Just Say No To Reading About Drugs 618
First, as always, you can read the bills yourself by going to Thomas. Key in "methamphetamine" or "bankruptcy." Here's a direct link to the Bankruptcy Reform Act, and there's a link to HR 2987 in a submission below. Places like DRCNet aren't too happy about the bill, but neither are civil liberties groups -- the EFF has a nice overview of the whole situation in their last newsletter as well.
Vince Beiser writes: "New story from MotherJones.com: Speed Limit: A bill banning Internet sites that publish or even link to drug-making information looks set to sail through Congress -- to the dismay of free-speech advocates. Read the story." Mother Jones has also recently published an update to this story. If you only read one link off this story, it should be this one.
wrenling writes: "Right now HR 2987 is before the House Judiciary Committee. The bill is marked as an anti-methamphetamine proliferation bill. Without getting into discussions of whether or not drugs should be legal, attention needs to be drawn to the rider that is attached to the bill which according to the ACLU would allow the following:
Free Speech is at Risk. H.R. 2987 would also allow the government to order Web sites censored and shut down without any due process of law and without any notice given to the website's owner. One provision of the bill would allow agencies like the FBI to make judgment calls on the intent of online statements regarding drug use -- a power usually reserved for the courts. Internet service providers would then be ordered by law enforcement to take down any of these statements within 48 hours -- without notifying the Web site owner -- or be considered in violation of the law.
It's not only things like DMCA we have to watch out for, but for little riders on other legislation that, if enacted, could be used to further grant the United States government censorship powers."
Eric the .5b writes "Do we geeks really care, and do we geeks really matter?
The Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act, described here and here, is still in committee in the House as we speak. A similar bill sailed through the Senate last year, and if this goes through, the two should be very easy to reconcile into a final version and get made into law.
- This bill,
- HR 2987, would:
- Allow police to search your home or business without so much as notifying you that you are under investigation or that such searches have taken place for as long as six months,
- Allow investigators to make copies of your documents and computer files without ever notifying you,
- And make it illegal to distribute information about how to make any controlled substance, to merely link to Web pages giving information on that or drug paraphenalia, or to even just describe how to find such information.
If we want to do something about this, we have an excellent opportunity. Both the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary (members listed here) are working on this legislative abomination. If you see your House representative (if you don't know your representative, like most of us, use the look-up) on either of these lists, contact him or her. E-mail or snailmail them if you like, but faxes and phonecalls will probably make the best impression. Be polite and very nonthreatening, but make it clear that you vote, and that you don't like this bill. Be sure to mention the title and number (The Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act and HR 2987). Even if you don't see your representative on the lists, it couldn't hurt to bug the chairpersons of the committees. Lastly, pass this info around to anyone you know who might care. The more displeasure the representatives hear, the less attractive doing anything but killing this bill will be."
If you've been there (Score:2)
If nobody knows what happens, and we're told that marajuana and heroin are the same by the partnership for a drug-free america, how can we keep our youth from discovering the danger of heroin the way you did, or the way i did (high school sweetheart overdosed on it... died)
----------------------------
Weed laced with opium? (Score:2)
Hell, a good friend of mine used to be a drug dealer... she lost money while doing it. She kept on telling people 'you're not high enough' and just giving them drugs.
Though you're right, it's exceedingly rare to find such things. And the E laced with coke thing doesn't make much sense to me. E that's laced with speed, hell yeah, but coke? doesn't make sense.
----------------------------
I can't believe I'm responding to this (Score:2)
You see, when you're told that they're ALL evil and you discover that one of them isn't really evil at all, you underestimate the dangers of the others as the entire education method has now been discredited.
----------------------------
Re:What part of "well-regulated" don't you underst (Score:2)
More to the point, it's still a meaningless comparison if everything else isn't equal. As a simple example: I don't think it's coincidental that the areas with the worst crime rates are also the ones with the weakest law enforcement.
Depends on the city - my (very white) father lived in Harlem for awhile and had no problems.Also, are high racial tensions present & abused by racists on both sides for political gain to the same degree they are in the US? Probably also no. I consider this behaviour one of the most disgusting activities in the American political arena.
__
Re:What part of "well-regulated" don't you underst (Score:2)
Frankly, though I don't consider this a very convincing argument. Lusers misusing things and not following safety precautions are the real problem. If you really wanted to save lives, getting these people off the road would save several orders of magnitude more.
This is either very shortsighted or intentionally deceptive. Is a police officer using a gun to stop a crime not using a gun as it's intended to be used? This is because guns are neutral; the real concerns are the intentions of the owner. Unfortunately, actually reducing that threat would require real work, not just repeating "Guns == BAD!".__
Re:IANAL....so please inform me if you are. (Score:2)
> this kind of behavior be disallowed?
>
>Go ahead and try to draft a definition of >"substantionally related" that you can use to >restrict
> which riders can be attached to which >bills. I dare you. And oh yeah, try to find a >constitutional
> basis for striking down such riders by >the Supreme Court, which after all can only exert
> judicial review over matters >concerning the constitution.
I agree that judging them by topic probably
wouldn't work. But here is an easy solution:
only the original authors of the bill can append
additional riders. That would allow the original
authors to make changes in order to get the
bill passed without letting some jackass insert
unrelated riders.
Re:Bad laws for individuals, but society won't car (Score:2)
3)Caffeine doesn't hold any current medicinal value. No, caffeine is not addictive. Strongly appealing, perhaps, but not addictive. Caffeine does not have the addictive properties of drugs
Many OTC headache remedies have caffeine in them. It is a mild vasoconstrictor that DOES relieve some types of headache.
Regular users of caffiene will suffer from headaches, fatigue, and daytime sleepiness if suddenly withdrawn.
Caffeine does not cause people to go rob stores/banks/innocents so they can get cash for their next fix.
If a single cup of coffee went for $10-$20 on the black market, it probably would. By the same token, if 20 joints (or a one week supply of Cocain) sold for $2-$5 at the corner store, it probably wouldn't.
When was the last time you saw someone jumped in the street because the mugger needed money for a Coke?
I never saw such a thing. I did see that a man claimed that his addiction to candy was an extenuating circumstance in his armed robbery trial.
It's really very simple, ANYTHING can be a problem for some small segment of the population. Gambling, jogging, smoking, sex, water (yes, people HAVE actually consumed so much water that they had medical problems as a result!). If the thing has a social of legal stigma attached to it, you will only know about the very few who have a real problem with it. The rest will do their vice quietly, and show up for work in the morning just like the rest of us.
Thousands of people a year enter treatment programs to save them from the raveges of Coke (the soft drink). Two such treatment programs are Jenny Craig and the family dentist.
Re:this REALLY concerns me.... (Score:2)
I have to take issue with this. As a recovering heroin addict, I watched many a friend pass out and never awaken based on having a little too much, air in the needle, etc..
Recreational heroin use isn't a very good idea. If your friend could have gotten nice clean needles, and a frank education on how to tap the bubbles out of a syringe, or perhaps even walked into a clinic and proclaimed "I'm a heroine addict and I want to quit" without fear of legal reprisal, perhaps he might have lived.
The anti-anti-drug movement does not advocate the use of drugs so much as suggest that the effects of the war on drugs do more damage to individuals and society than the drugs themselves.
These people need help.
Agreed 100%. Some people (such as me) believe that treatment and counciling will do a lot more for the addicts future than a few years in jail with the associated loss of the right to participate in democracy or get a decent job.
I don't know you or your circumstances, but would jail time and having to check yes to felony conviction on your job application help you in your recovery? If so, I suggest that you go get arrested right now to ensure your successful recovery.
Either way, I wish you a successful recovery.
Re:this REALLY concerns me.... (Score:2)
So you don't think weed laced with opium can lead to regular opium use which can lead to Heroin?
As others have said, if it were legal, that would never happen. Have you ever heard of alcohol laced with nicotine?
Re:quick FYI (Score:2)
you can read more that the lycaeum.
Unless the bill becomes law.
Constitution (Score:2)
Nick
Re:Drugs, Drugs, Drugs (Score:2)
Re: careful of the absolutes..... (Score:2)
Illinois doesn't allow this (Score:2)
Another tactic (Score:2)
Re:Are you a troll or just stupid? (Score:2)
Re:probably the 'well regulated' part (Score:2)
Alcohol is NOT that bad. (Score:2)
Alcohol is JUST as bad as ANY drug that is currently illegal. JUST like ANY other drug, there are people who use it, and people who abuse it.
The difference? Getting really addicted to alcohol takes quite a lot. You can easily drink 4 glasses of wine a day and are extremely unlikely to become alcoholic. Now take heroin twice and you're a junkie. Smoke a few cigarettes a day, you'll smoke a whole pack a day in a year or two.
*On top of that* drinking that much alcohol has NO bad long term effect. On the contrary, studies tend to prove that it has some positive ones! I'm not aware of any positive effects of heroin or crack.
That "alcohol is just as bad" meme is really really really wrong, and is getting really really old now.
WArning: parent post is complete bollock (Score:2)
You're talking out of your ass. Getting addicted to alcohol, easier than getting addicted to heroin? ROFL. You don't know shit. It takes a few shot of heroin to get addicted. I've talked with heroin addicts. I've read about the psychological issues of drugs. No way!
Nicotin, OTOH, is a very very strong addiction, and is said (by former addicts of both) to be harder to quit. But my point is, it takes more time to become addicted.
Re:ACLU: Defender of all but the 2nd ammendment. (Score:2)
1st amendment -- freedom of speech
2nd amendment -- freedom of threat
Re:WATER is bad (Score:2)
WATER is bad (Score:2)
Water is bad. Try drinking 30 liters at once and you'll probably die.
Why don't you drink that much water anyway? Because it's not addictive enough. Alcohol is a drug in a way, because it can be addictive. HOWEVER, this is my point, getting addicted to it is far far far harder and unlikely than getting addicted to heroin.
Most people who drink alcohol are not addicted. *Nobody* who uses heroin isn't.
And alcohol is NOT a poison. That's utter bullshit. Alcohol at low enough doses has no significant long term effect, except maybe good ones (lower cholesterol!). I'm not talking about getting drunk here -- of course, that itself causes short term problems.
Saying that alcohol is a poison is ridiculous. Oh but wait, I'm from France, the wine country, you're probably American, land of puritans.
Stop the lies.
Re:WArning: parent post is complete bollock (Score:2)
The thing about "a couple of shots to become addicted" is a little bit of bull. It depends alot on Dose, TIme period, and the persons own body chemistry.
Oh save me the "it depends on ..." non-argument. EVERYTHING "depends on" something. OF COURSE, some people get addicted faster and some slower. OF COURSE. Who do you think would not realize that? Duh.
Re:quick FYI (Score:2)
You are not a recovering addict (Score:2)
For the rest of your life you are a heroin addict. Remember that and you might have a chance. Kid yourself about it and it is only a question of time until you are using it again.
I am serious.
Regards,
Ben
IANAL also, but here is what I would like (Score:2)
Just something to discourage politions from tossing unconstitutional riders onto big bills...
Cheers,
Ben
ah, good (Score:2)
Re:Has anything eroded the constitution (Score:2)
I don't bring this up to argue with you, rather to illustrate that this country is rife with rewritten history, psychobullshit, and general all around lies...generally to support a 'good' cause (for the children, you know.) I suppose it always has, like most other 'civilized societies.' We do seem to be approaching 'Landslide Stage,' however...now if I could only figure out whether we should try and divert the avalanche, or smooth the way for it in hopes that a few thousand people get mad enough to do something about it, perhaps I could sleep well at night.
and even scarier (Score:2)
That's a situation where these riders probably cost lives.
Re:Weed laced with opium? (Score:2)
But that is a consequence of an unregulated market, and the problem will only increase if access to information is further restricted. Are you likely to buy liquor from a proper liquor store, or buy some unspecified moonshine from a dirty redneck pig farmer? The former, because you can. As long as drugs other than those used by the establishment (nicotine, alcohol, caffeine et al) are prohibited, you will have problems with "unclean" product.
Re:What you can do about it (Score:2)
Re:Actually... (Score:2)
go, ACLU! (Score:2)
Why?!?! (Score:2)
Vote getting PR bulls***, that's all this is. And the truly sad thing about the whole situation is that the average American probably wouldn't even give a damn. "What? It's going to help end the drug problem? Great! What are the fourth and fifth amendments anyway?" It's unfortunate that there isn't anywhere else much better.
Re:quick FYI (Score:2)
-Matt
This should concern EVERYONE (Score:2)
I no longer do drugs. I just don't enjoy them anymore (assuming you don't count cigarettes or alcohol); and it doesn't matter.
Even if you think that drugs are completely evil, you still need to stand up against governmental censorship. One of the responsibilites of HAVING freedom of speech is the need to defend even the things we disagree with, on principal.
Today, they'll censor drug-related sites "for the children". Tomorrow, cracking-related sites? Maybe sites that include obscenity? Maybe sites that include bestiality? Maybe sites that include depictions of sex? Maybe sites that include nudity? If we allow this to happen, the net could be a very different place. For a picture of what it might look like, try surfing for 2 weeks using Cybersitter or another content filtering software set to maximum. Don't turn it off for two weeks. See how you like the "net of the future". After the two weeks are up, fire a letter and an email to your representatives.
-Jer
Re:this REALLY concerns me.... (Score:2)
...and if only those people had been punished (i.e. imprisoned, fined, or whatever) by the government, they would have been better off?
I guess that's where a lot of people disagree with you. Just because something is destructive and causes misery, that doesn't mean it should be opposed by force. When you get down to it, I believe that people have the right to put guns to their own heads, both literally and figuratively.
Yes, they will die and the people who loved them will suffer, but it's their life to lose. I'm all in favor of anyone (or everyone) trying to influence them into reversing that decision. But when we use Law to use force instead of mere influence, we all become slaves. It presumes that we are all indebted to society, that society (or family or other loved ones) has a claim on us.
I don't live for anyone's sake but my own, and I am insulted and betrayed by any lawmaker who presumes otherwise.
---
Thorn in society's side? So what? (Score:2)
I agree with you on that point.
Now perhaps you can explain what gives society the "right" to use force against individuals for the purpose of removing that thorn?
Do you consider society's "needs" to be more important than your ownership of your own body?
---
Re:Maybe it SHOULD pass ... (Score:2)
If we don't want our federal legislators to engage in horse shit, the American public needs to be educated.
Also, contacting your representatives does make a big difference. I interned for a senator once; all messages are read, and interesting and insightful ones are read by the senior advisors. In other words, they have their own moderation systems. The +3,+4's are read and make a difference.
Who knows; your arguments might be used on the House or Senate floor.
The system has serious flaws, but it is a reflection of the warring desires and needs of the American populace. For example, most people these days trust big business to make the right decisions; so why shouldn't the government?
Re:Sorry to do this you CmdrTaco, (Score:2)
Yes yes, but decorative flowergarden type poppies are Papaver Giganteum - which is simply a large sized strain of Papaver Somniforum. It's rumored to contain reduced quantites of morphine, but I've found it to be adequate.
California poppies really look nothing at all like a poppy. It's an extremely small plant with a rather different looking bulb and flower.
--Shoeboy
I can see the TV propaganda for it now... (Score:2)
Young Stud: Hi, I'm Joey. I don't read about drugs, because reading about drugs isn't cool.
A hot babe steps into the scene and puts her arm around the young stud.
Hot Babe: Just because all your friends read about drugs, don't feel like you have to read about drugs too. When Joey and I go to the library on Friday night, we always check out a book on pure spring water. Be true to yourself - don't let that pusherman give you a book about drugs. The first one might be free, but look what it leads to.
Camera pans over to Herbie, the pre-pharmacy student with thick glasses, sloped shoulders, sunken chest, pocket protector, and a copy of The Physicians Desk Guide under his arm. The ball bounces past Herbie and several guys run over chasing it. Rap music starts playing as they beat Herbie's scrawny ass:
--
Re:this REALLY concerns me.... (Score:2)
It has been shown over and over than marijuana is not a gateway drug. See Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts: A Review of the Scientific Evidence ISBN: 0964156849
While 3 in 5 high school students have smoked marijuana a lot less(exact figures are available on drcnet or the dea's page) have tried heroin. Even fewer of those have become addicts.
http://www.drcnet.org
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/
Banning substances is not the solution. We've been living under the WoD for decades now, we will spend 37.9 billion dollars just this year. The prison system is(or was a few years ago) the sixth largest growth industry in the United States. We are continuing to spend and spend and where are the results? We are sending planes full of money to foreign countries full of cash.. is the cocaine problem going away? It is cheaper and more available now than it has ever been before. Where are the results?
http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm
other facts:
Approximately 45454 people are expected to be incarcerated for drug law violations in 2000. Arrests for drug law violations in 2000 are expected to exceed the 1.55 million arrests of 1998. Someone is arrested every 20 seconds.
For some interesting reading check out:
http://www.lycaeum.org
http://www.erowid.org
Re:quick FYI (Score:2)
Re:quick FYI (Score:2)
Re:Hold your fire! (Score:2)
> and wrong, isn't it?
ROFL! So, if this bill passes, it becomes 'wrong' to tell someone how to make drugs, or where such information might be found.
When the DMCA passed, it became 'wrong' for someone to write a DVD player for Linux.
When Soldier of Fortune was banned in BC, the 'right and proper' actions of children who had played it *all of a sudden* became 'wrong', just because some official said so?
Bullshit. Claiming that the law is linked in any way with right and wrong is the sign of someone too weak willed to think for themselves.
Try this on for size, see if you've ever said it... "The law forbids things that are wrong, so if I don't break the law, I must be in the right!"
That's the sort of twisted rationalization that results from blindly following any set of rules.
Re:Bad laws for individuals, but society won't car (Score:2)
If a beer was $20 (and hard alcohol similarly expensive), I know some people addicted enough that they probably would turn to theft.
If hard drugs were cheaper, likely less people would turn to crime to purchase them. I used to live next door to a heroin addict and she was fairly nice, between the highs and lows. She would have much rather gone to the corner store, got some clean drugs, and gotten high safely in her apartment. The illegality and high price had her working the streets, shooting up in alleys, and buying untested drugs.
Sure, she'd have been better off had she kicked the habit, but I know a lot of people for whom alcohol has had different but equally serious life-destroying effects. If that okay just because alcohol is legal?
Re:Hold your fire! (Score:2)
>morals, and arguments and violence often follow
>such disagreement; and this is EXACTLY why
>a codified standard defining 'right' and 'wrong'
>(again, in case you missed it, that does not mean
>morally but legally) is required.
So, because it's too hard to do something that is relevant, we should just follow the law... It may not be right, but hell, at least it's consistent?
Not bloody likely. Where the law conflicts with my morals, I break the law. As does nearly everyone else. A broken set of rules isn't better than nothing, it's worse!
If there was a hope in hell of changing a law without twenty million religious zealots, or a few billion dollars, then people might follow the law and try to mold the law to reflect reality. As is, the system is so broken that by trying to follow it all you do is make things worse.
You may disagree, which is your right. But I don't think you'd take it too far. What about when a law is passed that would put you in jail for performing a humanitarian act, or doing what you feel you need to do to survive?
To illustrate the point, look at the most obvious cases, then realize that the truth is in the middle. The worst abuse of law would be something like Nazi germany, where anyone of Jewish blood was forced to report to the government, sometimes just for labelling, sometimes for shipment to a concentration camp. No, imagine that you're Jewish, would you comply with the law?
So, unless you said yes, there are some circumstances where you agree the law should not be followed. So where does the line get drawn? How is this different than just doing what we feel is right?
Law exists to give society the power to stop antisocial behaviour, I can choose to break the law, that's a granted right and an inate one. *If* I get caught, and *if* it's serious, the government can chose to punish me. Otherwise, the law has no effect on me.
Two things (Score:2)
2) Speaking of censorship: I was browsing at -1 yesterday and happened to see a cut-n-paste from what looked like an MSDN article. An hour or so later I again browsed that story at -1 and noticed that the MSDN thing was gone. Was it deleted? If so, does that mean Slashdot caved to Microsoft on the Kerberos thing (without telling us) and is now removing posts left and right?
--
correlation is not causation (Score:2)
Were they indeed real drugs? Or were they the adulterated garbage that is most commonly sold on the street?
Most drugs are cut, and drug dealers aren't too picky about what they cut it with: if it matches colour, it'll do.
Heroin certainly isn't good for you, but stuff like baking soda, baby powder, and laxative powder does not belong in your veins! Pure heroin's effects are almost purely psychological, it's physical side effects are relatively minor (unlike, say, alcohol). Never mind the difficulty of determining an appropriate dosage from an unreliable source!
Consider a moonshiner who makes rotgut with nearly as much methanol as ethanol and you'll have some idea of the kind of suppliers you're dealing with.
The biggest problems of drugs are caused by them being illegal: impure supply, high cost, inability to openly discuss your habit (both for moderating use and technical skills like learning how not to blow bubbles in your veins), and the feeling "I'm a criminal, what's one more crime?". Not only that, but they have some valid uses:
Heroin is a pain killer 4 times as effective as morphine.
Coca leaf tea is a little pick-me-up like coffee, and is good for the digestion.
Pot makes you relaxed, friendly, and hungry (and stupid). It's a social lubricant like alcohol, minus the puking and bar fights (plus pigging out and laughing at really bad jokes; pretty good trade-off, no?). They should be encouraging people to use it instead of alcohol, it would cut way down on crime.
If weed, shrooms, and E are gateway drugs, it is only because they are illegal. If you could get them at the corner drug store, you wouldn't be rubbing elbows with the heroin pushers.
IMHO, uppers, downers, intoxicants, and happy pills all have their place, when used in moderation (hint 1: uppers' & downers' place is not entertainment, hint 2: intoxicants are not for solitary use, hint 3: unlike intoxicants, it is not appropriate to encourage your friends to take happy pills with you). I personally think messing with hallucinogens is wrong, people have little enough grasp on reality as it is.
The war on drug users must be stopped at all cost. They are the victims, as well as the perpetrators, and punishing them does no one any good.
You can call me weak or say I have no will power, but I am not the only one out there who has been addicted to something.
A lot of ex-addicts have that "I'm a victim, I must be protected from that evil stuff" mentality. Well, guess what? You did it to yourself.
Everyone told you "the more you take it, the more you'll want to take it", but did you carefully watch how much you were taking and nip it in the bud while you still could?
It has nothing to do with will power and everything to do with laziness and self-destructiveness. Between all the drug war propaganda, and the current quality of drugs available, both irrational and rational people know doing "hard" drugs is a bad idea. Despite the way you people describe it it's not "that sounds like fun, I think I'll try it!" it's "my life sucks, but I'm too much of a pussy to kill myself all at once." To Hell with you! Clean yourself up and learn that real happiness comes in small bites or get some quicker-acting poison and do it right, but don't whine to me about how you got lured into it, I know that's bullshit and I really don't care anyway.
A lot of fat people claim to be addicted to overeating; that's not sufficient reason to put everyone on a strict diet and break into candy factories with guns blazing.
Re:Bad laws for individuals, but society won't car (Score:2)
You know what...we could even make brewing of one's own beer difficult to do by making all of Micheal Jackson's beer books illegal.
You know what...let's burn all the copies of the Anarchists Cookbook to cut down on all the insurgency we experience here in the U.S.
I'm sure that there are several educational institutions around the country that are teaching subversive and dangerous information to their students, we should shut them down too.
Oh, and I do *get* your point you boorish fuck. Your argument in the above post is poor...you used the caffine comparison three separate times. And I don't think you get *it*. The author of the quote you used is not comparing caffine to methamphetamine, he is comparing ideas...abstract ideas. If you cannot think in abstraction, you will NEVER get *it*.
This world is never going to be a safe place to live, and you are not going to get your safe little boring utopia by outlawing what others have to say...what you will get is a revolution...and I'm not talking about the kind of governmental overthrow of a revolution, I'm talking about the kind of revolution that happened in the United States after Prohibition was passed. The mindset of the nation changed...and I think we are a long way from changing to what you think is right. Telling others what they can and cannot say is not what this county is about. If you think it is, go somewhere else...move to Cuba. I'm sure Castro will agree with you that providing instructions on the manufacture of methamphetamine should be banned. By the way, I hope your loins are as infertile as your imagination.
Election year politics 101. (Score:2)
I think their inclusion of such a resolution is inspired more by pragmatism and election year politics, with restricting the information a convenient, if secondary, motive. The political incentive for the resolution is obvious; this is an election year, and many politicians want to be in the Congressional Record as having recently supported anti-drug legislation. As for pragmatism, most of this information is already published onto wood pulp (many libraries contain this material, and a quick search on Amazon.com reveals a number of titles) and then distributed through book vendors, libraries, etc. It is much easier for the DEA and FBI to track who is getting the drug information, however, when they can subpoena Amazon.com's records instead of trying to attach packets to people (always a dicey game at best) in a way that will satisfy the courts.
The failure of the Communications Decency Act should demonstrate the impracticality and questionable legality of trying to restrict this kind of information on the Internet. The political capital to be gained from supporting such a bill, however, outweighs that of opposing it, so it is doubtful that we can do much to affect its eventual passage even though it appears to revoke civil liberties that are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
The law is not intended to hold up in courts. It is not intended to be good public policy. It is (probably) not even intended to be enforced. It is nothing but election year politics--if it helps its supporters get reelected, then it has done its job. Look for it to be overturned the first time it is challenged in the courts.
Re:"Clean" geek's opinion. (Score:2)
By the way #1: The same for coffee (although coffee isn't addictive I believe)...
By the way #2: apart from this itsy pitsy little thing: good post!
By the way #3: I'm an absolutely-not-clean-geek. I use alcohol, nicotine, caffeine and mariuhana on a rather regular base.
Re:What you can do about it (Score:2)
It's also really critical to be informative if the staffer isn't familiar with the issue. And be polite! It hurts our cause when people are belligerent on the phone to the staff who report these things to the representative.
-schussat
Re:IANAL....so please inform me if you are. (Score:2)
BTW, please fix your formatting; there's no need to use carriage returns at the end of each "line" when submitting a comment. Your id# is sufficiently low that I suppose I'm wasting my time in telling you this, as you're choosing to use an obnoxious but well established convention of making your post stand out from others'.
IANAL....so please inform me if you are. (Score:3)
non-related riders into bills in this fashion?
Shouldn't this kind of behavior be disallowed?
What about cross-referencing these riders?
It must be a nightmare keeping track of
what rider was in what totally unrelated bill.
It's the governmental equivalent of spaghetti
code. Someone please explain why our legistlative
bodies haven't put a stop to this kind of thing?
Something of odd to note about this. (Score:3)
In any case, I'm expecting the ACLU to pounce on a challenge to the bill as soon as the ink dries from Clinton's signature. Additionally, this type of bill may strongly reform the concent of riders; two completely different concepts should not be allowed on the same bill.
Re:We don't need (Score:3)
Not to mention, alcohol is arguably one of the more destructive drugs out there: Consider drunken driving, alcohol-related domestic violence, chronic illnesses related to long-term alcohol consumption, and the stress put on social-welfare institutions and family structures due to the effects of alcohol addiction. Yet when we tried prohibiting it in the US, we created a huge wave of underground crime and fomented disrespect for the law, so we had to prohibit prohibition.
Are we learning yet?
Re:"Clean" in the eyes of The Law (Score:3)
But no, let's proceed to label them illegal. In all caps, no less. You sound just like the director of the FDA in the early 80's who, when ordered to reclassify pot to lessen federal penalties, adamantly refused. When asked, on camera, why he disobeyed a federal judge, he replied, "Because it's evil."
Do you know how marijuana became illegal? Do you have any idea why?
Hemp was once a major crop in the US, and the flowers were considered a useful herb, similar to Goldenseal Root, Ginko Biloba, or Cod Liver Oil. Hemp was primarily used to make textiles, paper, and vegetable oils. It is hardy, disease resistant, grows fast, and grows anywhere. Washington and Jefferson grew it on their estates, and not because they wanted to smoke it.
Over the course of just one decade, though, nobody farmed hemp anymore. Why? Because in the 1920's timber owners needed to sell their trees to papermills. Hemp was in their way; the timber owners included some of the biggest and most vicious capitalists of the era, while the hemp lobby were just the last in a long line of farmers. Marijuana was subjected to an intensive and pervasive smear campaign in the media and on Capitol Hill. And it worked. by the late '30s, all newspapers were made of dead trees, everyone knew about "the evil weed," and hemp farming was a federal crime.
So, the only thing evil about marijuana is how and why it became illegal. Go chew on that for awhile.
Re:Sorry to do this you CmdrTaco, (Score:3)
Only Papaver Somniforum poppies produce opium. There are many other flavors of poppies you can obtain that do not produce opium.
Eschscholzia californica (california poppy)
Romneya coulteri
Calochortus
All of these do not produce opium.
A quick search turns up a few interesting links on opium extraction:
http://www.lycaeum.org/drugs/Opiates/
http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/opiates/opiates.s
Opium producing poppies are not technically illegal. You can grow them in your garden without problems. Flower shops often sell them in gift baskets. Harvesting them for ingestion, however, is quite illegal. Opium is a schedule 1 substance.
Re:What you can do about it (Score:3)
The reason why bullshit like this even makes it to the floor, let alone passed into law, is because people don't take responsibility for their government. Politicians live and die by the vote, they care about nothing else and will respond to nothing else. They know which segments of society vote and which don't. Those who don't are going to get the short end of the stick from those who do. Representational democracies only work if those being represented hold the people representing them accountable for their actions. Not voting does nothing but give more power to special interest groups and left/right wing zealots, because those guys ALWAYS vote.
Lee
Tattered Cover (Score:3)
This is not, of course, the first time Tattered Cover has been involved in a constitutional battle. Back in 1985, in Tattered Cover, Inc. v. Tooley, 696 P.2d 780, they got part of Colorado's criminal code that criminalizes the display of sexually explicit materials struck down as violating the state's constitutional guarantee of free speech.
Re:IANAL....so please inform me if you are. (Score:3)
Go ahead and try to draft a definition of "substantionally related" that you can use to restrict which riders can be attached to which bills. I dare you. And oh yeah, try to find a constitutional basis for striking down such riders by the Supreme Court, which after all can only exert judicial review over matters concerning the constitution.
Someone please explain why our legistlative bodies haven't put a stop to this kind of thing?
Why? Because they're precisely the ones who are committing this fraud, and it's in their every incentive to do so, since it helps them get laws passed that couldn't get passed if standing on their own (or would get vetoed, for that matter). You don't expect one branch of government to police itself effectively, out of the goodness of its collective figurative heart, do you?
Let's assume this bill passes. (Score:3)
Still, the founding fathers were wise enough to envision something like this happening. That's why they established the system of checks and balances that every high school government student is obligated to learn about. If this law passes, and if it is used to violate the Fourth Amendment rights of citizens, there can be no doubt that it will be in front of a judge faster than you can blink your eye. This is what happened with the CDA. When was the last time you heard anything about the CDA?
Anybody who observes politics these days has to have a certain amount of cynicism. Still, I have faith that the system will work as it was intended to. There are elements in both the left and right wings of American politics that would like to conveniently ignore certain parts of the Constitution, but they cannot make the Constitution go away. The First Amendment should prohibit schools from actively organizing prayers and it should protect my right to speak my mind and voice unpopular opinions about the government. The Second Amendment should guarantee my right to own reasonable firearm if I so desire. The Fourth Amendment should protect me from unreasonable search and seizure by agents of the government. And so forth.
If the legislative and executive branches of government try to pass laws that ignore any of this, the judicial branch will jump all over that shit as is their duty. Call me a hopeless idealist, but even if this bill does pass, I don't see any reason for us (Americans) to worry.
More on Poppies ... (Score:3)
My understanding is that scoring and scraping poppy pods is rather labor intensive
I have heard that the dried poppy pods used in flower arrangements are also papaver somniferum, and that grinding those pods in a coffee mill will also make a decent tea, but 'decorative' plants, not intended for human consumption can have all sorts of wierd stuff. But I guess if you're desperate enough to ingest stuff from a crafts store
Re:IANAL....so please inform me if you are. (Score:3)
Perhaps it is still around because:
1) legislators don't vote based on their convictions but rather on what a) looks good b) the soft money wielding lobbist wants them to do or c) what they promised some other legislator they would vote in exchange for some favor (like a vote for something else)
2) the legislators can't be trusted to honor this (imho dishonerable) dealmaking so they have to put all the conditions of "i'll vote for this if you vote for that" in one big confied mess.
Re:what's even scarier (Score:3)
For a long time Democrats ruled the congress. They kept putting their pet projects as riders and the republican presidents pretty much had to either sign or scrap the whole bill. Usually of course you attached your pet project to cancer research bill or something and when the president vetoed it or you opponents objected you got to yell Mr. So or so is against cancer research! (exactly what George W. Bush did to McCain).
All this time the republicans yelled and screamed that they wanted a line item veto so that the president could veto just the riders and still let the rest of the bill pass. Then in a brilliant move at the end of the Bush presidency the democrats smelled a winner in Clinton and they passed the line item bill even though for years they were against it.
Surprise surprise the republicans now got to be on the receiving end of the shaft (so be careful what you ask for boys). So they challenged the law and the supreme court bailed them out by declaring the thing unconstitutional (not surprising how many republicans on the court).
OK the long and short of the story is that riders exist, the pres can do nothing about them, the American people are stupid and don't give a damn. Worse yet Americans are so stupid and gullable that when George W. Bush tell them that John McCain is FOR breast cancer and actually wants their mothers and sisters to get cancer they all nod their heads in agreement and say "it must be true cos I saw it on the tee-vee".
Re:what's even scarier (Score:3)
Riders are often slipped in as political compromises, with assorted legislators saying things like "My constituents couldn't care less if the US government stops supporting cheese prices, but they are really concerned that women in the armed forces are allowed to have abortions, so while I would hesitate to vote to eliminate cheese price supports, I would gladly vote 'yes' on a bill which prevented women in the armed forces from having abortions." So you end up with the 1998 Dairy Farmers Deregulation Act, which makes dairy farmers happy at the expense of taxpayers and the cheese-buying public, but oh-by-the-way makes having an abortion grounds for a dishonorable discharge from the Air Force.
It's like Ben Franklin said---people who respect the law and love sausage should never see either one being made.
--
Looks like YOU don't understand "well regulated". (Score:3)
It looks like you don't understand it.
When reading historical documents you have to keep in mind that the language drifts with time. Different meanings of the same word become predominant, phrases fall into disuse, and so on. There's an entire specialization of history (called "historiography") dedicated to understanding documents in the version of the language in which they were written.
"Well regulated" is a textbook example of the effect. While "regulated", standing alone, occasionally meant "controlled by law or authority", it more commonly meant "adjusted/tuned". The phrase "well regulated" always meant the latter.
A "well regulated clock" kept good time. It didn't have a special section of the legal code dedicated to it. A person with a "well regulated mind" thought clearly. He wasn't a graduate of a mind-control program. A "well regulated shotgun" had two barrels that shot in the same direction, rather than diverging. It wasn't subject to 30,000 laws on everything from barrel length to whether it could be possessed within a mile of an elementary school.
And a "well regulated militia" was one that fought well, not one that was under the control of the government.
But that's just the start. The phrase "well regulated militia" was a special term of political debate. It referred to that portion of "the militia" (i.e. every adult male who owned or could borrow a gun and was in a condition to fight) that wasn't in a special relation to the government.
The armed land forces of the country were divided into three parts: The "standing army" (full-time employees who did nothing but soldier), the "select militia" (part-time employees who soldiered in times of need, under command and control of the government), and the "well regulated militia" (everybody else who could fight).
And according to the writings of the Founders, the well regulated militia was explicitly supposed to be not under the control of the government. And it was explicitly supposed to be large and talented enough to easily defeat all the other branches of the military combined if it ever came to a conflict.
Because the primary purpose of the well regulated militia was as the last ditch insurance that the government remained the servant of the people, rather than usurping the people's authority and becoming their master.
Re:What part of "well-regulated" don't you underst (Score:3)
Funny how this comment is in an article about drug prohibition. It didn't work with alcohol, it isn't working with drugs -- Why do you think guns would be any different?. It's not like criminals won't be able to get guns any more. The prohibition of guns would only keep them out of the hands of lawful citizens.
Question about the bill number (Score:3)
But which bill number do we reference when writing to our representative? I know the bill is labelled HR 2987 but as the story mentions, it's now been grafted on to the "Bankrupcy Reform Act", which is known as HR 833. So, if it's been "grafted", does that mean that the original bill number has gone away, and the bill has become a part of the one on to which it was grafted? If so, shouldn't we be using the bill number of the one which it was grafted on to?
Which is the proper bill number? H.R. 2987 or H.R. 833? Can anyone help?
Has anything eroded the constitution (Score:3)
Sure no one's going to complain about information about drugs -- that's shouting fire in a theater, right? So next it'll be... say... offensive or "adult" topics and you won't be able to find information on birth control or abortion. Then it'll be sites critical of the government, and we'll be abut where China is today. By that time the people will be begging for it, too.
Your best bet is to mail your congressman and tell him that if he votes for this you will not only not vote for him in the next election, you'll make a sizeable donation to his opposition. Even if "Sizeable" for you is only a few bucks, that'll get his attention. Especially if you can get a few thousand of your friends to write similar letters to him.
what's even scarier (Score:3)
For instance, it is fairly well known that the U.S. was not paying it's U.N. fees for quite some time. However, if you dig a little deeper, you'll find out why we weren't paying. Apparently the Republican dominated Congress was insisting on an additional "provision" in the legislation that would've payed that bill.
This provision, in a nutshell, stated that the U.S. would not provide economic aid to nations or foreign agencies which provided abortion as part of women's health care.
As far as I know, Clinton refused to sign this bill as long as that provision was attached. Thus, leaving our U.N. bill unpaid. Now, whether you agree with abortion or not is not the issue. The fact is that this had NOTHING to do with the U.N. fees, and had no business being part of that bill.
Politics is downright nasty. But a great deal of this is possible because of voter apathy and ignorance. If the public would get more informed and more active, then maybe politicians would start representing us, instead of pulling b.s. like this.
So in addition to calling your Congressman, pass the info to a friend or two when you see stuff like this. And ask them to spread the word. Every little bit helps.
Best regards,
SEAL
Re:WArning: parent post is complete bollock (Score:3)
The difference is addiction potential. Alcohol is right up there with many other drugs. Its withdrawl is just as bad as most anything too.
Many drugs (LSD, Cocaine (yes cocaine - no physical withdrawl syndrome and that includes crack) etc) are LESS addictive than alchol because they have no withdrawl syndromes and/or do not reinforce the action (I dunno about you...but after a 12 hour LSD trip I have NO desire to do it again right away...takes at least a week before I am even willing)
Bottom line: Alcohol is a drug, just like any other. Whether it is worst or better is a matter of personal opinion and values.
Personally I can't hardly drink the stuff due to a medical condition (can have a little now and again). So for me, marijuana is much safer (less likely to aggravate a stomac condition that could lead to eventual cancer) - its all drugs, and its all a matter of personal values.
-Steve
Repeal the 1st Ammendment!!! (Score:3)
Lets rule out saying anything negative about the governments and large corporations. It only leads to anarchy.
Once you start on a slippery slope, how do you stop?
ACLU's take and faxing (Score:3)
My mom is not a Karma whore!
OOG OFFER INFO ON CAVE-WEED!!! (Score:3)
[slashdot.org]
OOG SUGGEST YAHOOKA.COM [yahooka.com]!!! YAHOOKA.COM [yahooka.com] VERY GOOD RESOURCE, LINK TO MUCH INFORMATION ON CAVE WEED!!! OOG GROW ALL HIS CAVE-WEED HIMSELF NOW!!! OOG LINK TO GUIDES OOG USE TO LEARN HOW TO GROW CAVE WEED!!! [yahooka.com] MAYBE OOG GO ON TO DOMESTICATE OTHER PLANTS LATER, INVENT CONCEPT OF AGRICULTURE AND BUILD BASIS OF CIVILIZATION BY ALLOWING CAVEMEN TO LIVE IN ONE STABLE PLACE WITHOUT HAVING TO MOVE!!! BUT OOG TOO BUSY WITH CAVE-DRUGS AND CLUBBING CAVE-HO'S!!! OOG JUST GOING TO GET REALLY FUCKING HIGH!!!
[slashdot.org]
SINCE OOG HIGH, OOG WANT TO APOLOGIZE IF INFORMATION NOT HELPFUL!!! OOG NOT READ STORY AND COMMENTS!!! OOG TRY NOT BE LIKE MOST SLASHDOT POSTER, WHO READ HEADLINE AND THEN POST!!! OOG MAY BE STONED OFF ASS, BUT OOG NOT WANT END UP LIKE SIGNAL 11!!! [slashdot.org]
OH NO, OOG'S SUNDIAL SAY IT ONLY FEW MORE HOURS TIL 4:20!!! OOG MUST GET NEXT BATCH OF CAVE-WEED READY TO SMOKE OUT!!! ARRGHHH OOG NEED CAVE MAMMOTH AND FRITOS TOO... OOG GOT CAVE-MUNCHIES BAD!!! [slashdot.org]
Less obvious arguments against this. (Score:3)
If somebody in Amsterdam decided to put up an informational website using, how would the us search engines keep such links out? Hard to filter on words like 'speed' and 'crack'. What about netnews posts? Text files in gnutella? Freenet? Sealand? Enforceablilty sounds like something that politicos in question haven't considered. It is bad karma to pass laws you can't enforce consistantly. Politicos should be reminded of this.
Another argument against censorship is that even if you disagree with the material being censored, censorship is like painting over the termite-holes. No matter how bad you think drugs are, the problem is that people look for them, not that they exist. Convincing people that they need to be responsible is the right solution. Give them enough rope to hang themselves, and one way or the other, they'll learn to respect rope.
Course, that last statement applies to many fields. Anybody want to set up a website along the lines of Mr. Cranky [mrcranky.com], but rating politicians instead? Or a place to read legislation converted into 'everyday language' - can't be harder than explaining computer code in everyday language. Politics is o so very dry. Somebody should do something about that.
Sorry to do this you CmdrTaco, (Score:4)
Some people combine the opium with hash when smoking it. I think this is a mistake as the opium high is far superior to being stoned and should be enjoyed as much as possible.
Have fun and try not to get caught.
--Shoeboy
WWW.TEXTFILES.COM is threatened, again. (Score:4)
I believe in what I'm doing. Very much.
For what I believe in, Sen. Feinstein would have me imprisioned for up to 10 years.
Before her dreams can become reality, I will be making all of textfiles.com downloadable in one huge file, for everyone who wants to save the site to have. Maybe the big smackdown won't come this time, maybe not the next time, but I am sadly coming to the conclusion that one day it will. Thanks for your help.
Without.. (Score:4)
Personally, from an ethics point of view, I think I see no problem with publishing such information.
If the government (the people) want this information to be taken correctly, they must use their own counter-information. THe best way to do this is with *real* information.
Not 'Weed makes you go nuts and kill people a-la reefer madness', but real scientific information.
ONe major problem with the war on drugs is that, although the war on drugs gives kids sociological facts, it does give them little scientific facts.
Illicit drug papers give them many true scientific facts, but without the appropriate details.
Educate the kids. Educate the public. Don't just tell them 'this is bad for you'. Tell them why. After all.. the internet is here.. fuckin use it.
Does this make sense to anyone? (Score:4)
If you voted you'd know who your representative was. Not that contacting them and lying about it wouldn't be a good idea. But be sure to follow up on it by showing up at the ballot box next election day and voting based on how they vote on this bill.
If more people did this and took responsibility for our government, then bills like this would never see the light of day and everyone who cherishes the freedom this country was founded on would sleep a little easier at night.
Lee
Re:"Clean" geek's opinion. (Score:4)
You say you're "clean" - not a drug user. You then admit to using alcohol and being addicted to caffiene. You also admit your parents are nicotine addicts. That makes you at least a second-generation part of the problem.
Problem #1: all illegal drugs are lumped together, as if their effects, risks, and potential harm were all equal. Legal drugs don't enter into the discussion. There are quite a number of illegal drugs that are less injurious than many legal drugs - the legislated morality is the only difference. In this case, while methamphetamines appear to have been singled out, the specific provisions that are at issue here are not restrained to a specific drug.
Problem #2: The Internet as made real information available to millions, and allowed many to make intelligent, personal decisions based on fact, not propaganda. As with anything else that fights hypocrisy with facts, when the facts are against them, the media will be perceived as a threat.
Problem #3: As long as substances are prohibited on moral or political grounds, rather than on scientific or public health grounds, hypocrisy is going to be the worst enemy of the "war on drugs". And all the erosion of privacy and other rights and freedoms will remain even when they eventually admit that the war has been lost.
"Are you gentlemen aware that shirts are being made from hemp, which are then being boiled down for the resin by teenagers who then mix the
residue with alcohol to create marijuana?" -- Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey, proving once again that he's either the stupidest or most dishonest man in America today (quoted in last week's Wunderland Weekly News )
Re:Sorry to do this you CmdrTaco, (Score:4)
may i just point out that this response is the very reason that this drug literature MUST exist on the Internet.
Person A claims to have the recipe to make opium. it all sounds very legitimate.
Person B points out that it is only one type of rare poppy that works. where is he finding this information? why lycaeum.org [lycaeum.org], one of the very sites that the government is attempting to make illegal.
you have to understand that "drug manufacture" rumours are spread all the time. most of them are completely wrong, and unfortunately, many are extremely dangerous if one were to actually try them. though you may argue that the original mis-information could have come from another Internet site, i have found that it is more likely to hear incorrect information through word-of-mouth.
drug information, no make that all information must be free, so that people can make informed, rational decisions.
i know this from real experience. i can't tell you the number of times i've heard people passing dangerous, no, deadly information of how to manufacture MDMA (ecstasy). in fact, a friend of mine was going to attempt to manufacture MDMA based on the directions that he had heard word-of-mouth. he later consulted the Internet, and learned that the method he had learned was in fact a hoax, and ran a very high chance of causing an explosion.
in the end, he found a correct method, and in fact manufactured MDMA sucessfully. that is why he is currently serving jail time, but that's another matter all togther. the fact remains that he would probably be dead right now if it weren't for free drug information on the Internet.
but even if you don't agree with me, and you are so much against drug use that you refuse to even consider the alternatives, consider this:
thistime the government's destruction of free speech does not affect you. however if you let the trend continue, someday it will, and you will be powerless to stop it.
- j
Re:this REALLY concerns me.... (Score:4)
As for personal drug use. I kno wplenty of people who use drugs socially. Alcohol, pot etc. I can personally attest to having some of my fammily relationships strengthened by drug use...the bond that comes from smoking a joint with someone. Time spent together.
How about Ken Keasy? The man apears to be about in his 90s last I saw him interviewed. He says he still uses LSD today. He said "I never would have been able to write that well (one flew over the cucues(sp?) nest) without it"
The thing is...you never see on the newspaper or on TV "Guy smokes pot, eats pizza" or "man drops acid, finds god...joins the church to help others"
(not that I condone joining churches, I am an atheist, but a friend of mine dropped some acid once, and ended up deciding he disliked his life and joining a church because of it and finding "god"...much longer story than that but thats the "executive summary")
All in all...I have come to realise that its not about "drugs", its about relationships with drugs. ANY drug can be used safely, and without problem, by a person with a good relationship with drugs.
There is a HUGE difference between a person who NEEDs to start the day with a drink (or a toke, or any drug) and a person who sometimes has a drink...or a toke...or a line.
Its not about willpower. Its not about addiction. Its about outlook. Its about the relationship. It is about recognizing and accepting why one is using a drug. I drink coffee to be more alert at work. I can make it through a day of work without it.
I drink a beer with a friend because its fun...its part of the recreational activity for the evening...not because I need beer to feel good.
Unconstitutional Laws Must Cost Lawmakers (Score:4)
All elected U.S. legislative, executive and deliberative officials are sworn into office with a vow to uphold and defend the constitution. Voting for laws that are later determined to be unconstituational is a clear breach of office and public trust and must be made punishable by impeachment.
Night
Re:ACLU: Defender of all but the 2nd ammendment. (Score:4)
I shouldn't even bother answering, but I can't help it. That is some of is the purest, most unadulterated BS I have heard. Let's think about this - the US has the weakest gun control laws in the civilized world, and the highest gun death rates in the civilized world. Anyone see a connection here?
They do not keep guns away from criminals any more than drug laws keep heroin away from junkies
- That applies only to the highly organized criminals who can get guns smuggled in from out of the country. It's with the common hoods that this makes a difference - they're not going to be connected to international gun cartels, but they sure can find the one gun shop in (twenty? thirty? I dunno) that looks perfectly honest on paper, but is willing to sell guns without criminal record checks. Get rid of gun shops, and only a tiny minority of criminals will be well-enough connected to find guns.
- Most of the people killed with guns are not killed by criminals, but by perfectly honest, upstanding citizens. They are killed by their families, because someone gets drunk and angry, and grabs the gun out of the gun closet. Or because they go downstairs for a glass of water in the night, and someone mistakes them for a burglar
All the gun nuts I hear call up Switzerland as an example of a country with lots of guns and no gun violence. But Switzerland has some of the most draconian gun laws in the world. You basically can't own a gun. That's not your gun in your house, it's the government's gun, and you don't take it out without filling out a week's worth of paperwork. The gun is kept locked up, unloaded, and there are inspections regularly (That's right, government agents come into your house to inspect their guns, and you have no right to tell them to go away) and if they find that you have been using the guns without due process, you lose the guns. Furthermore, nobody gets a gun in their house without going through lengthy training, and passing it, and going back regularly for refresher courses.Drugs, Drugs, Drugs (Score:5)
So perhaps I can take a somewhat outsider perspective on the drug war. First of all, anyone who claims marijuana has no ill effects has never walked into a university dorm. I know it does have effects. But, so does alcohol. So does red meat.
The governments of Canada and the US both feel, for some ridiculous reason that they have a duty to protect us from ourselves. We may have liberty, but we're not given the credit to make decisions for ourselves. Is that freedom?
Point being, drugs may be bad for your brain. I don't think many people will disagree. But what I need to know, what is the arbitrary decider that makes marijuana more dangerous (Reefer Madness!) than alcohol? I've never seen a stoned individual beat his wife, or drive his car into a group of people. On the other hand, we've heard of alcohol-influenced wife-abuse and drunk drivers.
I have no interest in partaking in legal or illegal marijuana, but I don't support states throwing people with personal use marijuana in prison for 20 years, while Budweiser's customers are applauded as "Real Americans/Canadians etc."
I don't like either drug users, or alcohol abusers, particularly, but freedom is not about liking people, it's about allowing everyone the freedom to do as they will, as long as they don't infringe on others rights.
On a side note, Straight Edge kids in Syracuse NY are branded are terrorists. Many are investigated. Somehow, NOT drinking is a crime in the United States. Not eating meat is a crime, but alcohol abuse is as American as Apple Pie.
What about medical practitioners? (Score:5)
Are doctors to be banned from learning how to do their jobs?
(This is not so far-fetched. For much of the 1900's it was against the law for physicians to explain anything about birth control to their patients. Reflect on that for a bit...)
Cheers,
Ben
"Clean" geek's opinion. (Score:5)
Anyway, as a 'clean' geek, I do not use any type of drug, and tend to not be around in person when they are being used. However, this Bill scares the crap out of me for the following reasons:
1. It's embedded, like a virus, on a completely unrelated piece of legislation. I see this as perversely unethical, and think that the sponsors of this Bill should be tarred and feathered in the Grand Old tradition reserved for anti-social hoodlums. The idea that some members of Congress expect to slide this regulation right under the noses of their peers, assuming that the latter are either asleep or too stupid to notice, is systemically offensive. The audacity of this should result in the Bill's sponsors excommunication from the political arena.
2. The speed with which society turned on smokers (I don't, both my parents puff 2 packs/day - it's an addiction, not a habit) means that no single substance is safe. All it takes is a few well placed comments by the right people, and your food coloring of choice, additive, flavor enhancer or whatever is likely to single you out as some depraved addict.
3. I NEED my morning coffee. I WANT my afternoon JOLT. I CRAVE my evening tea. (See #2)
4. I feel that (even though I do not partake of the bounty of Mother Nature to the same extent as others) no person really has the right to impose their standards and morality on what weeds a person adds to their diet in the privacy of their own home. Certainly, there are complications with operating heavy machinery and the reliable functioning safety critical professionals, but we've addressed these problems vis a vis alcohol already. Make being 'clean' a condition of employment where it's required, and let people make up their own minds.
5. To paraphrase Voltaire: 'I do not agree with what you're saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' This is a FREE COUNTRY in name, and if this sort of Bill (see #1-#4) passes, it will be the height of hypocracy, and an embarassment before the rest of the world - like we really need to be laughed at again...
I'd keep going, but it would be redundant. This is a very huge issue, not just due to drugs but due to the doors it opens to the 'holier than thou' and the means by which it is being delivered into the Law of the Land. Disgusting!
the relevant Simpsons quote is: (Score:5)
Kent Brockman: With our utter annihilation imminent, our federal government has snapped into action. We go live now via satellite to the floor of the United States congress.
Speaker: Then it is unanimous, we are going to approve the bill to evacuate the town of Springfield in the great state of --
Congressman: Wait a minute, I want to tack on a rider to that bill: $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.
Speaker: All in favor of the amended Springfield-slash-pervert bill?
[everyone boos]
Speaker: Bill defeated. [bangs gavel]
Kent Brockman: I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work.
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
Hooray for enumerated powers (Score:5)
As if there weren't enough 1st amendment grounds for striking down the censorship provisions of this act, I suspect Congress would be hard pressed to demonstrate that nonprofit speech as such is a form of commerce, and this bill doesn't specify that the speech must be conducted through interstate channels to qualify.
This isn't an either-or question (Score:5)
Some quick examples:
1) Why on earth are we willing to spend *billions* of dollars incarcerating something like half of our prison population on minor drug charges - to say nothing of the immense social disruption in "supplier" countries - while treatment centers are so cash starved that an addict who really wants to stop must be put on a months-long waiting list?
2) Speaking of prison populations, why do we have an inverted policy that guarantees users and low-level dealers will serve 20-years-without-parole (to the point of giving violent criminals early paroles in order to free space for the smuck caught with an ounce of pot at the airport), while mid-level dealers with information to trade can negotiate lighter sentences?
3) Why do we have an official policy of convincing our children that they can never, ever trust someone in authority to tell them the truth? As one local critic (and county commissioner) observes, kids are *not* going to believe the horror stories about how bad horse is if they were told that one toke on a joint will make them insane, yet they took a toke and the hit was lighter than their first cigarette. That's why E is a problem today - many researchers thought it might have a valid medical use but the Feds knee-jerked yet again and declared it without any legitimate use. (The same thing can be said about LSD, btw). There's now some evidence that E *might* cause long-term problems, and definite evidence that street users need to be careful about heat exhaustion, but the authorities have lost all credibility so the message isn't getting out. Not only that, they are actively hostile to DanceSafe telling ravers what's really in their pills and what the consequences of them taking it will be.
There is no cold calculus that tells us you should see three friends die of overdoses to equate two units of civil authority, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a very real tradeoff here. I don't know where the line is, but I get *very* worried when the government tells me that I can't get the information necessary to make an informed decision in the voting booth.
But then again, I am a hard-ass on this. Were I President, I would have immediately called a press conference to announce that I had relunctantly accepted Barry McCaffrey's(sp?) resignation after he made some comment about the stupid, ignorant voters in California and Arizona passing state referendums contrary to the national drug policy. (The fact that he offered no resignation wouldn't stop me from accepting it
Re:ACLU: Defender of all but the 2nd ammendment. (Score:5)
- well-regulated does not mean what you think it means - in the military parlance of the time, it meant effectively equipped and trained;
- it doesn't matter - you're paying more attention to the comment than the code. The form is not "If X, then the law is Y", it's "Because X, the law is Y"; it doesn't matter whether X holds or not, the law is Y and X is just a comment, and
- it doesn't matter because constitutional or not, strong gun control laws fail. Always. Repeatedly. They do not keep guns away from criminals any more than drug laws keep heroin away from junkies or porn laws keep Penthouse away from kids; and they prevent law-abiding citizens from defending themselves, leaving them reliant on the police. You know, like the New York City police who stood idlely by and allowed over 50 women to be sexually assulted in Central Park a few weeks ago. Do you think something like that could have happened in a state with concealed carry legislation? One bystander with a handgun could have stopped that whole thing very quickly, probably without firing a shot.
Absolutely incorrect. A militia is almost the polar opposite of a standing army.The idea of the founders was that there would not be a standing army of significant size, but that ordinary citizens would be sufficiently armed and competent ("well-regulated") to repel an invading army. That's why military appropriations are more limited than others ("To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years").
Re:ACLU: Defender of all but the 2nd ammendment. (Score:5)
But that's beside the point. If a law read "A well-educated populace being necessary to the security of a democracy, the right to keep and read books shall not be infringed," this would in no way allow the government to define a well-educated group of people and restrict possession of books to them.
Re:this REALLY concerns me.... (Score:5)
They couldn't get much harsher. That's part of the problem. There are some obvious things like prison overcrowding, but also more subtle things you wouldn't notice, such as 20% of African Americans being ineligible to vote due primarily to felony drug laws. Being convicted of a felony now also carries the penalty of being ineligible for foodstamps for the rest of your life (except in some states who have opted out of that, such as New York). Poor people are targeted much more, due most probably to ineffective legal defense, and denying them foodstamps, while they're poor, seems awfully strange to me, felon or not.
Stiffer penalties you say? At least consider the consequences before you add yet another racist, class-biased penalty to drug laws, besides the possibly naive notion that these things will help prevent drug use.
For the record, my personal opinion is that jailing people for drug use is a blatant human rights violation. Addiction is considered by almost everyone in medical professions to be a medical problem. We don't put people in jail for having AIDS, do we? Treat it as a medical problem, not a criminal one. Who knows, it might even just work.
I think most drugs are disgusting and I truly wish they didn't exist. I've had my own experiences with them, and many people close to me. My girlfriend is a cocaine addict, though she's been clean for about a year now (notice I used the present tense; you're never, ever a "former addict," it's for the rest of your life). However, despite my general disgust, I don't forsee any good coming out of this war on drugs no matter how stiff you make the penalties, and no matter how much of a police state you make it. Users will use. Help them stop, don't punish them when they learn from their mistakes.
Re:this REALLY concerns me.... (Score:5)
> is just too much. I've seen way too many lives
> destroyed by the horrors of real drugs.
However the anti-war on drugs movement isn't necissarily about just legalizing drugs so everyone can get smashed.
The idea is to change the focus from "prohibition" ie just saying "drugs are bad and you goto jail for having them" (which is, many times, a fate MORE harmful than the drugs alone ever were) over to educating people.
Many of the problems associated with drug use are a direct result of prohibition and black market economics. I am talking about adulturated drugs. I am talking about "turf wars" between rival drug sellers. I am talking about misinformation that is being given out by users and dealers alike. Even the fact that people are injecting heroine is a product of prohibition. Prohibition has driven the price up so high that IV injection is the only cost-effective way to use it.
Only through legalization and regulation can we reduce the harm associated with drugs. Prohibition has been PROVEN time and again to only drive problems underground and make problems worst.
It happend with Alcohol in the 1920s. It is happening today. There will ALWAYS be drug users. Its been part of human culture since the begining of time. You can't change human nature and society by handing down laws from "on high".
That is exactly what prohibition tries to do. That is exactly why it fails.
-Steve
Re:this REALLY concerns me.... (Score:5)
> lead to regular opium use which can lead to
> Heroin?
I get the feeling your are either mis-informed or a provocateur. NOONE is going around selling "weed laced with opium" to anyone without telling them.
Why? Simple its just NOT economical. Weed is an incredibly cheap drug (as far as street drugs go). Lacing it with opium would raise the cost to the seller...which means he would have to somehow justify his price increase.
While theoretically your scenario is POSSIBLE. It is highly IMPROBABLE and in my experience (I am a drug user and know alot of drug users) it simple does NOT happen outside of the most isolated of incidents.
Also...were it legal...this wouldn't happen. See those who believe in legalization also believe in some form of regulation...much like medicine is now. Force them to put quantities and ingredients on everything.
> You don't think that E laced with coke leads
> to regular usage of coke? Don't tell me
> that it doesn't and don't point to studies.
> I've lived it and the story is the same
> everytime.
hmmm the more I read from you, the less I believe that you have "lived it". Dealers don't just go around randomly lacing things...and they don't go doing it for the purpose of "hooking" people.
They do NOT need to create more demand...they get PLENTY of buisness as it is. Secondly, coke is not physically addictive (only mentally) so "laced E" would not produce a real cocaine addiction.
Again, lacing would be illegal if drugs were legal and regulated. Just like it would be illegal for bayer to put acetominiphen (paracetamol for the brits) without adding it to the ingredients label.
this REALLY concerns me.... (Score:5)
1) I am a drug using geek. I think it's pretty hypocritical for people to be "anti-drug" and then go out and get hammered on a saturday night. Yes, we geeks really care! Why? Because there is a substantial cross section of geek culture that also participates in recreational drug use. Be that Alcohol, Marijuana, Mushrooms, or whatever. The anti-anti-drug movement has come so far, why stop fighting? Anyone who agrees with me needs to show their true colors and say something about it!!
2) Most importantly, this is a freedom of speech issue. It's illegal to own fireworks where i live, yet you can find all sorts of information about making them and using them on the internet. Why aren't sites like these being banned? Marijuana is legal in several countries around the world (Most noteably, the city of Amsterdam). There is even a bill to allow cultivation there. So - what's the difference between fireworks and drugs? Simple - drugs are unpopular so the politicians think they can get a bill passed to censor sites like the Lycaeum [lycaeum.org]. IT'S STILL CENSORSHIP!!!
I don't care if you're a geek, a hippy, or a fundamentalist christian....this isn't just a drug issue. If you don't fight censorship wherever it rears its ugly head - you'll find that, when it comes time for you to be censored yourself, there's no one left to fight!
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
prior restraint is unconstitutional (Score:5)
Last I looked at the Constitution of the U.S., prior restraint on publication was not allowed. I seem to remember the First Amendment referring to "no law," not "any law that is restricted to drugs, child pornography, infant baptism, etc."
What this means is the government is not supposed to prohibit anyone from publishing information, only that if the publication is not protected by the First Amendment (Holmes's "crying fire in the theatre") then the police can arrest you. A few of us oldtimers can remember the Pentagon Papers case, where The New York Times and The Washington Post had to go to the Supreme Court to establish their right to publish those papers, which the federal government claimed would violate our national security.
I would like to learn from anybody in the Denver area who could tell me what happened in the Tattered Cover Bookstore case. A few months ago a squad of police arrived there with a search warrant to go through their credit card records. They said they had found a receipt concerning a book on how to produce illegal drugs, at an empty methamphetamine lab.
The owner refused the police demands and got a writ from a court to stop the search. But I never heard what happened afterward. Her argument was that such a search would invade not only her rights as a bookseller to preserve privacy of clients, but also the right of the public to buy and read books no matter what. Perhaps if the issue pertained to web pages and ISPs then some computer geeks would make more noise.
It appears that this new attempt to amend the law is an effort to strengthen the hands of the police in such a case. I hope it is rejected by Congress. But I don't have any faith in their ability to read and understand the Constitution. If it passes, then I hope it is challenged by brave people like the owner of the Tattered Cover bookstore in Denver.
Have you read the "Bill of Rights Lite"? (Score:5)
Amendment 1
Congress shall encourage the practice of Judeo-Christian religion by its own public exercise thereof and shall make no laws abridging the freedom of responsible speech, unless such speech is in a digitized form or contains material which is copyrighted, classified, proprietary, or deeply offensive to non-Europeans, non-males, differently-abled or alternatively preferenced persons; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, unless such assembly is taking place on corporate or military property or within an electronic environment, or to make petitions to the Government for a redress of grievances, unless those grievances relate to national security.
Amendment 2
A well-regulated Militia having become irrelevant to the security of the State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms against one another shall nevertheless remain uninfringed, excepting such arms as may be afforded by the poor or those preferred by drug pushers, terrorists, and organized criminals, which shall be banned.
No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, unless that house is thought to have been used for the distribution of illegal substances.
Amendment 4
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers. and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, may be suspended to protect public welfare, and upon the unsupported suspicion of law enforcement officials, any place or conveyance shall be subject to immediate search, and any such places or conveyances or property within them may be permanently confiscated without further judicial proceeding.
Amendment 5
Any person may be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime involving illicit substances, terrorism, or child pornography, or upon any suspicion whatever; and may be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, once by the State courts and again by the Federal Judiciary; and may be compelled by various means, including the forced submission of breath samples, bodily fluids, or encryption keys, to be a witness against himself, refusal to do so constituting an admission of guilt; and may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without further legal delay; and any property thereby forfeited shall be dedicated to the discretionary use of law enforcement agents.
Amendment 6
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and private plea bargaining session before pleading guilty. He is entitled to the Assistance of underpaid and indifferent Counsel to negotiate his sentence, except where such sentence falls under federal mandatory sentencing requirements.
Amendment 7
In Suits at common law, where the contesting parties have nearly unlimited resources to spend on legal fees, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.
Amendment 8
Sufficient bail may be required to ensure that dangerous criminals will remain in custody, where cruel punishments are usually inflicted.
Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others which may be asserted by the Government as required to preserve public order, family values, or national security.
Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, shall be reserved to the United States Departments of Justice and Treasury, except when the States are willing to forsake federal funding.