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."
Well it's a popular thing (Score:5, Interesting)
And it embodies, IMHO, a wider question about the freedom of the people to act as they wish without *very* good reason from the government and without demonstrable harm to other folks.
Shame it'll just be written off with excuses like it always is all over the world.
Re:Painful to Watch (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, in the "Obama Birth Certificate" defense, the sum of the votes for that general idea outweigh the sum of the votes to legalize pot.
I'm not making a judgment for or against any ideas (at least not here, too much flame potential), but I think a system like this needs to be a little bit more rubust:
It's not that this isn't working per se, it's that people are very passionate about their ideals, and this structure encourages abuse of a technological system that needs to be more robust.
marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Watch (Score:3, Interesting)
When will there be a way to check a person's marijuana intoxication level quickly and easily at a traffic stop?
Until there is such a check, legalizing marijuana would make the current drunk driving problem many times more difficult in terms of detection and enforcement.
William
The marijuana crowd is retarded (Score:2, Interesting)
Cannabis intended for recreational consumption comes in several different grades ranging in price from $10 a pound for compressed bricks of seedy Mexican hemp flowers purchased near the source up to $3,500 a pound for manicured colas grown indoors by farmers who produce small crops. That same $3,500 pound can be sold to consumers for up to $25 a gram, meaning that pound's street value if sold by the gram is in the neighborhood of $11,000.
But, the case in point is the series of raids this summer, which authorities claimed netted 138 pounds of cannabis from 340,000 plants. Since they raided in August, the plants they took were immature [...] and at least half would have been male plants that produce nothing. Had those plants, which represent less than 10 percent of the county's entire crop, survived to maturity they would have yielded somewhere in the neighborhood of three-quarters to one pound per plant or about 150,000 total pounds of low- to mid-grade cannabis which would have been valued at something like $500 to $1,000 a pound [...] for an estimated net sale price of conservatively $75,000,000. Factor in the percentage of undetected crops and we see the county's illicit outdoor cannabis crop can conservatively be valued at $750 million in initial sales. [...] it would not be unreasonable to place a value of Tulare County's current cannabis industry at $1 billion, all of it untaxed.
Let me isolate that statement for effect: Tulare County is currently home to a $1,000,000,000 unregulated, untaxed industry that our elected officials are actively and ineffectually attempting to eradicate at the taxpayers' expense, thus depriving the county and state of at least $80,000,000 in annual sales-tax revenues while they charge us for the privilege.
Think about that when you read we cannot afford to fund rural health clinics or that our schools are in need of repair or that we can't afford rural fire stations or if you live along or must drive ill-maintained county roads or if you're one of the thousands of unemployed or are affected by that unemployment or if you or one of your family members is considered an outlaw because they use cannabis or if you think it's wrong to destroy Yokohl Valley in the hopes of generating a tenth the revenue cannabis could provide the moment it is legalized.
You know, if I can just grow the shit, I'm not paying $3500 for it. Let's say cigarettes (which are legal, and a huge industry) cost $25 a gram for tobacco. A cigarette contains about 0.8 grams of tobacco (a bit less); a pack contains about 20 grams. So that's like $500/pack. Now, I don't smoke; but if a trip to the gas station for a pack of cigs cost me $20 to fill my tank and $500 for a pack of Malboros? I'd grow my own tobacco.
The whole argument for marijuana tax hinges on artificial scarcity. Marijuana is a weed, literally. It grows anywhere, it's the easiest shit to grow, and everyone already knows how to grow it. Seeds are easy to find. If you legalize it everybody will grow it; growing plants are harder to hide than a pocket-sized bag full of mulch, but nobody cares if the plant's now legal!
Democracy is the problem (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem being illustrated is with the concept of 'democracy', an idea our Founding Fathers was aware of and not only discarded it was a notion they took great measures to prevent. Instead we were given a Republic, if we could keep it. Epic Fail.
Democracy means if you have a group of a hundred people, fifty one can vote to piss in the Corn Flakes of the other forty nine and if everyone believes in Democracy there can't be any objections if the votes were counted properly. Because that is what Democracy IS, the People can have anything they vote for. We had a Republic with a written Constituition that laid down hard limits that while changable, were intentionally difficult. This created the Rule of Laws instead of the Rule of Men. We had divided and limited government. But we threw that away and now have the Rule of Men and our civilization is declining.
Re:Painful to Watch (Score:3, Interesting)
You don't have to pay people who are brainwashed.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in June of last year there were 3,851,789 people in custody in the US. This does not count the hundreds of thousands that are in municipal lockups in every city in America. Estimates put the total at about 4.5 million. Now, if you throw in the countless (uncountable?) people sitting in secret prisons outside the US, and people in military custody, it starts to make Stalin and other dictators look like pikers.
"The greatest nation on god's green earth" according to right-wing talk show host and swishy ideologue Michael Medved.
If you really want to learn about the hidden history of the USA (a country I happen to love despite its many serious failings) I recommend reading Peter Levenda's Sinister Forces, A Grimoire of American Political Witchcraft. This meticulously researched and well-written book will curl your hair. Just don't expect to find it in any public library.
Re:We all laugh (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, I think you completely misunderstand why many people want drugs like marijuana legalised.
It's not just so you can light a joint any time that you want without risk of being caught. There are a lot more important issues here.
It's because the current system is harmful, wastes money, and doesn't work. It's got sweet FA to do about taking the drugs themselves to solve society's problems. It's about legalising drugs in order to solve problems the Drug War and prohibition creates. It's about solving the issues of: wasting public money in a drugs war that has had no tangible effect; treating drug users as criminals and overburdening the prison population (not to mention the cost of incarceration, the cost to the economy, and the social costs as well); it's about focusing on the real issue, which is addiction and rehabilitation.
Sit down and read through this website [drugwarfacts.org] and hopefully you'll understand why the War on Drugs is bogus, and why marijuana (at the very least) should be legalised. I, myself, take the view that the Dutch model is the way to go (so I go further than just legalisation of marijuana).
Incidentally, in my opinion it's not that the voting public don't want it, it's that it's not an issue on the agenda in the media itself, which shapes the opinions of the voting public (never mind that the US government and certain banks have and continue to make extremely large profits as a result of drugs). The "War on Drugs" has been and is extremely lucrative for big business, and for the government, in terms of profits and control, and that's one of the underlying reasons why the myths of the dangers of legalising drugs like marijuana continue to dominate discourse.
Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (Score:5, Interesting)
While I certainly don't have the tolerance levels of some of the hardcore stoners I know who have been smoking for ten years, there's no way I'd ever argue that marijuana doesn't reduce driving ability. I've driven high before a few times, I don't like doing it at all and don't do it regularly (only twice in four years of smoking). You don't speed or get reckless like you do when drunk, but your motor skills and reaction times are unquestionably impaired. The last time I did it was a fairly long 3 AM highway trip where I had my in-car camera running, so I have a perfect record of how I drove. Really the only positive thing I can say about my driving that night is I stayed between the lines (barely at times) and didn't really speed by much (70MPH in a 65, which is odd for me, sober I tend to run the Turnpike at 90+). Terrible idea.
Obviously this is just one anecdotal experience and yes I'll agree that it is far safer to drive on weed versus alcohol, but if you believe you drive fine on weed you're lying to yourself.
That said, I'm still all for legalization. They can't tell how much marijuana intoxication is affecting driving as-is, so it wouldn't change anyways. They can't tell how intoxicated you are off of any of the number of OTC or prescription drugs the average American is on either. All that would change is that the states with retarded "any detectable levels of metabolites" laws for marijuana OVIs would have to STFU and figure something else out. I could not smoke anything for a week, be unquestionably sober, and still get popped for an OVI based on a piss test in those states. Fuck 'em, that's not fair at all.
Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (Score:5, Interesting)
The word "marijuana" for cannabis was introduced by the prohibitionists back in the 1930s. Everybody knew that hemp was a good thing, and cannabis was a useful medicine, so they needed a new word to whip up a frenzy, and to keep all those old prohibition agents employed now that they were no longer arresting rum runners.
The word "marijuana" was great because it linked the drug to those dirty dark-skinned fellows. As evil prick Harry Anslinger testified to Congress in 1937, "There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others."
So, yes, the selection of the word marijuana by prohibitionists was rooted in racism. Cannabis would be a more historically neutral term for the medicinal plant, or hemp for the industrially useful strains.
Re:It's an important thing (Score:2, Interesting)
But maybe we should distinguish between pot and more mind-bending, addictive drugs.
Why? Alcohol is a more mind-bending, addictive drug, and yet I don't see calls to ban it.
From what I can tell, not only do some people act much more dangerous when high on them than not, but more worrying is what addicts will do to get them.
Just like alcohol.
I'm really concerned that if we legalize things like crack, without also giving people as much as they want, we'll continue to see problems like prostitution and robbery stemming from addicts' desperation for cash.
Just like alcohol.
So I'm not sure legalizing these kinds of drugs would be a net gain (or loss) for society.
All you need to do is look at prohibition to see what will happen: reduction in organized crime and inner city violence, decreased deaths due to use of tainted drugs, increased availability of rehab programs to help the addicted deal with their problem.
Your mistake is in believing that, if these drugs are legalized, suddenly the number of people using them would go up. One need only look at the experiment in Amsterdam to see that isn't the case. After all, the stigma of using those drugs won't go away, and if you're willing to ignore said stigma to use them after their legalized, odds are you would've used them before they were legalized (it's not like they're tough to find).
Re:Well it's a popular thing (Score:5, Interesting)
Either Spain or Portugal (forget which) has legalized all drugs. Now instead of arresting the addicts, the government is offering free medical treatment to break the addiction. Result: A drop in overall usage and a lot of people coming-in to get help.
So that's at least one case where legalization and Government-provided healthcare are working hand-in-hand. I think we should institute a similar program in the U.S. where addicts are not arrested, but instead helped to get free of the drug. Or if they don't want help, left alone to "pursue happiness" in whatever fashion they wish.
Re:Gov't logic reguarding the risk of legalization (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What does Marijuana have to do with this? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't smoke the stuff (any more) but I still want it legalised.
1. I don't want my taxes paying for the persecution of people who are doing nobody any harm (except possibly themselves)
2. I don't think it's the government's place to regulate what they can and can't do
3. It is a blatant authoritarian restriction, with no real evidential backing. I don't like irrational lawmaking and government should not be able to get away with making laws restricting what people can and can't do without a bloody good reason.
That work for you?
Re:Related, in a way (Score:3, Interesting)
So, something hurts people because said something is illegal, so we should make said something legal.
Shall we do that with robbery, burglary, murder, rape, child molestation, or just crimes you like commit?
Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (Score:5, Interesting)
DARE is not drug education. That is a horrific bad drug scare that leaves emotional damage and bigoted views about drug users, or it's an advertisement to a curious young moderately rebellious child.
Most of all, it's dangerous because it discredits (by using ad logicum and ad hominem) any valid reasons for not doing drugs. If you tell kids repeatedly that "Drugs are bad because drugs are... baaaayud... mmm'k?" and that "Drugs are bad because bad people take drugs so people who take drugs are bad, which means drugs are baaad, mm'k?", then when they realise that both of those reasons (and most of the others given to not take drugs) are absolute bullshit, they assume drugs are safe and good.
The drug education program at my school was unintentionally excellent, because they gave us a bunch of cards with real, unbiased information on most illegal drugs. I could tell that, for example, MDMA is far less dangerous than riding a horse, on a use-by-use basis. Or that ice will fuck you up and destroy your life. This influenced me as to what drugs I would eventually experiment with. This was really not what they intended, but is still how I will educate my children - I'll tell them exactly what the pros and cons of various drugs are, and then let them decide what they will accept as a level of risk. I'd hope that by telling them honestly, "casual, occasional use of MDMA, speed, and weed is pretty safe as such things go, and probably less bad for you than getting trashed on hard spirits", that when I tell them "but kids, stay the fuck away from ice, smack, and crack, because those are the ones that will have you sucking dick in the toilets for a hit" they'll respect me and listen to my advice.
Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (Score:3, Interesting)
Speeding and recklessness are a function of the level of assholitude. Every single person I know (without exception) that's been arrested for DUI or killed someone while DUI, drove like an utter moron when they were sober too. I'd have been involved in one, but I knew how the guy drove and refused to drive with him even when he was sober. I wouldn't drive to the corner 7-11 with him. My girlfriend's sister was killed by that guy when he got drunk, drove like an F1 racer, lost control and got T-Boned by an oncoming car in the rain.
Thing is they drive the same way while intoxicated, only they don't have the reflexes to handle it like they do when sober. The stupidity starts while sober. I'm not advocating DUI for careful drivers, but you can't blame it totally on the alcohol.
All the more reason to not drive like an ass whether you are sober or not.
-Viz
Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (Score:5, Interesting)
There, fixed that for you. Seriously, whatever you do affects everyone around you. Driving a car, walking across the street, owning a house, all of these affect everyone around you. That's not the point. The proper question is: does smoking marijuana in the privacy of your own home unreasonably affect the people around you? If you drive a car today at or below the speed limit, you are not unreasonable even though your driving and even being on the highway increases everyone else's risk of an accident. You driving 100 mph in a 55 mph zone, however, is unreasonable. That's why I changed your post to alcohol. If drinking alcoholic beverages in your own home is reasonable, why is marijuana any different?