Voters Vote Yes, County Says No 645
Khyber writes in with a story from Montana, where residents of Missoula County voted in a referendum intended to advise county law-enforcement types to treat marijuana offenses as low-profile. The referendum would not have changed any laws, but was advisory only. After voters approved it, county commissioners overturned it by a 2-to-1 vote. They were swayed by the argument of the county attorney, who had a "gut feeling" that Missoula's electorate had misinterpreted the ballot language. The move has resulted in a flood of disaffection among voters, especially young voters. "Is there even a point to voting any more if the will of the people can so easily be subverted by two people?" one voter posted on a comment blog.
Link? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Link? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Link? (Score:5, Informative)
Are you referring to the poster, or the slashdot editors?
http://www.kcfw.com/montana_news.php?id=01723a93ff e12ca09070c26c8713da13 [kcfw.com]
I hear that everyone else was going "like .... bummer, dude!"
Re:Link? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Link? (Score:4, Insightful)
What are you all waiting for? Go shoot the fuckers already.
Re:Link? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Link? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your only choice is to vote for the lest corrupt and most honest politician. While you state that a little rebellion is good, it ain't gonna happen.
Re:Link? (Score:4, Interesting)
You can win, you self-defeating sad sack. (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe the war in Iraq can provide us with some clues. How's that thing going, anyway?
The key is not the second amendment. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Something about insurgents... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Mod parent up (Score:4, Insightful)
We had one. It was called "Waco". I watched it on TV. It didn't end well.
In any event, I believe the GP wasn't quite right. The Right to Bear Arms has little to do with "affecting Government policies or methods" other than as a deterrent. If you want to see what happens when people use firearms to directly influence the political process, there are plenty of places in the world where that goes on regularly. It also rarely ends well. We call those situations "coups".
The Second Amendment is there for the time when We, The People of these United States, have given up on the political process, can no longer tolerate our Federal Government's policies or methods, and have set out to replace it and them. Without weapons that is infinitely more difficult. The Second also serves a deterrent, so that the government (any government, local, state or Federal) can't get too overbearing. And what I've been seeing lately, in my State, indicates that more of us need to keep and bear arms. The face of government that most of us see are the police, and they are starting to get out of hand. Power corrupts and all that.
Point being, if we ever reach the point where we need those guns, en-masse, to overthrow our own government, the Second Amendment will no longer matter. But its existence for all this time (and our observance of it) will have given us the chance to try again.
At least, that's the theory. Time will tell if the Founders were right once again.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just in case people actually believe that. It is necessary to say that you are incorrect. Note the commas. Very important. Also the word "the", as in THE people. Not necessarily of the militia.
Re:Link? (Score:5, Informative)
Furthermore: (10 USC 311)
So, fine - the right of all able-bodied males between ages 17-45 to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Sounds good to me.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're entirely incorrect. The "milita" is the unorganized collection of armed citizens that were available to call up. Also, the 2nd amendment does apply to "normal citizens." Both of these errors in your position are addressed, exposed, debunked, and disposed of in the following March 9th, 2007 court decision:
Parker v. District of Columbia [uscourts.gov]
That's the actual decision, in PDF. Absolutely required reading for col
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the
Re: (Score:3)
To the good residents of the county...smoke on....
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As a former Missoulian, I can absolutely guarantee the officials that the people of Missoula did NOT misinterpret the language on the ballot :)
It's not like there is really there much else to do in Montana, anyway.
Here's a link (Score:5, Informative)
I found this story [newwest.net] doing a Google search. From TFA:
The tone of the hearing shifted when Van Valkenburg said that he had proposed the amendments because of a "gut feeling" that Missoula voters were not "detail-oriented" enough to understand the complete scope of the initiative.
I think the only ones who failed the "detail-oriented" test are the slashdot editors who posted a story that references an article and a blog but failed to provide any links.
GMD
No, just optimizing for typical /. readers :-) (Score:5, Funny)
Fascinating technology, really. Here's a link to how they do it:
Short answer: (Score:5, Insightful)
Follow the money (Score:5, Interesting)
It is only logical that a county attorney would want to continue prosecuting these cases, otherwise he might have to cut staff and save the taxpayers a few bucks.
Re:Follow the money (Score:4, Informative)
I can't say exactly how things work in Montana, but generally a "county attorney" is the guy who advises and represents the county commission on the legal effect of proposed ordinances, their constitutionality (or lack thereof), and sometimes represents the county in civil cases.
Usually, the person who prosecutes criminal cases--representing the state rather than the county--is called the "district attorney".
Some articles (Score:5, Informative)
There was no link in the story, so here's some that seem to be relevant.
An article [newwest.net]
relevant Google news search [google.com]
Democracy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You obvioulsy weren't in Quebec 40 odd years ago.
Link (Score:5, Informative)
Man -- and I thought *I* was lazy. But too lazy to Google it? Wow.
One state at a time... (Score:5, Interesting)
Each state has 2% of the Senate vote.
Montana seems to have 2 Democrat senators... maybe they should start a groundswell by voting in some libertarians [lp.org] who wouldn't put up for that stuff.
I was there (Score:5, Informative)
The county prosecutor opened the meeting by telling us that we did not understand the initiative, to which many of us, myself included, assured him that we read the initiative in its entirety, and did understand it. When everybody was done speaking, he came back up and told us that he disagreed with us, and that we still did not understand the initiative. In addition, he showed us a map showing how the votes were distributed, and told us that since most of the votes were centered around the "metropolitan" area of Missoula, and not so much in the surrounding areas of the county, that it was not fair to voters to have this initiative.
I really enjoy living in Missoula for a number of reasons, but the local government is not one of them.
For the record, I did vote, and will continue to, regardless of my opinion that voting is purely symbolic.
Missoula (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
you are contradicting your own point (Score:4, Insightful)
b) Elected officials don't do things the way you would.
Are you on the weed or what?
Why do you not vote for someone who thinks like you do? Don't tell me it doesn't matter, because you already told me you didn't vote, so we can't really know, now can we?
Personally, I think the problem is that we have ended up with a binary choice for elected officals; Assholes and Dimwits. The de-facto two party system just doesn't cover the real-world spectrum of opinion, including those who self-select to opt out of the system because, wah, wah, there is noone who exactly represents them exactly.
change is incremental, but if you don't vote you are stuck with no hope of change. If everyone who didn't vote "because it doesn't matter" voted for someone other than the two big parties it might give those of us who vote holding our nose a hint that other out there care too.
I always vote.
Sometimes "my guy" wins, sometimes he loses. I am almost always disappointed either way, by the policies that the guy in office advocates. Usually it seems like elected officials do something, just to be doing something, which is almost always wrong.
Hmm, maybe there isn't much difference, other than the fact that I can at least say "I tried".
Re:I was there (Score:5, Insightful)
reason enough?
Link to article and text of measure (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.co.missoula.mt.us/Election/Marijuana_I
Article
http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2007/03/24/new
A similar thing happened in my town (Score:4, Interesting)
A new more progressive chair and vice-chair were voted in unanimously. You can make a difference, especially by starting at the local level and working your way up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In that case, we get... Nancy Pelosi.
Same behavior new state (Score:5, Informative)
Why I dont vote (Score:5, Insightful)
The voters probably did not understand the wording of the ballot.
The voters probably did not understand what they are voting on.
The voters are too stupid to vote so just project the illusion that their votes matter.
I for one am sick and tired of the government and those in power who think they are above the voters. Government and those who work for the Government exist to serve the public, not the other way around.
Re:Why I dont vote (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if you believe that your vote doesn't matter what do you lose from voting besides time ?
On the other hand, if you're wrong, and your vote does make a difference then you've had some say in the politics that affect your every day life. If that doesn't matter to you then, by all means, stay home and jerk off while others who actually care go out and try to change things for the better.
Even if they're just wasting their time at least they're actually doing something.
The way I see it you have three options:
1) You vote and try to change things through the system (writing angry letters, protesting etc.)
2) You don't vote and instead gather a group of supporters and draw arms and try to overthrow your government by force.
3) You do nothing and justify it by saying how futile doing something would be.
Re:Why I dont vote (Score:4, Insightful)
A single vote really is very insignificant, when you compare it to all the other ways that one can involve oneself in the community and in the advancement of social goals.
- RG>
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, by voting you indicate you submit (and subject) your will to the democratic process, meaning you'll abide by whatever result the democratic process achieves. In case you've lost faith in that said process, or generally in the government you are supposed to be selecting, by voting you lose your dignity and/or moral high-ground by submitting it to a form of government you no longer can trust. Voting means you r
that's called learned helplessness (Score:5, Insightful)
it's sad, and it works just as well on humans
the point is to effect control on your government, that's the beauty of a democracy. but if a democracy is populated by those who think helpessly, like slaves, like, you, then democracy does not work
when you withhold your vote, you only help those who you complain about. those who you hate are HAPPY that you do not vote. if their actions lead you to not vote, all the more reason to do the actions they do, according to them
your psychology is that of a slave in a fascist state. and if enough people who think like you populate this country, then that is exactly what it will become. BECAUSE of people like you, not in spite of people like you
look: there will ALWAYS be assholes who try to manipulate the system. always. but simply because they exist, you will withhold your voice from your government. incredible. you must always fight the assholes who would subvert democracy. but if you simply stop fighting them, and give up your vote, then guess what? they win
if this country is not democratic in anyway, it is more because of people like you, then the assholes who would subvert it. because evil assholes can be fought. apathy on the other hand, is an obstinate unmoveable useless obstacle
people who think like you are the biggest reason democracy fails: "i'm helpless, so i will not vote"
no, you're not helpless, your vote counts. you only think that way because you have been trained like a dog in a cage. you've learned helpelessness, you have no heart, you've ceased caring
It's Cannabis, not marijuana (Score:5, Informative)
There are also two other main strains, Industrial Hemp being one of them, but also another which i cannot remember the name of.
To the rest of the world (Score:4, Insightful)
Anybody want an elected office in Montana? (Score:4, Insightful)
Coincidentally... (Score:3, Interesting)
This is why you should vote... (Score:5, Insightful)
So this is a compelling reason to vote, not a reason to wuss out of the democratic process.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Say at the next election they *do* get voted out. So what? What's to stop them declaring *again* that the voters didn't understand the issue, or were confused, and that they just declare that the *correct* result is that they've been voted back in.
If your votes are being thrown away, discarded or ignored, there *is* no point in voting. It's just a meaningless sham, dressed up to look like
Now you know how most of the UN feels (Score:3, Insightful)
Sadly it's just a microcosm of the wider world. The UN General Assembly (i.e. The rest of the world) can vote all it likes but it's resolutions are non-binding. Yet when just a handful of countries vote (the Security Council) their word is law. The 5 permanent members ("permanent" already being an affront to any kind of democracy) also have veto power over everyone else. It's so ridiculously undemocratic, I'm not really sure why anyone bothers turning up. I think the rest of the world should set up their own UN, where countries have an equal say. If you think that countries should have unequal representation, it should be based on population count not wealth since you would not like rich people in your own country to have more votes than you, would you?
Crisis Time for Democracy (Score:3, Insightful)
Can't speak for folks in other parts of the country, but Montanans still remember what it means to be free. They will correct this and those who think they can simply overrule a democratic vote.
Missoula County Commissioners' Office Contact (Score:5, Informative)
If every person posting in indignation where to say, express their thoughts directly to the Missoula County Commissioners' Office, who knows what could happen?
oops, whats this?
Missoula County
Board of County Commissioners
200 W. Broadway
Missoula, MT 59802
Main Office Telephone Number: 406-258-4877
COMMISSIONER: JEAN CURTISS
Contact Person: Jean Curtiss
Phone: 406-258-4877
Fax: 406-721-4043
Email: mailto:jcurtiss@co.missoula.mt.us [mailto] (or) bcc@co.missoula.mt.us
Location: Second Floor of Courthouse Annex Room 210
COMMISSIONER: BILL CAREY
Contact Person: Bill Carey
Phone: 406-258-4877
Fax: 406-721-4043
Email: mailto:bcarey@co.missoula.mt.us [mailto] (or) bcc@co.missoula.mt.us
Location: Second Floor of Courthouse Annex Room 210
COMMISSIONER: BARBARA EVANS
Phone: 406-258-4877
Fax: 406-721-4043
Email: mailto:bevans@co.missoula.mt.us [mailto] (or) bcc@co.missoula.mt.us
Location: Second Floor of Courthouse Annex Room 210
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Here goes my karma, I guess (Score:5, Informative)
I'd suggest that the only thing that "matters" for anyone keen on the subject is good music and lots of brownies.
The key to criminalisation was the way in which Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 [wikipedia.org] was written and passed.
To rephrase the above, if you wanted to deal in the stuff, you needed a tax stamp. Which required possession of the stuff. Which was
It's hardly surprising that in the decades since, the laws concerning cannabis are just as tortured and contradictory, especially when considered against the background of yet another new study that suggest alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous [guardian.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkroOQT-84Q [youtube.com]
Lots of historical info in that video.
Shitdrummer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Here goes my karma, I guess (Score:4, Insightful)
Tobacco isn't as much of a concern because it's effects alone on a person's mental facilities are much less than other drugs. I would say yes to alcohol, however we've tried that before and things didn't go so well. The problem is that once you decide to take something away, you have to be willing to do whatever it takes to then enforce the law. Most of the time, "whatever it takes" means taking even more away from the people.
You can always circumvent making alcohol illegal by simply trading a punishment for possession with stiffer punishments for abuse. For example, the FIRST time somebody is caught driving under the influence of alcohol, they lose their license. Not for a week, not a month, not a year. Forever. The goal here would be to remove the threat some people pose as fast as possible, without inflicting sobriety on more "responsible" people. It wouldn't fix the problem, but I think it would be a significant step in the right direction.
Re:Here goes my karma, I guess (Score:5, Insightful)
In California at least, the threshold for drink driving convictions for minors is about the same as the nominal uncertainty on many testing devices: 0.01% BAC. If I recall correctly, this can be achieved with less than 1 mL of ethanol, and is also an amount which is far below a level that would cause noticeable effects. Would it really be fair to destroy the lives of people (in parts of California, driving is practically essential) who might have a nearly undetectable and completely unnoticeable level of inebriation, or who might not have even had any alcohol at all (assuming that the uncertainties given are 3 sigma, there is at least a 1% chance that a reading of over 0.01 will result from an actual concentration of 0).
The idea is interesting, but unintended consequences and abuse can be tricky with any such idea.
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Here goes my karma, I guess (Score:5, Insightful)
Somehow I get the feeling that's not what the founding fathers meant by "government for the people"
Re:Here goes my karma, I guess (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course there is, the brain is a pleasure seeking mechanism, in fact it can be argued that all effort is mediated in the brain for the purpose of seeking pleasure, learn about it. Drug users simply take a shorter route to pleasure, however damaging in the long run it may be.
So let's put them in jail, support them for a large part of their lives, give criminals an easy way to make money, ruin millions of lives in a bogus war, loose the tax on consumption... no, you are the illogical one. As for answering each and every point in detail there is no point, the willfully ignorant have no interest in learning anything.
Re:Here goes my karma, I guess (Score:4, Insightful)
Money maybe? But you don't enjoy that?
Family, perhaps? But you don't enjoy them?
Making the world a better place? But you don't enjoy that?
Creative expression? But you don't enjoy that?
Educational achievement? But you don't enjoy that?
Building a legacy to be remembered by future generations? But you don't enjoy that?
So what is your great motivator that you gain no pleasure from, I'm curious.
Re:Here goes my karma, I guess (Score:5, Insightful)
I think there is a difference from physiological pleasure and a feeling of happiness or contentment. Yes, some people obtain that through money, others through helping people, others through hobbies, etc.
By your argument, the enjoyment that comes from reading a book is the same as the pleasure that comes from drugs, is that right?
Re:Here goes my karma, I guess (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll tell you why legalizing drugs will aid our society. And it doesn't have a goddamn thing to do with the people who take drugs -- which, I'll note, already do so in violation of the law.
It'll help because it will mean criminals no longer make money. What'd Prohibition give us? The Mafia. What'd the War on Drugs give us? The South American cartels. What gave the Triads the financial backing they needed to engage in protection rackets and slavery? Funds from opium sales.
You remember hearing about that town in Mexico that can't keep a sheriff because the cartels murder anyone elected? Why are they doing that? 'Cause they like money, that's why. Who's giving them money? Why, that would be us. Why are they getting money? 'Cause they sell drugs. Drugs are made of fucking plants, why are they so expensive?
Artificially suppressed supply.
People using drugs is a problem, and one we need to deal with. AFTER we deal with the people with the fiscal incentive to give people drugs -- I think they're called "pushers". Why do you suppose that is?
Re:Here goes my karma, I guess (Score:5, Insightful)
You're trying to justify your argument by implicitly equating the market value of processed tobacco with processed cocaine. That's completely not happening. The tobacco industry makes money on /volume/. The cartels can't manage anything near that level of efficency; they live or die based on street value.
And do you have any proof for your claim that legalization would increase demand? Do you know anybody -- /anybody/ -- who gets up in the morning and says, "You know what would go great with this meal? Crack. Too bad it's illegal!" Hardly.
I am sick and I am tired and I have had it with the laws of my nation provoking such utter contempt. This is a stupid law, and even children can tell that it's a stupid law, and one bad law inevitably poisons any respect citizens have for the rest. My nation has enemies who seek it harm, and these enemies are directly empowered by my own tax dollars, and this getting old.
Re:Here goes my karma, I guess (Score:4, Insightful)
The local dealer (or syndicate) is pretty much toast without a source. Both national, and some international legalization would need to take place (not for pot, obviously). If a legal international market existed, the current local distributors (criminal) would have no way to get it cheaper than the gas station (other than by outright theft). I'm sure it would be quite hard to remove the entrenched international manufacturers, but I think it could be done with time. What is being done now certainly isn't working very well.
The current non-political producers would become legitimate, and that would almost certainly result in a "mellowing" of their business practices. The political movements, whether FARC [wikipedia.org] in Columbia, or the Taliban in Afghanistan, would have a much harder time getting money out of drugs. Legitimate companies could compete for (pay and protect) labourers successfully. Businesses (like Tescos or Walmart or whatever) would certainly buy from the legal sources, so most or all of the market would be legal. Cost of production would be similar, but you'd have a further side-effect of weakening local support for groups like FARC or the Taliban, and cutting into their war-budget significantly.
I bet quite a few countries would resist legalization, but I bet plenty would be into it without the current US anti-drug pressures and international agreements.
Personally, I can't see very many drawbacks to legalization of any drug, and can see a lot of positives. Sure, a handful more people might f*ck up their own lives, but I don't think that's either likely, or worse than the current state of affairs. Cutting into the revenue of gangs and guerrilla movements alone are worth that (possible) extra social cost.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most kids won't go to a hardened criminal to get drugs, if they want them. An older brother/sister or niegbourhood "tough kid" will be sufficient.
There is illegal bootlegging and counterfieting of tobacco and liquor products. High prices and taxes pratty well ensures that. Legal drugs will probably be the same.
A few points to ponder:
I used to work late hours in a Service Station on weekends. Working my way through Uni. Bunch of pissed guys from the local pub or bunch of st
Re:Here goes my karma, I guess (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably not much worse. We already have strong laws and strong enforcement against things like drunk driving. Drug usage would not become acceptable overnight, merely not criminal. Drug testing would not go away. Heroin usage is pretty much self-correcting.
If we removed the criminal penalties and a large amount of the money from the drug trade the hope would be that the criminal element associated with drugs would fade away. When you talk about bystander deaths from drugs, you need to balance it against the current fallout from the war on drugs - those killed by bullets from drug-cash fueled gangs, the lives wrecked by putting people in prison for possessing a few ounces of an illegal substance, the loss of our freedoms and liberties to allow our government to try to tackle an impossible job.
When the authorities can keep the prisons "drug-free" they can start arguing that they can win the war on drugs. So far I've seen no evidence that it is possible.
People like to explain that the "war on drugs" is failing and how eventually the government will have no choice but to legalize these substances. They even go on to say how great it would be for everyone because then the government will be able to collect taxes in the same manner they do with tobacco. Last time I checked, not very many people grow tobacco in their backyards and make cigarettes in their basements. Why does anyone think dealers give the government a cut of their lucrative business?
So, why don't people grow tobacco in their own backyards and make their own cigarettes? It's because even at $5 a pack it's a lot cheaper and easier to buy a package of cigarettes than it is to grow and roll your own. When you buy drugs you're not just paying for the cost of cultivation and processing - you're paying for the risks that the distributors are taking with being arrested and put in federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison. Look at what the people in Columbia are paid for the raw coca leaves - it's nowhere near the price paid for cocaine or crack on the street in the US. The cost of processing is not that great. What you're paying for is all of the risks taken by the distributors. Remove the risks and the price will come down. Remove the money and the drug gangs will disappear.
Personally, I haven't taken any illegal drugs since college (about 20 years ago) and I didn't take too many back then. They bore me - I'd rather spend an evening reading a good book than getting high on something. What I don't care for is the destruction that the war on drugs is causing to our society. No knock searches, not being able to possess large amounts of cash, arbitrary confiscation of property on the suspicion that it was acquired illegally, intrusive controls in our banking system to check for money laundering, young kids with assault rifles. All of these are the fallout from the war on drugs and none of them really work because the rewards for dealing and distributing drugs continue to outweight the risks of dealing and distributing drugs.
Re:Here goes my karma, I guess (Score:5, Interesting)
You seem to believe that alcohol usage rates around US alcohol prohibition, the changes in hard drug usage rates as hard drug prohibitions have gotten more and more severe, and the reduction in users and addicts in the Netherlands as they eliminate more and more prohibitions are the exceptions, and that all we need is more of what hasn't worked to finally fix the problem.
You and I both want fewer drug users and fewer drug addicts. The difference is that I'm willing to acknowledge that drug laws don't help and probably make that goal even more difficult. So I ask you, have we seen a substantial benefit or has the War on (Some) Drugs made the drug problem in this country worse?There's a sneaky argument in there that you're not voicing. I'm not a user of any illegal drugs. Aside from the occasional glass of port, cup of tea, or Advil now and then, I don't use any drugs at all. I think that using addictive drugs is one of the stupidest possible things a person could do. And yet I firmly believe that legalization is the only chance we have to (1) reduce the number of drug users and addicts; (2) reduce the number of secondary crimes related to drug dealing and drug buying; (3) reduce the funding for gangs and other black-market organizations; and (4) begin the process of restoring some of our long-lost freedoms. We've paid for the War on (Some) Drugs with the fourth, fifth, ninth, and tenth amendments to the Constitution.
Regards,
Ross
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Here goes my karma, I guess (Score:5, Interesting)
People already operate these machines under the influence of all manner of illicit drugs. People who use these drugs don't tend to care much about the legality or otherwise, so I don't think there is a valid case to make that ending prohibition will increase their numbers. If your argument is valid, will you also argue that cell phones should be banned? The reactions of people driving while talking on the phone is similar to driving drunk, so cell phones should be banned everywhere to prevent idiots from using them in cars. Is that your point?
The war on drugs is failing in the same way as a war on the common cold would fail. Declaring war on a health problem is great for propaganda but that's all. You cannot mend a broken bone by declaring war on it.
If the govermnet regulated the manufacture of synthetic drugs and allowed the taxed supply of all illicit drugs, it wouldn't matter what drug dealers thought. They would be out of business, their entire revenue stream would disappear and with it their power. The smart ones would go legitimate, much like the end of alcohol prohibition.
Your argument about taxes needing to be high to pay for addicts is flawed too. The government currently makes no revenue from the drug trade and, ignoring the cost to society of addiction, is idiotically throwing money at this war on drugs. If they stopped throwing that money away and started taxing drugs, they would eliminate an expense and turn it into a revenue stream.
If we now bring the cost of drug addiction back into the equation, in the case of physically addictive drugs like heroin and crack, one of the biggest costs to society is through associated crime. If the price of these drugs go down, the cost of maintaining an addiction goes down and associated crime levels drop. Also, by removing a huge disincentive to admit to drug problems people with are more likely to accept and even actively seek treatment. The war on drugs makes that more difficult.
As for cannabis, and the concept that it is a stepping stone to harder drugs, that has more to do with its illicit nature rather than the drug itself. Remove the "forbidden fruit" quality to it, and it stops being a stepping stone to anything.
All of these arguments are well established and have been proven true in countries around the world with the guts to stand up to the corruption that maintains US style drug laws. Remember, when advocating a tough stance on drugs, you are on the same side as organized criminals who stand nothing to lose from prohibition and everything to gain.
If you really want to stop the drug problem, the only sensible solution is to end prohibition. But then logic has no place in anti-drug rhetoric, or in "War on " propaganda.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
While I think that a society of addicts is ultimately doomed, my primary concern are the victims of drug abusers.
Bullshit. You just think it's evil and want it kept illegal.
We already have to deal with intoxicated people operating cars, planes, and other potentially lethal machinery. How much worse would things be if now, in addition to those, you've got people high on ecstasy or marijuana?
Actually, it'd spike, then come back to about the same.
Some of the effects of these drugs make alcohol pale in
Re:Here goes my karma, I guess (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Here goes my karma, I guess (Score:5, Informative)
It wasn't marijuana they wanted to get rid of though but hemp, by focusing on marijuana propaganda they got hemp production in the US stopped as well as imports of hemp. Similar tactics have been repeated many times. Hemp had many uses at the time, including the production of paper and cloth, in fact the Declaration of Independance and the US Constitution are printed on paper made from hemp. Hemp would potentially be a great resource atm for replacing many hydrocarbon products currently used, so you can bet that the oil companies might join in any attempts to legalize hemp production. Hemp has a wide range of very good uses if you bother to research for them. Far too many to discuss here.
Marijuana prior to the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act had many medical uses and the American Medical Association opposed the passing of this act. This was mentioned by at least one other poster here but they didn't go in depth on it and neither will I for the purposes of this post other then to suggest everyone research a bit.
As I and others have stated here before, the only way we can change the current path of our government is to retake it from the current power structure from the local government on up. To do so requires the education of our fellow citizens and ourselves on what is really going on, on how it really should be and how to get it there. Therefore the events in some small town where the citizens have tried to reclaim their government (or some large city, or some other state) are of interest to us all, particularly when it involves governmental roadblocks to such repossession.
Will you ignore it when they come for those in Misoula, because your not from Misoula? (reference to the oft repeated quote) Btw, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were hemp farmers and Jefferson was a big advocate of its uses.
Re:Here goes my karma, I guess (Score:5, Insightful)
You might argue that this isn't a voting irregularity, but the vote result was 'irregularly' thrown out on bogus grounds. That is to say that our government is not listening to us, and THAT is something that matters!
Re:Here goes my karma, I guess (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me that the biggest problem here is that they bothered to throw the vote out instead of simply ignoring it, since the measure was never binding to begin with.
Then again, that's actually a good thing even if it discounts the will of the voters. Because --
-- now that they're on record as ignoring their constituents, the voters are free to toss them on their little white asses next time they're up for re-election.
If the voters choose not to do so--and that is probably fairly likely--then I think the "something wrong" part of this equation has little to do with the commissioners.
Re:Try this, then. (Score:5, Interesting)
We can argue over whether the system functioned properly or not; in fact, that's what this sort of thread is all about...hence my argument that it was in fact appropriate for /.
As for whether the system in fact acted as intended...I'd say no. While it is true that the government in question is in the republican form, even representative governments (like this one) contain methods of polling constitutents directly and investing the people with some limited legislative powers, like a referendum. Absent actual powers, non-binding ballot questions are intended to ask the people's inclination on issues of policy. In this case, a lawyer working for the county had 'a gut feeling' that people who voted for the question intended to vote against it, despite there being no evidence supproting that conclusion. Since deliberative bodies are supposed to deliberate on facts, and there were no facts in evidence except for the simple fact of the actual vote result, two out of three commissioners erred very, very badly. That was the system breaking down.
It isn't to say that the commissioners broke any laws. Quite the contrary, they probably acted within their authority. Nonetheless, we know that a system can act harmfully without having any structural defect. For example, it is within the power of the federal government to raise the marginal tax rate in all categories to 100%. It wouldn't be illegal, but I think we would all call it a massive systemic breakdown nonetheless.
P.S. The republican form was an innovation whose intention was never to prevent the tyranny of the majority. The element in the equation that provides that protection is a Constitution, a document prescribing and proscribing the bounds of legitimate authority for the governing body and placing certain human rights out-of-bounds of legislation or regulation.
P.P.S. I also think that most republics don't follow the wills of their constituents, and for the most part this is a good thing, as the people at large are neither privy to the requisite information nor the time to analyze that information to make decently informed decisions about most issues. However, that system seems to fail when that natural obfucatory nature of legislation provides a convenient shield for monied interests to ply favorable regulation.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I would guess that IP issues have killed more people in poorer areas then any war on drugs could have. The difference is also that death from the war on drugs seems to be related to an action already known not to be proper while death due to the lack of affordable medical treatments or medicine seem to be directly
Re:Here goes my karma, I guess (Score:5, Funny)
Well, you see it's like... oh hold on, I have to step away from the computer, I'm laughing so hard... OK, it's like don't worry about your karma because you see... hold on... I need to get some more of these cookies. These cookies are awesome and all of the sudden I just can't seem to get enough of... hold on, I think I'm going to have another laughing fit... umm... you see, oh, something about some "news for nerds" question. Dude, just chill out. Haven't you ever looked up at the stars and thought, that light is touching my face and it was touching a start? So thats why it's news for nerds.
Re:Here goes my karma, I guess (Score:4, Insightful)
Who said that everyone had to be a nerd of technology? I know several geeks and nerds of social studies, law and assorted subjects.
Gee. Talk of short sightedness.
Re:Here goes my karma, I guess (Score:5, Insightful)
There are lots of reasons pot goes well with geeks. The most obvious is how well it complements a long coding or gaming session. I would say that another reason is that geek culture, or at least the unix culture that affects a lot of people here, came of age in California during the 1970s. Look also at the stoners who founded Apple and the American video game industry (supposedly, back in the day at Atari, the security guards' main role was to warn the programmers if any cops were coming so they could hide their stash).
Also, geeks tend to like decentralization of power and free choice. As a whole, they have a much stronger libertarian bent than the general populace, and as people who make a living using their minds, they are obviously unhappy about the government trying to dictate what they can do with them.
"Personal computers and recreational computers, personal drugs and recreational drugs, are simply two ways in which individuals have learned to take power back from the state".
-Timothy Leary
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hey.... Hello!! GEEKS SMOKE POT!!! Get used to (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A Google News search revealed this story [newwest.net] which elaborates on the details in the article summary.
Re:Happens all the time (Score:5, Interesting)
In Nebraska, we've voted in term limits for our state legislators three times. Because Nebraska has the nation's only unicameral (meaning only one congressional body, rather than two like a house and senate), the people's vote via referendum is considered the check and balance of "the other house."
In all three cases, the legislators threw the term limits out (which limit them to only a few terms). They refuse to leave, and have deemed the overwhelming majority vote of the people to be either caused by confusion reading ballets or just plain wrong.
Because the people kept on sending out petitions to get it back on the ballot and voted on, the legislature decided to fix that. They made all sorts of new rules on the petition process, cutting the time to circulate petitions in half, doubling the required amount of votes, using nefarious methods to reject signatures, etc.
Once you let someone be a full-time politician, the power goes to their head. The influence of lobbyists and the nice gifts they bring matters much more than any pathetic constituent. Show me someone who's a life-long politician and I'll show you a crook - party need not matter.
Take back the government. It was yours all along. (Score:4, Insightful)
Two possible reasons for this, both curable by voter action.
First possibility, the politician cares more about booze and hookers in the short term than about getting reelected to get more booze and hookers in his next term. Voters can fix that every time someone's term comes up.
Second possibility, the lobbyist gifts actually influence elections. In the US, literal vote-buying is rare. Politicians want money for their campaigns so they can buy TV ads. Voters can fix that problem too, by ignoring TV campaign ads and by talking politics with their friends to drown out the campaign ads ("Joe, Joe, who do you think is going to be good for your family? Are you going to believe me, or some ad agency from New York?").
When somebody does a bad job it's their fault. When you can fire them and you don't it's your fault.
Re:Take back the government. It was yours all alon (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, only those with the finances to have their opinions televised should be allowed to express opinions or influence people. We little people shouldn't think too hard or speak too loudly, it might cause us to forget our place.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, only those with the finances to have their opinions televised should be allowed to express opinions or influence people.
Such financial issues wouldn't matter if there were actually an informed voting populace. The problem is the majority of people rely solely on 15 second soundbites from TV to make their decision, rather than actual research.
Discussions among citizens is a great way to become an informed populace. There is no reason why the populace should merely be an audience for the paid shills.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
- 435 Representatives for roughly a million people.
- Pay for representatives is $100 per year.
- The legislature is very much part-time.
It's considered the most represented population at the state level in the US. When I was living there as a teenager I knew 4 state reps personally, including a guy who worked as an elevator operator. Say what you want about the area, it does have a government that represents its people.
Parent is WILDLY inaccurate (Score:3, Informative)
In Nebraska, we've voted in term limits for our state legislators three times. Because Nebraska has the nation's only unicameral (meaning only one congressional body, rather than two like a house and senate), the people's vote via referendum is considered the check and balance of "the other house."
In all three cases, the legislators threw the term limits out (which limit them to only a few terms). They refuse to leave, and have deemed the overwhelming majority vote of the people to be either caused by confusion reading ballets or just plain wrong.
That's flat-out incorrect. The Legislature didn't throw the term limits out, the courts did, as Nebraska's first two attempts at a term limit law also imposed term limits on federal representatives, something the State of Nebraska has no jurisdiction over. The third time, they limited it to state officials, and (SURPRISE!) the courts had no problems with it. I don't know how you can say that they "refused to leave" when every legislator who was term-limited out did indeed leave after the 2006 election.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
huh? (Score:3, Informative)
Do you have any idea what you're talking about? First, nobody told the voters they got to choose the law, they simply got to advise the council. If they're not happy with the way the council took their advice, next election they can replace the council.
State != feds. If a state has a law contradicting a federal law, th
Re:huh? (Score:4, Informative)
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."
Now, the federal government claims all rights and allows the people to obey... But it isn't just the federal government, Governor Rick Perry tried to mandate the HPV vaccine to Texan girls without proper legislation... It's only natural for county government to follow the examples set by the larger government bodies... Why listen to the people when don't want to?
We've dealt with [wikipedia.org] this same problem before. So did the French [wikipedia.org], and with a particularly nasty device [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Educate the population, get basic health care for everyone and alleviate the worst pressures of poverty. The answers to this problem have been known for decades if not longer, and are within easy reach for America. We simply lack the will to fix this.
Re:I'm a person too, and I say Nay. (Score:5, Interesting)
Beer and (another addictive, carcinogenic plant:) tobacco are not safer. They should be restricted More, and that's gradually happening to smokers, worldwide.
Just what are you suggesting we do about the problem with drug abuse and addiction?
People should be allowed to do harm to themselves. People should be allowed to smoke in public. The government should not interfere. Now if a corporation wants to not hire people that smoke or drink, that is perfectly ok. If the government want to outlaw drunk driving, that is ok because you are causing great immediate harm. You don't have to go to the bar, and walking past someone smoking a cigarette will not cause significant harm. (Attempted) suicide should not be a crime for people over the age of 18
I currently don't have health insurance because I quite my corporate job to be a contractor for a few months. If I got injured, and die due to lack of medical care, I deserve to die. I never finished college. If no one will hire me as a result, I deserve to literally starve to death. I would accept private charity, but would chose death over welfare. I drink and occasionally smoke cigars. I will not blame anyone for liver cancer.
The government needs to not deal with these problems. Private charities should. If charities can not raise enough money to help you, you do not deserve help. I am being callous here, but it is necessary to keep the government small.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Problem A; people smoking in public do not just harm themselves, they do cause harm to others. That harm isn't necessarily cancer, but it is certainly an unpleasant environment for non-smokers. Causing involuntary harm to others is one of the things government is supposed to try to prevent. Bans on smoking in public places are there to protect the staff, who often don't have the power or the financial ability to j
Re:I'm a person too, and I say Nay. (Score:4, Insightful)
But apart from all that, there is a serious problem with treating these issues as solvable through prohibitions. People want drugs, plain and simple. Therefore people will find them, whether or not other people want to protect them from themselves. By forcing them to go through back channels to do so, all you do is create a fantastic money-making machine for the criminal element to exploit, and make criminals out of a whole bunch of people who otherwise contribute perfectly well to society.
A better solution is to treat these things like we currently treat alcoholism. Some people can handle their stuff, some people can't; do everything in your power to help out those that can't deal with their drug of choice, give them support, try to find ways to get them off the stuff, etc., but leave everyone else alone. Same thing is happening with smoking these days - for those that want to quit, there is help. For those that don't, they can't smoke in enclosed places anymore, so it doesn't negatively impact others, but otherwise they are left alone. As far as pot, the stuff doesn't even physically addict you, so I have trouble seeing how it could be much of an actual problem for anyone (everyone I know that has wanted to quit just did it, no problem, no struggle). I know a lot of people say that it is used as an escape from reality and so on, but that in itself is no reason to make it illegal.
Here's one of my favorite quotes from one of the news articles on this topic:Yeah, how dare we infringe upon the right of the minority to force their ideals upon the majority, right? This is one of the most blatant inversions of the principle of protection from mob rule that I've ever seen...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That means I'm free to use any argument I want to make up my mind, no matter how ignorant, stupid, or not your opinion it is.
If you want me to vote, you're going to have to pay me to do it, just like any other work.