lethal is not the point.
The point is that it should not rightfully be the role of government to act as a parental figure for its' constituents. As adults, said constituents are supposed to be able to serve that role for themselves.
I also believe that criminalisation, rather than reducing the use of these substances, in face greatly contributes to their appeal, as it is well known that both teenagers and retrograde adults take particular delight in doing certain things, primarily when they know that said things are illegal or taboo. If many of these drugs, marijuana included, we made legal, use of them would cease to appear to be an act of rebellion, and would instead become socially mundane.
A third point is that many of the entheogens have not been allowed virtually any academic study, because of a hysterical, knee-jerk governmental approach to criminalisation. Some early work was done with LSD, yes; but very little such work has been done with other substances such as MDMA. If this research was permitted to be conducted, more could likely be learned about the drugs' drawbacks, potentially beneficial uses, and guidelines could possibly even be developed for the safe and guided use of the substances by those who still wished to consume them.
Re:Well it's a popular thing (Score:2, Insightful)
> And it embodies, IMHO, a wider question about the freedom of the people to act as they wish...
And who the Hell thinks we are Free? Who the Hell even WANTS to be Free anymore? To listen to the talking heads on TV everyone is currently just stoked about the coming universal healthcare fiasco. Sorry, you can't have the government take care of you from Womb to the Tomb and be allowed to be Free. You give away responsibility and the freedom goes with it. People are dumb enough to think the government will legalize legal dope while the government is deciding how much TRANSFAT you can consume and will soon be regulating normal fat? Hello!
Two options here, continue to give up liberty for security or demand FREEDOM and the RESPONSIBILITY that goes with it. But expecting to mix a welfare state and drug legalization is insane. And don't believe for a second it would stop with weed. The second it was legalized the same teenage morons would exchange one leaf on their t-shirts for another, the coca leaf. Then it would be the heroin poppy, etc. Without the welfare state I'd say legalize it all, as is I'm having enough trouble paying taxes as it is, I don't want to pay even more to clean up the mess drug legalization would stick the taxpayers with.
I really think that Tommy Lee Jones (Score:1, Insightful)
said it best in Men in Black:
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
Re:The marijuana crowd is retarded (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (Score:5, Insightful)
No marijuana is not harmless, but the fact that I'm sitting here smoking it while watching TV *is* harmless, and that's why it should be legalized. I'm not endangering anybody except myself.
This all comes down to control. U.S. Congress wants to control our morals, like a modern-day version of the medieval church. This is not freedom.
Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Well, they don't get aggressive or overconfident, which is definitely nice. But someone going 30 on the motorway isn't exactly safe either.
Even so, I've never heard of serious marihuana intoxication problems in traffic, and I live in a country where smoking pot is legal. People who are high have better things to do than driving a car, apparently.
Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Painful to Watch (Score:2, Insightful)
When you say "realistic goals", all you really mean is "goals that are realistic while still holding XXX sacrosanct". What you mean is, "freedom within the narrow bounds of what the tyranny allows".
That's being more than a bit presuming and putting words into my mouth, wouldn't you say? All I mean by realistic goals is "realistic goals." That is, things that are achievable, measurable, actionable, time-bound and adhere to current laws. If they want to repeal current laws, they should include that in their rant--like the pro-marijuana posts.
When you say "holding XXX sacrosanct," the only thing I hold sacrosanct is every individual's right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness without interfering with another individual's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. That is the primary goal of our government, it should be in place to protect that for all of us.
You reveal yourself to be an enemy of freedom. Wave and say hi.
Ah, so you have designated yourself a judge of who is and who isn't an enemy of freedom?
I apologize for having an extreme urge to shape new ideas into something tangible and workable. Good luck with your witch hunt!
Re:Well it's a popular thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice incoherent rant. +1, would lol again.
I'll address your last point there - your tax bill would go down with MJ legalisation due to reduced prison, police and court costs. Health problems from its use pale in comparison to those.
BTW, it's much more easy to demonstrate harm with those other substances. Everyone knows coke turns you into a grade A asshole and heroin turns you into a slave, but putting people in prison for using them is not helpful. Education and rehab ARE helpful.
As for the rest on health services, get a brain. Transfat is not in the same league, it's a totally unnecessary carcinogen that serves no purpose but to keep some junk food cheap. Nobody out there actively wants trans fat. Or do you? Do you just love that hydrogenated chemical taste? Weirdo. You can still have freedom and responsibility whilst providing healthcare for people that need it. Hell, look at the Netherlands, they have liberal attitudes on most stuff, drugs included, AND universal healthcare.
Re:Painful to Watch (Score:4, Insightful)
This country would work a lot better if the central government were limited to only those powers enumerated in its constitution.
For example, the California Government legalized medical marijuana but the central government over-ruled it and started arresting California citizens and doctors that prescribed marijuana. Why? By my reading of overall constitution, it is clear the power to legalize marijuana lies with the States, not Congress. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." If California or any other state wants to let marijuana exist, that is their right to do so.
It's no different than if the UK decided to make marijuana legal. The central EU government can not overrule them.
Re:Democracy is the problem (Score:3, Insightful)
> You are wrong. A bunch of dead white men from several hundred years ago don't know what's best for 2009.
Ah but they did. Because you see they even thought of that. They designed a system that was difficult to change yet could adapt to changing conditions. Pretty smart for a bunch of pre Internet dudes, huh? The problem was progressives wanted to scrap it and start over with fascism/socialism yet lacked the votes to do so. They got the bright idea to just start ignoring the limits and use their control over the mass media to blur ths issue. And they got away with it so they continued experimenting. Soon they discovered the notion of having judges with lifetime appointments write laws that lawmakers would bet voted out of office for passing. And that was a success too, again with a good smokescreen by the media wing of the Party.
Now we live in an age where Congress rarely passes a law that would meet strict Constituitional scrutiny and people think it is normal. I say if you want a Dept. of Education you need an Amendment to permit the transfer of that function from the States to the Feds. If 'everyone' thinks the Dept. of Education is such a great idea it shouldn't be hard to muster the supermajority needed to pass the Amendment.... yet nobody tried to pass one, they just ignored the problem. Probably because it in fact wouldn't pass but more likely because if they did propose one a few people might start asking how the REST of the fetid swamp in DC exists without amending to permit them.
Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The marijuana crowd is retarded (Score:5, Insightful)
Not all that insightful since you ignore the proportions here.
If beef and bread are already available in grocery stores at normal prices, but a big mac cost you a month's pay, no one WOULD ever buy them.
Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (Score:3, Insightful)
so where is the field test for pain killers? or viagra?
Re:It's an important thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Democracy isn't perfect. (Score:5, Insightful)
I have exactly one mod point left which I'd love to use in a topic like this, but I'd rather reply to you as it appears that as usual the paternal government believers on this site are sending you to +5 post haste.
1. Anybody who believes the politicians "we" elect "know what's best" for society better than anyone else should probably not be voting...or using sharp objects.
2. There's this raw and quite ugly (yes I'll use the word) elitism that runs on these sorts of sites where tech-nerdy loner types hang out. Never ending snorting and hrmphing at the stupidity of the "masses", misplaced snobbery, tortured "logic" and outright hypocrisy.
After spending 9 years reading this site and other various sites like it kuro5hin, digg, reddit, etc. I truly have come to the disturbing conclusion that despite much of the fawning over libertarian ideals (which have a nice appeal in many ways), huge swaths of the users that frequent these sites really deep down just want to be ruled by kings.
I mean here we have a prime example, the US federal government sets up a site to let the general public let it know without the distortion of lobbyists or twist of demographic surveys; what issues are important to the people that can access the site. Well the people that can access the site who are probably the same people snorting and hrmphing about the uselessness of democracy and the "masses" (which they inevitably define as everyone beneath themselves) have stated loud and clear that the main issue in their lives is the legalisation of a particular drug. An issue that is most likely the hub of a larger ideology in themselves.
But what I don't understand is why to many people here is that such a bad and embarrassing failure of the "masses" or democracy or open governance in general? Oh people want something that *directly* affects them in their day to day life legal? And they are *partaking* in the political process in a small way to try and make that happen...hahah well that's just stupid, democracy fails it!11.
And so what? How is that a failing except for lick-spittles who worship power? To those who have daydreams of central government politicians being great and powerful Lords and Noblemen who don't have time for the dirty masses silly little problems in between hunting down terrorists and single handedly "running the country" it's a problem, but only so far as it interrupts the illusion.
Democracy isn't perfect, but it isn't as bad as everyone here likes to smugly assume it is. And whatever the US federal government is...it's a bloody loooong way from anything resembling democracy or even the representative republic that it's supposed to be.
Re:We all laugh (Score:2, Insightful)
isn't the answer to society's problems
And putting people in prison is?
This isn't about them being good or bad. You can think drugs are bad, and still not support putting people in prison for doing something that should be none of your business. Views and laws regarding tobacco would be an obvious example of this (it's harmful, there are laws that control its sale and use in public, but no one is put in prison for smoking in their own homes, or possessing cigarettes).
Re:Painful to Watch (Score:3, Insightful)
All the requirements to hold the office are checked by respective officials (and in this case also by a couple judges) a long time before elections. Any implications against that are an insult of the USA judicial system and its election officials. Very, very anti-American.
Pot on the other hand is less harmful than tobaco or alcohol and would provide a huge influx of new income to the states in addition to cutting costs for the war on drugs. The most pessimistic estimates show that legalising marijuana would bring billions to the federal budget and even more to state budgets, and this is the money that currently is fueling drug cartels and other criminal organisations, including terrorist organizations. The studies from Netherlands show that legalising pot actually decreases the total amount consumed.
Re:Related, in a way (Score:3, Insightful)
My favorite is:
"Legislate a requirement that, in any war, the military aged children and grandchildren of the president, the vice president, all cabinet officials, and all Congress members serve on the front lines in the most dangerous combat positions -- no exceptions, no exemptions."
This actually make sense
Re:Related, in a way (Score:3, Insightful)
I used to think that all drugs were bad, and all that stuff. But after reading the second linked thread, the Schedule I thread [...] I'm reconsidering that stance.
I agree, I've changed my mind in the last 5 years or so.
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.
Yes that's just what we need! It's definitely the #1 idea out of all of the ones posted! Come on. This just shows that the people voting don't care about the intent of the site ("Phase I was designed to elicit a wide array of actionable suggestions for creating a more transparent, participatory, and collaborative government") and are just using it as a platform for their own childish, vengeful viewpoints.
Re:what the hell are you talking about? (Score:4, Insightful)
> we did? when the hell did that happen?
Congress started sneaking over the line pretty fast actually. But they sneaked because they knew it was wrong and if enough people caught em there would be trouble. By the turn of the 20th Century they weren't sneaking much anymore. By the New Deal we were plainly in the age of the Rule of Men, and FDR was The Man.
Let me set a challenge to you. Go to Congress's Thomas search engine and find a Bill at random. Open another tab and Google up a copy of the US Constituition. Since you are asking the question it is a good probability you have never actually read our founding document so do that before continuing. Now read that random Bill and attempt to locate the authority for whatever it is trying to do in the Constituition you have open in the other tab. Odds are you won't find any such authority but you will find a 10th Amendment that forbids it. Repeat this random process another nine times, recording your results. I'll bet you that at least eight will fail muster and give you even odds that all ten will fail.
That is what the Rule of Men looks like.
Re:Painful to Watch (Score:3, Insightful)
I take that back. Somehow all the silly birth certificate ones are near the top. And this from the crowd who wanted to change the constitution so that Arnold could run for president. *chuckle*
Re:Painful to Watch (Score:4, Insightful)
You'll find that the Federal government takes it upon itself to legislate anything that could possibly have anything to do with money, and use the commerce clause to do it.
A dirty trick, yes, but that's the mechanism they use.
Re:Related, in a way (Score:5, Insightful)
You might even learn how marijuana use causes memory loss and cognitive problems. In other words, stoners forget things and can't think straight. I am sure the propaganda sites you were on didn't mention those.
Because alcohol is harmless when abused over the long term in large quantities? Please.
Oh, and marijuana does kill people, just like alcohol kills many people by impairing the users who then drive or do something else stupid.
Exactly. So you want to ban alcohol, then? Yes, that worked so well in the past...
It also kills and injures people out hiking when they step on booby traps set up by growers
Which wouldn't happen if it was legal.
when mules and dealers decide to run from the cops
Which wouldn't happen if it was legal.
and when users decide to rob people to get some cash for more pot.
Which wouldn't happen if it was legal (prices are significantly marked up due to artificial scarcity, thanks to it's currently illegal status). 'course, I also strongly dispute the idea that pot smokers are out there robbing people for drug money... harder, addictive drugs (like alcohol), sure, but pot? I seriously doubt it.
So... what point were you trying to make, again? Because, at first blush, it looks to me like you support decriminalization/legalization.
Biased Sample -- Hasty Generalization (Score:4, Insightful)
Putting the drug debate aside, online polls always suffer from two things:
biased sample [nizkor.org] and hasty generalization [nizkor.org]
A poll at WhiteHouse.gov merely reflects the opinion of those who visited WhiteHouse.gov--nothing more and nothing less. A poll at cnn.com or foxnews.com merely reflects the opinions of those who visit those sites--nothing more and nothing less. It doesn't matter how popular the online poll is... THEY CANNOT BE GENERALIZED TO THE US POPULATION AT LARGE. And it would be unwise for an administration to make policy decisions based on informal online polls.
That's why we have the voting system. Those who vote represent legal US citizens who chose to exercise their constitutional right to vote--nothing more, nothing less.
Re:The marijuana crowd is retarded (Score:2, Insightful)
You know, if I can just grow the shit, I'm not paying $3500 for it
The counterpoint to that argument would be: if would-be users of marijuana are no longer spending 1 billion dollars a year on it, then they will spend that billion elsewhere. If that elsewhere is industries that are taxed then, regardless of the feasibility of taxing marijuana sales, there should be a net increase in state and federal tax dollars. If, on the other hand, people continue to chose to purchase their marijuana and those sales are taxed as would be any other industry then we will see an increase in tax dollars from that source.
So yes; if you can just grow it you won't pay $3500/lb for it. Instead you'll take the money that used to go to your purchases of marijuana and spend it on snacks or big screen TVs.
Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (Score:3, Insightful)
Only if the goal of society is to keep you safe and snug your whole life (you know, safe until you die). It's not, there's a balancing act being performed. Sometimes life is a little more dangerous (though not necessarily in the case we're discussing, your strawman is rather hollow) because someone else is free to do something interesting. You have to balance the positive and negative.
One final thing, the GP suggested treating the two substances the same, and you're trying to negate him or her by (poorly) implying a balance in the substances effects on society? WTF?
Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (Score:5, Insightful)
Currently there can be no widespread campaigns to stigmatize driving stoned (as there have been for driving drunk) because they would be seen as implicit approval of getting stoned and not driving. But if pot were legal you'd be sure to see a slew billboards and PSAs talking about the dangers of driving stoned.
Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (Score:5, Insightful)
The US Constitution gives the federal government the right to regulate interstate trade and to print money. This supports the right of the fg (federal government) to forbid interstate trade in marijuana (or anything else), sort of supports the central bank (I would say the constitution doesn't include the right to delegate the right to print money, so I think to be legal the Fed should have to have to get their decisions rubber stamped).
Of course, that doesn't explain why the fg can outlaw any drug (prescription, recreational or otherwise) within a state.
I agree regarding the bail-out, although in fact I think the argument would be that they're not making any laws with the bailout; they're handing out money to organizations that agree to follow a contract. The same BS lets the fed govt regulate any number of things (public schools, intrastate interstates, etc.).
I believe strongly in rule of law, and I think our system could have worked fine as a federation of states (in the old-school 'country' sense). However, I think the US is long past the point that it could turn back the clock and become a federation of states.
From a purists point of view, I think we need a number of amendments to the constitution, to expand the rights of the federal government from those listed in the constitution (in a limited way), and at the same time we need to commit ourselves to rule of law, eliminating all statutory law that is in contradiction with the constitution.
From a realist point of view, I think all that would happen from that is that federal power would expand and our rights contract.
Until there's a sea change in our cultural attitude about rule of law and the role of government, I think any wholesale change in our government would be for the worse.
Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (Score:5, Insightful)
>>>>>I'm not endangering anybody except myself
>
>>you're interacting with thousands directly and probably billions indirectly
Yeah.
So?
I want to remind you what Thomas Jefferson, founder of the Democratic Party said, "Whatever religion my neighbor may choose does not harm my body, my property, nor my rights, so I will allow my neighbor the freedom to worship however he pleases." The same principle applies to you. My smoking of marijuana while posting on slashdot does not harm your body, your personal property, nor your rights, therefore you have no justification to stop my activity here in my private home.
Exactly:What does Marijuana have to do with this? (Score:3, Insightful)
All your analysis focused on the druggies and totally missed the government. I would ask you, "What does marijuana have to do with this?" I think it has nothing to do with this. Legalization vs prohibition of marijuana, though, is a totally different subject:
Strengthen our democracy: Let's declare a bunch of people, none of who are infringing anyone else's rights, criminals. Depending on to what degree we've made them criminals, let's stop allowing them to vote.
Promote efficiency: Let's spend public money on cops, courts, and prisons to enforce laws that have no useful purpose. Let's put people in prison, for no reason, so that they can't contribute to the GDP and their families are weakened so that they become more economically dependent on others. Let's penalize domestic farmers to increase foreign market share. Let's create health care problems that we all end up paying for, by making people turn to black markets with dubious quality products.
Or we could stop doing those things. Which scenario is more democratic? Which is more efficient? (I'll admit I don't, off the top of my head, see how it's related to transparency and collaboration.)
I can almost buy the argument that prohibition is more perversely "democratic" since it actually is some people's nature to want to gang up on others.
But efficient? You've got be kidding. In terms of government efficiency, legalization advocacy is right on topic and directly addresses problems that prohibition is causing. They're not only on-topic, but they crush their opponents without even a close fight. Please, pro-prohibition advocates, bring up efficiency or just about anything else related to the economy. Libertarians will eat you for breakfast.
Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't matter how more likely marijuana makes drivers get into accidents. The law as it currently stands forbids driving while intoxicated, and that could be with prescription drugs or weed just as much as alcohol.
It damn well should. If marijuana intoxication doesn't increase the chance of a driver causing an accident, then why should it be forbidden to drive while under the influence of marijuana?
(For clarification - I don't smoke weed and I never will. THC does nothing for me. But I hate seeing people being told "you shouldn't do that because... well, you shouldn't".
Re:Painful to Watch (Score:3, Insightful)
They redacted the image of the birth certificate, not the birth certificate itself. You people are truly mesmerized by your ignorance.
Re:What does Marijuana have to do with this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Addressing this from the standpoint of having a proper controlled substance rescheduling of cannabis down from Schedule I to Schedule V (the DEA itself lists 100% pure THC at only Schedule III !), in accordance with the actual regulations and science:
Say what? Let me analyse this point by point...
Strengthen our democracy: How, by making people sit around their bong every night discussing the problems of the world? Like.. "Man... link um.. why do they fold those papers around those little sticks of gum? Can't they see we need to save some trees? Besides they taste terrible when folding a joint, their just disgusting."
When government regulations are flagrantly abused to maintain the power and budget of one organization (the DEA) this clearly undermines the meaning of democratic government. If the government writes regulations, it should follow them.
Promote efficiency: Get real, Marijuana and efficiency in the same sentence? Last I knew all my childhood friends were doing nothing with their lives. Just sitting around getting high with no aspirations in life. Several are dead from accidents, suicide, some perpetually in rehab clinics, and all living life day-t-day. Efficiency is not the first word on my mind.
When I consider pouring billions of dollars into a bottomless pit based on abuse of regulations and scorn of scientific evidence, efficiency is the FIRST word on my mind!
Making government more transparent: Ok, Marijuana is hallucinogenic for some people, but I doubt that the Government is going to get any more transparent that way.
Obeying regulations and enforcing them in a logical evidence-based manner is essential to transparent government.
Collaborative: Ok, lets get this one definition straight. We are talking about the Government being more collaborative, not people sitting around talking about fantasies while smoking joints. How is legalizing Marijuana going to get the Government to improve on their collaboration skills?
Recent polls on medical marijuana show nation public support at the level of 72% in favor and 21% opposed. Paying attention to the overwhelming majority of Americans today is the essence of collaborative (as opposed to imperial or authoritarian) federal government.
Re:Has anyone RTFB? (Score:3, Insightful)
But you already did by calling them "a bunch of stoners". I support legalization, and know a lot of other people who do too. Most of us don't smoke pot.
Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (Score:4, Insightful)
Well duh? If pot is legalized more people would use it. They'll be more stupid people who use it,
If it's legal, you can also have proper education (which is far more effective than prohibition). In Netherland, pot is legal and many other drugs tolerated or easier to get than abroad, but the people who are stupid with drugs are mostly foreigners. The Dutch mostly restrict their pot use to weekends and parties, and don't mix them with alcohol (or other drugs, but alcohol is the big one).
Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (Score:3, Insightful)
While I do not recommend driving while high for the novice smoker, people who have been accommodated to marijuana frequently drive with little (read: no) consequences... marijuana relaxes and causes the user to 'zone' into driving mode ... *Real* smokers tend to laugh at people who think driving high is dangerous or difficult.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. I've talked with so many people that say that others may have trouble driving while drunk/high, but they're really good at it because they know what they're doing. Same argument: "but I'm good at driving drunk/stoned/tripping/on speed."
If pot were legal and we could have open public discourse (media etc) on the subject, we could start to bring some of this to light. Driving is dangerous, and it gets more so the more mind-altering drugs you've taken. I'd agree that driving stoned is probably less dangerous than driving drunk, but that doesn't mean it's not more dangerous than driving sober (Somewhere else in the comments someone referenced some studies on this).
Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:how old are you? 14? (Score:3, Insightful)
> ..the essential principles of the constitution have been expounded upon and shifted SLOWLY and
> SLIGHTLY in interpretation over time. as THEY SHOULD BE, since society changes. right?
No. That is the 'living constitution theory and it's rubbish. It means exactly what it meant when the words were written or it is meaningless, meaning whatever the Democrats in Congress and the Media say it means. For the Rule of Law to work requires a dead Constitution. Of course that doesn't mean it must be unchanging, as it provides a means to update it, Amendments. If a part of it is considered obsolete or in need of updating or rewriting to adapt to changes in society or technology one need only pass an Amendment. Heck, if the required supermajority think the whole thing needs replacing another Constitutional Convention can always be called into existence. But what isn't supposed to be allowed is for some judge to suddenly discover some new Right in it, or Congress to suddenly discover a new power.
For example, back when we were still a Republic some rather unwise folks thought banning booze was a nifty idea. But since they were unwise, but not illiterate they could actually read the Constitution and see it gave the Federal Government no such authority. Also not being evil they decided they had to do it the right way and work to pass an Amendment. We all know how that worked out, so another Amendment was passed to cancel out the first. Fast forward just a little. If regulating booze was outside the powers of the Federal Government, can anyone explain how in the Wide Wide World of Sports the FDA, DEA, etc. can exist? Easy, the Living Constitution and the newly redefined Commerce Clause! See the problem yet?