5 ms·

...and for there to be a war on drugs in the first place. Eliminate the fundamentals, and there should be no issues at all, really.

by moens 13y ago

devx 13y ago
Then there would be a war on piracy. How would you like it if they kept 20 years of your downloading habits? Do you think that in 20 years time they could find something to incriminate you? And that's why it's so wrong to keep data for so long, and actually be able to use it.
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  I'm sure the statue of limitations would apply to many of these crimes, so you can't be convicted of downloading Game of Thrones in 20 years.
- corncobpipe 13y ago
  I think that's going to be right around the corner.
btown 13y ago
s/Drugs/Terror
- aroman 13y ago
  So how exactly do we stop the terrorists from harming us, then? Send them a C&D?
  - mpyne 13y ago
    No dude, all we have to do is be nice to everybody, increase our foreign aid even further, and establish Shariah law within the U.S. Oh, and somehow ignore the First Amendment and ban American citizens from insulting certainly notable religious figures. Then they will surely leave us alone.
    - aroman 13y ago
      I'm not sure why my answer merited either a down vote or a sarcastic response, but I regardless, you can work to minimize terrorism without destroying our rights and liberties. I'm not sure where you're drawing the false dichotomy from.
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        You were probably downvoted because a "War on Terror" is not necessary to minimize terrorism. Nor, as you point out, does minimizing necessitate destroying our rights and liberties. "The War on..." is a phrase that signals to us that we should be on the lookout for crude solutions that do more harm than good. It is a crude phrase that perfectly embodies the simplistic attitude that inevitably backs whatever program the phrase is being used to describe. Wherever there is a "War on..." there is almost certainly something that we could be doing smarter, rather than harder.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        I didn't downvote. I also didn't think I was being sarcastic, to you at least. I don't personally live under the false dichotomy that an unending "WAR ON TERROR" is required to suppress terrorism. But nor do I fall into the trope that the solution is to simply let anyone inflict any attack that they wish. As you say, it is possible to actually fight terrorism without destroying our rights and liberties, and I agree wholeheartedly.
        aroman 13y ago
        I didn't mean to imply it was you who down voted me. It seems we're really on the same page here. I wasn't aware of all the strings and stigma attached to the "war on $foo" phrase. My point was simply to object to the idea that doing nothing and simply pretending the outside world doesn't exist or that there aren't people who wish us harm out there is a Bad Idea™. I do of course agree that open ended campaigns which cripple our rights without clear and predictable expectations is very bad, if not as bad. To rephrase, then: I want to address and fight terrorism, but I don't want a blind or self-harming "war" on terror.
genwin 13y ago
I have a problem with a war on marijuana, or violating the Constitution during the war on drugs. But otherwise I don't have a problem with a war on meth or crack or other drugs that increase the odds that I'll be a victim of violent crime or robbery. (I'd punish simple users with rehab rather than prison.)
- pstuart 13y ago
  No, no, no. Making them illegal makes more violent crime. Let me put you in rehab for your coffee addiction or beer habit, ok?
  - whyleyc 13y ago
    Except people don't violently mug strangers in broad daylight to get their next caffeine hit ... unless you haven't scored a coffee for a long time :)
    - PavlovsCat 13y ago
      That's because caffeine is legal and therefore dirt cheap.
      - whyleyc 13y ago
        No, it's because as a stimulant it has a combination of relatively low addictive properties and is easy to withdraw from when compared to more "hardcore" substances [1] [1] http://www.drugsense.org/tfy/addictvn.htm http://www.drugsense.org/tfy/addictvn.htm
        jlgreco 13y ago
        All of those things, except "stimulant" technically, can be said of pot too. Hell, caffeine is physically addictive (not to even get into the lifestyles you can build around it that lead to less 'medical' forms of addiction...) while pot is not. You ever caffeine withdrawal? Yeah, during that week-long vacation last year when you stopped going to Starbucks every morning. Most of us have gone through that; it is a bitch and lasts longer than most hangovers. You ever get pot withdrawal? Yeah, me neither. Whatever, lets say for the sake of argument that pot and caffeine are on par with each other despite the obvious discrepancies. It is undeniable that pot prohibition is harmful to society; why would caffeine prohibition not be?
chris_mahan 13y ago
Eliminating drug use mostly means eliminating mild depression (notwithstanding the medical uses of drugs), which mostly means giving people a reason to feel good about themselves and their future, which mostly mean providing an environment where they are free from oppression, constant surveillance, and a multitude of contradictory laws, along with good means of making money, which means education, positive work and life experiences, and a vibrant economy. Note that anything the individual is forced to do against their will without appropriate compensation is out of the question; such as bad schools, prison, and, dare I say it, American team sports? Yes some people are more prone to addictive behavior than others, and yes severe depression is a serious disease which must be handled by professionals. However, the malaise in America is not clinical depression: it's the lack of opportunity to learn, excel, and be rewarded for such excellence. Yes, this opportunity exists for many people, and many do take advantage of it, to great benefit. Many others, though, for a variety of reasons, lack that opportunity. It is generally these people who fuel demand for drugs, to escape the misery and blight of a dead-end future. These people are not losers, but people to whom the dealer of cards dealt a poor hand, and who have not been told by the media and their peers that no hand is a bad hand, that there are opportunity in adversity, that it is through failure that success comes. They, alas, believe that their lot is to suffer, then die, not having achieved anything worthwhile. So, in their desperation and utter loneliness, they seek a fleeting pleasure, a personal high, to momentarily drift away from the relentless and inexorable approach of Death. Do you wish them well? Do you seek to help them? Change yourself. Show them by the example of your own life that adversity can be overcome. Show them by the kindness in your speech, by your countenance, by your actions, that they are not ostracized from human society, but rather, as fallen and wounded, deserve further aid, further care from the rest of us. Or do you wish them away? To be put in prison and removed from your neighborhood, your city? Do you blame them for the poor choices they have made? In their lack of ability, they fell, and unable to stand, they stayed down. Are they weak, ill-fitted for society, and perhaps their premature death at the hand of violence, poverty, and the lawman, is the just reward for their inability to thrive in the Modern Age? As I see children in the playground at my son's elementary school, I see them all alike: full of joy, vitality, and wonder. As children, we too were alike. Then life happened. For some, with privilege and wealth, to great achievements; and for others, with violence and meanness, to suffering and loneliness.

...and for there to be a war on drugs in the first place. Eliminate the fundamentals, and there should be no issues at all, really.

by moens 13y ago

...and for there to be a war on drugs in the first place. Eliminate the fundamentals, and there should be no issues at all, really.

devx 13y ago

Then there would be a war on piracy. How would you like it if they kept 20 years of your downloading habits? Do you think that in 20 years time they could find something to incriminate you? And that's why it's so wrong to keep data for so long, and actually be able to use it.

res0nat0r 13y ago
I'm sure the statue of limitations would apply to many of these crimes, so you can't be convicted of downloading Game of Thrones in 20 years.
corncobpipe 13y ago
I think that's going to be right around the corner.

btown 13y ago

s/Drugs/Terror

aroman 13y ago
So how exactly do we stop the terrorists from harming us, then? Send them a C&D?
- mpyne 13y ago
  No dude, all we have to do is be nice to everybody, increase our foreign aid even further, and establish Shariah law within the U.S. Oh, and somehow ignore the First Amendment and ban American citizens from insulting certainly notable religious figures. Then they will surely leave us alone.
  - aroman 13y ago
    I'm not sure why my answer merited either a down vote or a sarcastic response, but I regardless, you can work to minimize terrorism without destroying our rights and liberties. I'm not sure where you're drawing the false dichotomy from.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      You were probably downvoted because a "War on Terror" is not necessary to minimize terrorism. Nor, as you point out, does minimizing necessitate destroying our rights and liberties. "The War on..." is a phrase that signals to us that we should be on the lookout for crude solutions that do more harm than good. It is a crude phrase that perfectly embodies the simplistic attitude that inevitably backs whatever program the phrase is being used to describe. Wherever there is a "War on..." there is almost certainly something that we could be doing smarter, rather than harder.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      I didn't downvote. I also didn't think I was being sarcastic, to you at least. I don't personally live under the false dichotomy that an unending "WAR ON TERROR" is required to suppress terrorism. But nor do I fall into the trope that the solution is to simply let anyone inflict any attack that they wish. As you say, it is possible to actually fight terrorism without destroying our rights and liberties, and I agree wholeheartedly.
      - aroman 13y ago
        I didn't mean to imply it was you who down voted me. It seems we're really on the same page here. I wasn't aware of all the strings and stigma attached to the "war on $foo" phrase. My point was simply to object to the idea that doing nothing and simply pretending the outside world doesn't exist or that there aren't people who wish us harm out there is a Bad Idea™. I do of course agree that open ended campaigns which cripple our rights without clear and predictable expectations is very bad, if not as bad. To rephrase, then: I want to address and fight terrorism, but I don't want a blind or self-harming "war" on terror.

genwin 13y ago

I have a problem with a war on marijuana, or violating the Constitution during the war on drugs. But otherwise I don't have a problem with a war on meth or crack or other drugs that increase the odds that I'll be a victim of violent crime or robbery. (I'd punish simple users with rehab rather than prison.)

pstuart 13y ago
No, no, no. Making them illegal makes more violent crime. Let me put you in rehab for your coffee addiction or beer habit, ok?
- whyleyc 13y ago
  Except people don't violently mug strangers in broad daylight to get their next caffeine hit ... unless you haven't scored a coffee for a long time :)
  - PavlovsCat 13y ago
    That's because caffeine is legal and therefore dirt cheap.
    - whyleyc 13y ago
      No, it's because as a stimulant it has a combination of relatively low addictive properties and is easy to withdraw from when compared to more "hardcore" substances [1] [1] http://www.drugsense.org/tfy/addictvn.htm http://www.drugsense.org/tfy/addictvn.htm
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        All of those things, except "stimulant" technically, can be said of pot too. Hell, caffeine is physically addictive (not to even get into the lifestyles you can build around it that lead to less 'medical' forms of addiction...) while pot is not. You ever caffeine withdrawal? Yeah, during that week-long vacation last year when you stopped going to Starbucks every morning. Most of us have gone through that; it is a bitch and lasts longer than most hangovers. You ever get pot withdrawal? Yeah, me neither. Whatever, lets say for the sake of argument that pot and caffeine are on par with each other despite the obvious discrepancies. It is undeniable that pot prohibition is harmful to society; why would caffeine prohibition not be?

chris_mahan 13y ago

Eliminating drug use mostly means eliminating mild depression (notwithstanding the medical uses of drugs), which mostly means giving people a reason to feel good about themselves and their future, which mostly mean providing an environment where they are free from oppression, constant surveillance, and a multitude of contradictory laws, along with good means of making money, which means education, positive work and life experiences, and a vibrant economy. Note that anything the individual is forced to do against their will without appropriate compensation is out of the question; such as bad schools, prison, and, dare I say it, American team sports? Yes some people are more prone to addictive behavior than others, and yes severe depression is a serious disease which must be handled by professionals. However, the malaise in America is not clinical depression: it's the lack of opportunity to learn, excel, and be rewarded for such excellence. Yes, this opportunity exists for many people, and many do take advantage of it, to great benefit. Many others, though, for a variety of reasons, lack that opportunity. It is generally these people who fuel demand for drugs, to escape the misery and blight of a dead-end future. These people are not losers, but people to whom the dealer of cards dealt a poor hand, and who have not been told by the media and their peers that no hand is a bad hand, that there are opportunity in adversity, that it is through failure that success comes. They, alas, believe that their lot is to suffer, then die, not having achieved anything worthwhile. So, in their desperation and utter loneliness, they seek a fleeting pleasure, a personal high, to momentarily drift away from the relentless and inexorable approach of Death. Do you wish them well? Do you seek to help them? Change yourself. Show them by the example of your own life that adversity can be overcome. Show them by the kindness in your speech, by your countenance, by your actions, that they are not ostracized from human society, but rather, as fallen and wounded, deserve further aid, further care from the rest of us. Or do you wish them away? To be put in prison and removed from your neighborhood, your city? Do you blame them for the poor choices they have made? In their lack of ability, they fell, and unable to stand, they stayed down. Are they weak, ill-fitted for society, and perhaps their premature death at the hand of violence, poverty, and the lawman, is the just reward for their inability to thrive in the Modern Age? As I see children in the playground at my son's elementary school, I see them all alike: full of joy, vitality, and wonder. As children, we too were alike. Then life happened. For some, with privilege and wealth, to great achievements; and for others, with violence and meanness, to suffering and loneliness.