4 ms·

The US could use a new market to add to the economy that is for sure. A large majority of people in the US support it at 58% for all, 64% under 50, 71% under 35

The US could use a new market to add to the economy that is for sure. A large majority of people in the US support it at 58% for all, 64% under 50, 71% under 35 [1] However with the surveillance society we live in, we need to rid the books of laws that most people break otherwise there will be a sea of non-violent crimes that don't make logical sense today. Laws as deterrents for moralistic or non-violent acts do not work but make it more unsafe in this case, you regulate and tax to make it safer and more about support/new markets rather than incarceration which is a drain on the economy. The black market created by the war on drugs does not operate better or safer for kids, nor add tax revenues or regulations for safety. It funds cartels. We have been doing it wrong for a long time. Look how much money yearly has been going to the black market, cartels and diverted from benefits like school funding, support and regulation. Public university funding is plummeting along with K-12 [2][3] This is only the start of it as well, probably in the hundreds of billions have been going to black markets/cartels. This cannot continue, legalization and regulation is the only way. I can't believe it is this slow now that there is this much money in it for revenues in a time of local/state huge budget shortages and most of all stopping funding of cartels. This moralistic prohibition is just as bad as the first prohibition in creating lucrative crime markets and attacking personal freedom. [1] http://www.gallup.com/poll/186260/back-legal-marijuana.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/186260/back-legal-marijuana.aspx [2] http://www.marketplace.org/2016/03/14/education/illinois-cuts-funding-its-public-universities http://www.marketplace.org/2016/03/14/education/illinois-cut... [3] http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/13/pf/college/public-university-tuition-increase/ http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/13/pf/college/public-university...

rmc 11y ago
> However with the surveillance society we live in Or you could change the US constitution so that it includes a right to privacy and data protection, like the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, or the European Convention of Human Rights
- cbd1984 11y ago
  It effectively does: the fourth amendment. More explicit verbiage is unlikely to matter. Besides, nobody said Europe wasn't a surveillance society.
  - rmc 11y ago
    There's big differences. US 4th Amendment is similar to Article 7. However Article 8 covers things that aren't in the US constitution, e.g. the requirement for an independent authority to ensure compliance, the right to access the data, the right for it to be accurate, the requirement that data is processed fairly for specific purposes on the basis of the (informed, unambiguous) consent of the person. And the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to non-US people who aren't in the USA. The Court of Justice of the European Union has found that US data protection law is significantly lacking compared to CFREU. If the US 4th Amendment was the same as the CFREU then there wouldn't have been that Safe Harbour case. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union#Article_8_.E2.80.93_Protection_of_personal_data https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights...
  - rayiner 11y ago
    The constitution doesn't have the word privacy anywhere in it. And the 4th amendment is worded as a specific protection against " searches" and "seizures" not surveillance.
    - Zigurd 11y ago
      Freedom of movement isn't in there, either. Nor is the freedom to use math to secure your documents. Are you claiming these are not rights?
      - rayiner 11y ago
        Freedom to use encryption I think falls squarely under the first amendment, because it's a way of communicating with other people. Freedom of movement has been held to fall under the privileges and immunities clause, which is at least plausible considering that one of the purposes of the constitution was to eliminate interstate barriers to trade. But privacy? I don't think such a right exists, at least not in its modern formulation. You can't find modern articulations of the idea in contemporaneous works. And that's a big deal. If you're going to say that a 200-year old document prohibits a democratically-elected Congress and President from setting policy, you better prove that the folks who wrote that document intended that prohibition. Democracy is supposed to be the general rule; Constitutional rights the exception.
- madaxe_again 11y ago
  Both known as "the bogeyman" in the UK and being used as an argument as to why we should leave the EU, by both politicians and press, which many appear to have already bought. The mind boggles.
  - rmc 11y ago
    The ECHR was used to decriminalised homosexuality in the UK. What a bogeyman!

rmc 11y ago

> However with the surveillance society we live in Or you could change the US constitution so that it includes a right to privacy and data protection, like the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, or the European Convention of Human Rights

cbd1984 11y ago
It effectively does: the fourth amendment. More explicit verbiage is unlikely to matter. Besides, nobody said Europe wasn't a surveillance society.
- rmc 11y ago
  There's big differences. US 4th Amendment is similar to Article 7. However Article 8 covers things that aren't in the US constitution, e.g. the requirement for an independent authority to ensure compliance, the right to access the data, the right for it to be accurate, the requirement that data is processed fairly for specific purposes on the basis of the (informed, unambiguous) consent of the person. And the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to non-US people who aren't in the USA. The Court of Justice of the European Union has found that US data protection law is significantly lacking compared to CFREU. If the US 4th Amendment was the same as the CFREU then there wouldn't have been that Safe Harbour case. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union#Article_8_.E2.80.93_Protection_of_personal_data https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights...
- rayiner 11y ago
  The constitution doesn't have the word privacy anywhere in it. And the 4th amendment is worded as a specific protection against " searches" and "seizures" not surveillance.
  - Zigurd 11y ago
    Freedom of movement isn't in there, either. Nor is the freedom to use math to secure your documents. Are you claiming these are not rights?
    - rayiner 11y ago
      Freedom to use encryption I think falls squarely under the first amendment, because it's a way of communicating with other people. Freedom of movement has been held to fall under the privileges and immunities clause, which is at least plausible considering that one of the purposes of the constitution was to eliminate interstate barriers to trade. But privacy? I don't think such a right exists, at least not in its modern formulation. You can't find modern articulations of the idea in contemporaneous works. And that's a big deal. If you're going to say that a 200-year old document prohibits a democratically-elected Congress and President from setting policy, you better prove that the folks who wrote that document intended that prohibition. Democracy is supposed to be the general rule; Constitutional rights the exception.
madaxe_again 11y ago
Both known as "the bogeyman" in the UK and being used as an argument as to why we should leave the EU, by both politicians and press, which many appear to have already bought. The mind boggles.
- rmc 11y ago
  The ECHR was used to decriminalised homosexuality in the UK. What a bogeyman!