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.
Short answer: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Here goes my karma, I guess (Score:3, Insightful)
Democracy is a violation of human rights (Score:1, Insightful)
We live under a defacto theocracy, with an entire canon of state enforced "morality" -- not just "anti-drug" but also "anti-racist [fairhousinglaw.org]" dogma, forced down the throat of an unwilling people by a managerial elite that think they're called by God or something to tell the rest of us how to live our lives.
There is only one fundamental human right from which all other options for living can be chosen:
The right to freedom of association with people of like mind upon land you have a natural right to occupy.
The rest is details or theocratic aggression.
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: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!
Missoula (Score:5, Insightful)
To the rest of the world (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Happens all the time (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing is that our government is supposed to be designed like this from the very begining because sometimes majority rule sucks and you get morons who try to use this very same referdums in other states to ban gay marriage and restrict the rights of other people.
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".
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:I was there (Score:5, Insightful)
reason enough?
Re:Democracy is a violation of human rights (Score:2, Insightful)
So, you don't have any natural right to occupy any land.
I'm not really disagreeing with you otherwise, just arguing a point.
(I don't believe in a god either. I'm so going straight to hell, except I don't believe in that either.)
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.
Anybody want an elected office in Montana? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Hey.... Hello!! GEEKS SMOKE POT!!! Get used to it (Score:2, Insightful)
Guess what? We don't LIKE alcohol! It fucks up our work. We smoke pot because it is relaxing and mentally stimulating. Anyone who doesn't feel the same way either hasn't smoked 'real' marijuana or they have a physical/emotional problem with it. Great! Don't smoke pot.
Just don't tell me I have to quit because YOU have a problem with it.
America DOES have a marijuana problem. The Problem? 80% or more Marijuana users are smoking LOW-GRADE marijuana that promotes medical and emotional issues.
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.
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
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.
And now you see the truth... (Score:1, Insightful)
There's a lot of bullshit talk of collective responsibility these days. But it's really just a slicker version of good old fashioned paternalism, no different in essence than the paternalism inherent in the divine right of kings. If you really want change, vote for the people who truly believe in personal responsibility. If you really want change, vote out anyone who believes in social engineering, no matter what guise it takes. Run for office yourself if you want, but remember, there are many valid ways to participate in politics. Just talking to your friends and making them aware of options other than the current bipolar authoritarianism can help. Working to reform the major parties can help. Really, the only thing that doesn't help is walking away in disgust, even if it is all too tempting these days.
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:Link? (Score:4, Insightful)
What are you all waiting for? Go shoot the fuckers already.
Re:I'm a person too, and I say Nay. (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:Here goes my karma, I guess (Score:3, Insightful)
Ignorance (Score:2, Insightful)
What this shows is a chilling ignorance of how the system works among those voters. Advisory referendums are, well... advisory. They are not binding. They are easy to disregard and overturn by design.
Becoming diaffected because the system works as designed is stupid. Get off your ass and pass a binding resolution.
Re:Here goes my karma, I guess (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless, of course, they decide that the voters "didn't understand" the ballots because the voters aren't "detail-oriented enough", and just stay in office, like they just did with the marijuana decision...
Re:Link? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
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: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)
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: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.
And they wonder... (Score:2, Insightful)
Just more erosion of our rights as people. I feel bad for those people out in Montana.
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
Seeing as it already has more comments than (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Democracy (Score:1, Insightful)
There are several reasons for the decline. Firstly, corporations became people for tax purposes in the late 19th century. Secondly, the Federal Reserve act was passed, giving the "real" power to create and issue currency to private bankers. Thirdly - this is a very sensitive and politically incorrect one - the civil rights act was passed and non-European immigration restrictions eased. In the first two cases, real economic power was concentrated into a small group of elites as opposed to the general population. In the third case, the equal single transferable vote was given to ALL citizens irrespective of competence. As a result, people who voted out of concern for 1 and 2 can be canceled out by those who were enfranchised by 3. All that oligarchs and kleptocrats had to do is bankroll a Hillary Clinton to champion the struggle of gangbangers on welfare against evil racist whitey to ensure there are fewer people like Ron Paul in government. There goes effective democracy down the drain.
It might sound harsh, but people naturally aren't equal. Every society needs its chiefs and Indians to function properly. I don't have any idea how to be a ballet dancer, so I don't expect to have a vote on how to perform a ballet. Similarly, people only concerned about bread and circuses are simply not fit to have a vote on running a country. A liberal democracy can only function at the level of the dumbest 51% of the population, and with the idiocy in the Western world, the result is a very dumb government.
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: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:Short answer: (Score:2, Insightful)
I might have agreed with you on the grounds that slashdot isn't the right forum for this message to spread. But I'm not sure about that either. Slashdot's demographics tend to be very far left leaning (socialists, anarchists) and very far right leaning (libertarians, reactionaries, other kinds of anarchists). Some of these groups are very well organized and can perhaps help Missoula residents.
Perhaps you aren't interested. But no one put a gun to your head and made you read the summary. I don't mean to be flippant. There are plenty of other interesting stories on the main page that fit your interests better.
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.
Re:Here goes my karma, I guess (Score:2, Insightful)
While it's true that most of us "nerds" were initially drawn to slashdot by things like linux, hardware comparo's, and science, we're not limited to the abovementioned topics.
Slashdot is frequented a population by some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I've ever encountered (with some bozo's too), and politics affects all of us, even those of you not contained within the borders of America.
I live in Missoula too, and it's seems clear that our Commisioners have learned the lessons of the Bush administration well, that is, if you don't feel like obeying the will of the voters (or the constitution), don't, and throw out some paternal language describing in conciliatory-sounding soundbites ("what about the children!").
The war on drugs is a total fiasco, but the war on the Bill of Rights that it masked has been a raging success.
Like many Missoulians (and Americans) right about now I'm thinking that it's well past overdue for some serious change in the way our city (and country) is run. What I don't know is how that change is going to come about. Our "leaders" have are so entrenched and corrupt, and the voting process so subverted (2000 election, 2004 election, both stolen), that I fear the only change will come by revolution. A frightening prospect, I can only hope that my fellow Americans have the guts to eventually stand up for what's right and against what's wrong, and that they have the stomach to do something about it.
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:Hey.... Hello!! GEEKS SMOKE POT!!! Get used to (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Here goes my karma, I guess (Score:2, Insightful)
*The money that is made from the artificially inflated price of illegal goods.
*The money made from the artificially inflated number of prisoners due to drug related offenses***
*The money that is made from the drug/crime fighting industry.
It may walk on your personal rights, the personal rights of a class of people, or the rights of a nation... But how do you fight something so profitable when money IS power.
***Did you know prison's can compete with small companies for business?
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.
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.
Re:Here goes my karma, I guess (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow.
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:Link? (Score:2, Insightful)
There's the National Guard, which is what the state militias officially became. But now they're effectively under the control of the federal government, since they're being sent to Iraq, and are basically just another government armed service.
I don't want to say that we're screwed if that interpretation of the 2nd Amendment gains sway, but...
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:Canada disproves your proposition (Score:3, Insightful)
You obvioulsy weren't in Quebec 40 odd years ago.
Re:Link? (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:This is why you should vote for edemocracy... (Score:2, Insightful)
I have (very roughly) blogged about an idea that I had to implement an e-democracy without _any_ overhauls to the current parliamentry system.
http://www.blognow.com.au/edemocracy [blognow.com.au].
Basically you:
I don't know if this has ever been done anywhere in the world yet. I'm thinking of doing this for our (Australia's) next federal election. I don't think it well get up by a long way - but it might the next time around (or the next one)...
Re:A similar thing happened in my town (Score:3, Insightful)
In that case, we get... Nancy Pelosi.
Re:Here goes my karma, I guess (Score:2, Insightful)
What is being overlooked here are the huge profits generated by prohibition on both sides of the law and on and off the books. The purpose behind all prohibitions of goods of any kind is purely economic. And with drugs in the US, race played a part. Unlike alcohol and tobacco, marijuana requires very little infrastructure to produce and consume. When it's so easy to "grow yer own", it will never be the big money maker that alcohol and tobacco and other drugs are. Prohibition is the answer to that little problem. Profitability is up in all the "right" sectors, law enforcement, government "services", the prison industry is doing great. Corruption in government is up, respect for the law is down, but we're talking about 20% of the world's economy at least. Accountants wield more power than lawyers. Heh, actually they're the two ends of this parasite. A symbiotic relationship if there ever was one. The funny thing is that after hours, it's easier to score a bag of weed than a six pack. Easier still to get coke...for all the obvious reasons. Prohibition is very logical in a certain business sense, and in a world run by pirates, that the only sense there is. This all only goes to show that, despite all our chrome covered gadgets, we are still as primitive as we ever were.
Re:Link? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Democracy (Score:2, Insightful)
Bill of Rights (Score:1, Insightful)
Or check out the following...
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,15
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=231250844
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?
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: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:I'm a person too, and I say Nay. (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 just get another job in a non-smoky business.
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.
Problem B; I disagree with your priority. I personally feel that basic humanity demands that we give assistance to provide a minimum standard of healthcare and support to people in our society is more important than small government for small governments sake. The nature of democratic societies, and the governments that we appoint to serve our will (theoretically) is that the will of the majority prevails (with some areas off limits to change in countries with constitutions). A majority of people feel that it's just that we have some humanity towards our fellow man in trouble, and that its government's duty to assist on our behalf and with some of everybodies money. Charity is for donations over and above that minimum assistance.
Now, you appear to feel that being compelled to pay for things you don't agree with is unjust. Unfortunately, you're in a minority. There's a whole bunch of things I don't agree with my government spending money on, but I don't dispute their duty to do so, as they wouldn't BE the government if it hadn't been the will of the people. We're both entitled to go form our own political party, stand as a candidate, lobby our representatives, or even just vote for politicians who agree with our views. If we end up in a minority, well, that's the cost of the living in a democratic society. Society has to cater to everyone, which means that not everyone wins 100%.
Problems where this ability of the people (as a group) to choose the path of their government are some of the most grave of all, which is why this article from missoula would be troubling for me if I lived in the US.
Re:Why I dont vote (Score:2, Insightful)
Psst, I hear that standing in your yard and yelling at the top of your lungs will affect the outcome of an election. Even if you believe it doesn't do anything, what do you lose by doing so besides time? Ah, the classic ad hominem attack. Kind of comforting, really-- some things never change, like the fact that people who have no real arguments will resort to insulting their opponents. You actually have the gall to berate people for not "wasting their time"? Fantastic.
Re:Link? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Link? (Score:2, Insightful)
When reproducing that quote, I often wonder whether it'd get me in trouble with the FBI or the SS if it hadn't actually been said by one of the founding fathers of the USA. (And actually, I sometimes do wonder whether I'll get in trouble with them some day for saying this *despite* the fact that it's a Jefferson quote.)
Re:Here goes my karma, I guess (Score:2, Insightful)
The key is not the second amendment. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The key is not the second amendment. (Score:1, Insightful)
Sure, the government survived, but that wasn't much consolation to their widows...
Re:This is why you should vote... (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 democracy to anyone who's only paying a little bit of attention. Sort of what a 3rd world dictatorship might do in the hope of getting on the good side of
This is the point where those 2nd amendment rights might start coming in useful...
Re:Take back the government. It was yours all alon (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Here goes my karma, I guess (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 stoners looking for a few munchies? I knew which was much more pleasant to deal with, less blood and mess to clean up afterwards.
I wondered down the local last night and sank enough Magners with a few mates to wake up with a sizable hangover. Now I feel like shit and probably said something inappropriate to the g/f so now she's not talking to me. The coffee shops in Amsterdam provide a nice relaxing atmosphere, where one can talk just as much shite with your mates but wake up feeling OK and be a productive member of society.
Re:Same for Florida Trains (Score:3, Insightful)
In a bigger sense, this is all part of a trend toward government unravelling out of control that starts at the top with Bush issuing signing statements about what Congress' legislation means to him and how he feels he should or should not follow their "recommendations and guidelines". Instead of the traditional other way around where the legislative branch legislates and the executive branch executes. If the federal government has gone crazy, why should we expect states, counties and cities not to?
Re:Link? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Same behavior new state (Score:3, Insightful)
The referendum in question was to roll back the 5.95% tax rate enacted during the state financial crisis of the late 1980s to 5% in 3 steps. The first two rollbacks to 5.6% and 5.3% were allowed to take place; as the recession began, it was decided that it would be fiscally unwise to take the last step to the pre-1988 5%. This was a law, not a constitutional amendment; there is little controversy about the legislature's right to repeal or amend the referendum measure.
Compare that to what happened when the legislature, by use of parliamentary motions, decided to block the progress of the gay marriage ban. If they had the guts, the state constitution would have allowed them to defeat the referendum amendment outright (though they'd need 3/4 of the combined House and Senate to do this). Instead they tried to pull a fast one and brush the amendment under the rug. When the SJC, who started the whole gay marriage business in 2003, insisted that a vote on the amendment take place, barely half the convention actually followed through on the court order. (The majority then voted against the ban, but since over 25% supported it, the amendment is still on track to make it on the 2008 ballot).
Personally, I'm neutral on gay marriage; the biggest problems I have with Mass. gay marriage was the method in which it was enacted (a court decision rather than legislation) and the legislature's refusal to address it. In the past few years, I've welcomed it more, especially since I've seen that gays being married in my state doesn't make me any worse off than before, and Mass. isn't trying to force its marriages onto other less gay-friendly states (a 1913 law actually prohibits out of staters from being married here if such a marriage would be illegal in the parties' home state).
If it does make it onto the ballot, I'm going to vote against the ban. If it's not there when I vote in 2008, I'm going to have a lot of nasty words for those on Beacon Hill and perhaps a desire to run against them in 2010.
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:Here goes my karma, I guess (Score:3, Insightful)
It is trivially easy to get pot anywhere.
It's a multi billion dollar business.
*Illegal* pot is absolutely destroying the governments, justice systems, and police officers in just about every country south of us and is starting to do a number on the local guys too.
We incarcerate roughly 1% of our society (and disenfranchise them) based on trivial drug offenses.
Pot has many benefits. Hemp has many benefits (including a much better source of artificial fuel than corn).
It could be a well integrated part of our society, producing tax income and strengthening all of the central and south american countries.
Opposing pot legalization is as stupid as proposing making alcohol illegal.
what a moron (Score:3, Insightful)
if you don't understand why, you don't understand human nature. i'm certain in your thought experiments anarchy really rocks, but in the real world, populated by real human beings, it is basically the definition of suckage
please move to somalia where you can experience your glorious anarchy and leave the rest of us with a better grasp on human nature with the pursuit of a sound government we deserve
Re:Mod parent up (Score:3, Insightful)
If the citizens try to overthrow the government it is not a coup. It is either:
a) Terrorism
b) Insurgency
c) A rebellion
Depending on how well it turns out and who writes the press-releases.
Re:This is why you should vote... (Score:2, Insightful)
While other votes are incidental to the legitimacy of their Power, a Vote resulting in the removal of the Legitimacy will result in them getting carted off if they protest too strenuously the loss of the power.
After all, they no longer have it and their own actions are in direct conflict with the source of their Power. These will self destruct.
Now, if you were in a truly fascist state what you said could be true.
As it is, this is just a group of legitimately elected induh-viduals who are carried away with their sense of worth and degree of correctness. It does not directly affect the legitimacy of the power they hold as stated above. This perturbations of this misuse can be spun out such that it requires additional forces - of Individuals - to directly challenge their misuse through the method you first mentioned, but discarded. That is the correct road.