Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
from the what's-the-word dept
One of the biggest stories this week was the shutdown of Kickass Torrents and the arrest of its owner, all of which we pointed out had questionable basis in actual law. That One Guy won most insightful comment of the week with the theory that this doesn't matter at all:
The fact that the charges don't line up with what's actually in the law doesn't matter really, as that would be distantly secondary at best. The purpose isn't so much to enforce the law regarding copyright infringement as to show what happens to those that annoy the USG and those buying politicians.
Site destroyed, owner arrested, message sent.
Much like MU winning the legal case would be something they'd like to be able to crow about, but they've already accomplished what they set out to do, and if all it cost them was some 'creative' interpretation of the law that's a price they're more than willing to pay.
Meanwhile, after Donald Trump threatened his disloyal ghostwriter with defamation claims, eaving won second place for insightful by drawing a comparison:
Erdogan, American Edition?
For editor's choice on the insightful side, we start out with some thoughts from PaulT on China's plan to ban ad blockers:
The more interesting thing would be to see if anyone exploits the rules to distribute malware that does real harm or has other unintended consequences that causes real problems for the Chinese government. With malicious ads being increasingly common, security is one of the larger reasons people are using these things.
I mean, I wouldn't want to be the person trying to exploit the opportunity even I were that way inclined. But an extra 159+ million people being added to a pool of targets, where the entire pool is barred from defending themselves against you, must be very tempting for certain people.
Next, we head to our post about the court that has offered no remedy to someone whose vehicle was illegally searched and then subjected to civil forfeiture after drugs were found. One commenter suggested that there's no way the alternative — returning all the property — is acceptable either, but Uriel-238 questioned that premise and its assumptions:
"I don't think they should just give the drugs, or the vehicle used to transport them back.. full fucking stop."
I do. The state is way out of jurisdiction once they have conducted an illegal search, and -- how shall we say it: it imposes a substantial social cost for there to be any impetus for the police to engage in unreasonable search and seizure, since the temptation to do so is so great on its own. The police are not even trustworthy holding contraband in their evidence lockers or destroying it.
Once we allow law enforcement to gain actually profit from overreach, they're going to do so. Excessively. There are number historic examples of how this goes down.
No, the proper order in this case is for the police to return to him his belongings (including any contraband) in recognition that the state and its agents are not above law either.
The suspect should be compensated for time lost due to the police overreach and then let to go about his business
We need to stop thinking of the police as a caste with a moral high ground over the rest of us. Indeed, if anything they have clearly proven that human beings are incapable of holding that elevated level of power without corruption and indulgence. They just aren't.
The US police is supposed to operate under the principles of policing by Sir Robert Peel (at least they still teach Peelian Principles in cop school and say these are our foundational principles. The police is the people. The people are the police. It's still supposed to be that way. It's not.
Rather, our law enforcement agents are so removed from common civilians now that they regard common civilians as the enemy, they defend their own corruption openly and plainly. They prey commonly on innocent civilians as highwaymen and brigands. They act as nothing more than yet another street gang, merely one backed with state funding.
Over on the funny side, we start out with the news that the German government is suing the US government over copyright infringement by the Navy. First place for funny goes to Machin Shin, who couldn't resist the simple joy this story provides:
I saw this on another site as I wandered around the net. I still think the best part in all this is that we can now call our Navy a bunch of pirates.
Meanwhile, after Turkey blocked Wikileaks, Mason Wheeler won second place by noting the irony in the source of some of the criticism of Turkey's censorious regime:
Wait, wait... a European high court talking about censorship laws breaching the fundamental human right to information?
That's incredibly ironic. I know there's a good reason to say so, but I must have... forgotten.
For editor's choice on the funny side, we start on our post about Nick Denton joining the ranks of people fighting to defend comments on blogs and news websites. TechDescartes registered his self-invalidating disapproval, the only way he could:
I disagree
You shouldn't let people comment on stories.
And finally, because every advertising algorithm is bound to cough up amusing results from time to time, Mason Wheeler spotted something fun on our post about Apple declining the invitation to be Senator McCain's punching bag:
In today's episode of Techdirt Advertising Theatre...
That's all for this week, folks!
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Best of both worlds
I agree, it should all be returned. I also agree that anything the defendant knowingly accepts becomes legally theirs. They accept drugs back and they can be arrested for possession. "Yes, the truck and home are mine, no the drugs are not". The cops get drugs off the street and the dealers get Constitutional protection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Best of both worlds
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Best of both worlds
Maybe we should be looking at removing all drugs from issues of legality.
Let's create the scenario, all drugs are legal. No restrictions on use and no restrictions on who can use. However, there are a couple of things that must take place now.
The first is that all people who willingly use drugs are now fully responsible for the consequences of their usage. That is, if they cause any kind of endangerment to the lives of other people, they will have mandatory death sentences applied. If they cause damage, they are fully required to restore said damage, up to and including life enslavement until full restitution is done.
The second is that any person supplying another person against their will/agreement is then also fully responsible for the consequences that occur, including mandatory death sentence for any endangerment of other peoples lives including the victim of the drugging.
We apply this across the board to everyone, including government, businesses, etc.
This means that Boards of Directors of any company will be fully liable for all damage that occurs through their inaction, so drug companies, tobacco companies, chemical manufactures, etc will face the same death sentences for any endangerment to the lives of others.
Any government person, including Judges, Law Enforcement, Senators, Presidents, 3 letter organisation members who through their decisions cause the endangerment of others lives will also face the same death sentence. So no chemical or biological warfare allowed. We could alos include any nuclear forms as well.
Make everyone responsible for themselves and the consequences and then sure make all drugs and associated chemicals legal.
This is just one option, I am sure that there are many other options that people could think up.
I should also add that all medical expenses that derive from the usage would be entirely the responsibility of the above as a part of the consequences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mandatory death sentences?
I thought everyone was responsible for their actions when intoxicated, hence the harsh penalties of DUIs, and the police gunning down crackheads that are even slightly buzzed out, even though PCP (the drug that turns people into naked violent super-monsters) has been out of favor for decades.
But if we did allow for recreational cocaine products and heroin products, we could regulate them. Make sure they were clean under the FDA, require warnings as per smoking and clearly visible addiction treatment vectors.
Part of the problem has been our treatment of addicts as pariah ever since the Reagan administration. I remember the transition of attitude in the early 80s when we started practicing zero tolerance, and users that wanted to be rehabilitated were driven underground.
Excessive recreational drug use is invariably self-medication, and yes, we have a long history of using drugs to cope with stress, and then the society allowing for elevated stress to match the tolerance, hence our illusion that two adults can work full time (each!) and raise a healthy family and sustain a home and still have time for recreation. No. They can't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mandatory death sentences?
Too many lawyers get people off by sob-stories, diminished responsibility, etc. Have come across too many who don't give any care and use when they want and where they want. They treat it as everyone else's problem. No consequences as far as they are concerned.
For the rest, the response was meant as sarcasm and as an over the top response to the legality question.
In all it is a very complex question. It can be considered as a infrastructure problem for which an enforcement solution is being used to control or reduce, which never works.
Infrastructure problems require massive changes which "authorities" of all kinds do not want to implement and would rather spend money and time and effort creating enforcement solutions.
Infrastructure problems include the likes of:
* drug use and addictions
* copyright and intellectual property
* national security and terror control
to name but three very broad areas.
Any simple solution using the legal and enforcement environment will fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mandatory death sentences = racial genocide
A lot of people carry drugs, but in New York City and Chicago, blacks and Latins get spontaneously searched more often.
Some drugs have mandatory minimums where others don't. Crack Cocaine, used predominantly in black communities, has severe mandatory minimums where powder cocaine (a much more expensive drug, but the same stuff) does not.
And then there's Prosecutorial Discretion, in which the DA chooses which cases to prosecute and which ones to not. Black thugs convict more easily than nice white boys, and the DA doesn't want acquittals on his career record.
So yeah, mandated death sentences give power to the last person in the line who can position others in that line of fire, and they're going to preserve the ones they like and toss in the ones they don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mandatory death sentences?
Who would be impacted the most culturally? Do you think the "rich white man" is going to be impacted by making it legal aside from getting richer? They are rich, they can already get what they want in relative safety. The cultural impact to minorities, low income/education level citizens, and illegal immigrants would be devastating. It wouldn't matter how well you regulate it or provide abuse/addict rehab. Just like the bootleg liquor the original story is about, people would find a way to exploit the system. By keeping hard drugs illegal, you limit to some degree their availability. It's not much, but it's something. Soft drugs I could see. Pot is dangerous too, but somewhat organic and can be grown fairly easily and regulated right at home. So I get making that legal and regulated.. but hell, we could be wrong on that too and long term it could be a train wreck .. we'll see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Best of both worlds
Let's create the scenario, all drugs are legal. No restrictions on use and no restrictions on who can use. However, there are a couple of things that must take place now.
The first is that all people who willingly use drugs are now fully responsible for the consequences of their usage. That is, if they cause any kind of endangerment to the lives of other people, they will have mandatory death sentences applied. If they cause damage, they are fully required to restore said damage, up to and including life enslavement until full restitution is done.
Of course legalising drugs IS a good idea - but shortly after that I parted company from you.
The reason that legalising drugs is a good idea is that more than half the problems we have with drugs are related to the fact that they are illegal. In fact they constitute a "Criminal Business Opportunity".
If fact it is actually an International Business Opportunity - since that part of terrorist funding that doen't come from oil or kidnapping comes from drugs.
Legalising Heroin would have a major positive impact on Afghanistan.
Legalising drugs would also remove one of the major excuses for police harassment of minorities (and anyone whose face does not fit).
I think the one measure that would need to remain would be against promoting and marketing - as we have done with tobacco.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Best of both worlds
If we legalize rape then we won't have as many rapists behind bars? If we legalize murder, then we have less murders behind bars?
It appears to me, that the original reason we made drugs illegal was the irresponsible use was seen as a danger to society as a whole. Alcohol is bad, but some of those other drugs are horrible. People hallucinating and thinking they are superman. That's not diminished capacity, that's friggin losing your mind. Alcohol can impact different people differently, but as a whole, it's effects are somewhat predictable. You get someone on the wrong combination of drugs, there is no telling what happens.
Then you have the cultural impacts. Lets make all drugs legal in the most heavily armed populace in the world. Where we have more than half (or right at half) on public assistance of one kind or another. One that glorifies the gangster pop culture and one that uses call of duty as a babysitter. My point is that we have quite a few cultural problems that would have to be solved first, before we even consider making drugs legal.
Before anyone starts, I realize there are other countries it works in, that's good for them. Most of those countries are smaller, have more government controls, and have developed culturally well enough to deal with. NO WAY we are ready anytime soon for throwing a switch like that. It would be absolute chaos.
"No, the proper order in this case is for the police to return to him his belongings (including any contraband) in recognition that the state and its agents are not above law either. "
How the hell this site could advocate giving illegal drugs back to someone in recognition of anything at all is beyond me. Drugs are illegal. By giving them back, you have now CREATED a criminal. The law just can't say "whoops, we goofed, here's your illegal machine gun back and all your bullets... our bad."
I couple of good people leaving good comments explained to me, and now now I understand, that in order to protect the peoples rights as a whole, and the integrity of the legal system, sometimes we have let the accused go when we make a mistake. I don't like it, but I get it. But giving anything illegal back to the accused, and assuming the U.S. with it's current cultural maturity is anywhere near ready to legalize drugs across the board, is madness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Best of both worlds
What kinds of straw man argument is that? If we legalized prostitution some of the rapists would prefer paying vs risking going to jail.
--People hallucinating and thinking they are superman
Thats called natural selection, its a solution to the employment problem.
--One that glorifies the gangster pop culture
Humm, the culture that exists because drugs are illegal
--we have quite a few cultural problems
You mean like the problem that some people think they have the right to tell other people what they can/cannot do with their own bodies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Best of both worlds
"The reason that legalising drugs is a good idea is that more than half the problems we have with drugs are related to the fact that they are illegal."
I was applying his argument to other illegal activities. Replace drugs with rape or murder. His argument is a logical fallacy.
"--we have quite a few cultural problems
You mean like the problem that some people think they have the right to tell other people what they can/cannot do with their own bodies?"
Absolutely. When what your doing to your body impacts me and my community, then yes I do. If those drugs have a significant probability of causing someone to do something completely irrational and can affect people unpredictably then yes. Alcohol and pot are fairly predictable, and are fairly easily metered. Cocaine and the harder drugs can have drastically different effects on people and can be almost immediately addicting.
Now, like a previous person stated. If making the drugs legal came with the drug user accepting TOTAL responsibility for their actions, up too and including property damage, medical treatment, loss of life.. etc.. and would be forced to carry insurance should they not be financial able to do so, then lets talk. But that's not what happens is it? They go to court and plead diminished capacity or claim they are some type of victim of society/repressed while the true victims (their families) are forced to pick up the pieces of their broken lives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Best of both worlds
That is a very nice rose-colored view there, but unfortunately incorrect. The campaign to make marijuana illegal was funded and driven by William Randolph Hearst who owned huge tracts of forestland and didn't want to compete with hemp in paper manufacturing and Andrew Mellon (a heavy investor of Du Pont) and the Du Pont family who wanted to replace hemp with nylon for ropes and such.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_the_United_States#Marihuana_Tax_Act_ .281937.29
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Best of both worlds
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Best of both worlds
Fair enough. I still think that the "danger to society" thing has been and still is oversold as hokum. The criminalization of drug use has caused more societal problems then the original problem they were trying to "fix".
Take a look at the results of Portugal legalizing small amounts of both "soft" and "hard" drugs. While usage remained pretty much the same, other societal side effects of drug use have improved. HIV diagnoses went down, entries into treatment facilities went up, drug related deaths dropped, adolescent use went down, criminal justice workloads went down and actual the street value of the drugs dropped.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal#Observations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Best of both worlds
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Best of both worlds
So we're better off continuing to lock people up for taking drugs until we "grow up"? What percentage of the US population takes illegal drugs other than marijuana? It's tiny, right? It would probably be even smaller if pot were legal everywhere. Are there a bunch of people just pining to take meth or heroin and not doing it because it's illegal? Sounds ridiculous. I just don't see how putting users in jail could possibly be a better use of that money than putting them in drug treatment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Best of both worlds
It's illegal nasch. As in against the law. Yes, we should enforce the law until we reach a point where we can responsibly change it.
"What percentage of the US population takes illegal drugs other than marijuana? It's tiny, right? "
If it's so "tiny", why make a big deal out of it being illegal? I'll answer that for you, because even a tiny percentage is a huge number when your talking about a country with over 350 million people in it.
"It would probably be even smaller if pot were legal everywhere. Are there a bunch of people just pining to take meth or heroin and not doing it because it's illegal? Sounds ridiculous."
Sounds ridiculous? Did you read the link Gwiz posted? I didn't post it, he did. It has an after legalization drug use comparison of Portugal. Yes. Drug use went up significantly, including the hard drugs. I'm not making this up, the data is right there.
"I just don't see how putting users in jail could possibly be a better use of that money than putting them in drug treatment."
I'm not saying you put them in jail and I'm not saying you don't give them treatment. I was saying that just throwing some magic switch that suddenly legalizes drugs across the board would be irresponsible and damaging to our way of life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Best of both worlds
I think we have already reached that point - about 20 years ago as a matter of fact. I realize that's currently illegal and what I am advocating for is legalization of small amounts right now.
If it's so "tiny", why make a big deal out of it being illegal?
Cause and effect. 30 years of the "War on Drugs" has done nothing to curb usage. It has however caused the over-militarization of our police forces, police tactics of targeting our minorities and the largest incarceration rate of any developed country. A lot of the friction between police forces and citizens that we are experiencing today are a direct result of our drug policies.
It has an after legalization drug use comparison of Portugal. Yes. Drug use went up significantly, including the hard drugs. I'm not making this up, the data is right there.
Yeah, you probably need to re-read that link a bit more carfully:
I was saying that just throwing some magic switch that suddenly legalizes drugs across the board would be irresponsible and damaging to our way of life.
I disagree 100% with this sentiment. You should probably educate yourself a bit more on this subject before making such blanket statements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Best of both worlds
I disagree. I don't think were ready. We would first need to completely overhaul our police forces, treatment and abuse systems, education systems.. and a vast host of other things.
"Cause and effect. 30 years of the "War on Drugs" has done nothing to curb usage. It has however caused the over-militarization of our police forces, police tactics of targeting our minorities and the largest incarceration rate of any developed country. A lot of the friction between police forces and citizens that we are experiencing today are a direct result of our drug policies."
He said it, I didn't. I was simply pointing out the error in his logic. Even a small percentage is a huge deal.
"Yeah, you probably need to re-read that link a bit more carfully:
The increase in drug use observed among adults in Portugal was not greater than that seen in nearby countries that did not change their drug laws.
"
I suggest YOU read it more carefully. Simply pointing out that other nearby countries increase as well does not mean shit, and can be interpreted many different ways. The actual study suggest that in numerous places. It suggests that their may be a correlation between the two, but it doesn't prove anything. Read the actual paper the wiki references. The truth is; no one knows exactly what the fuck would happen if they threw the switch in a country as culturally immature as the U.S...
Check out page 1000 regarding what is suggested to be the best available "decriminalization" of cannabis studies. They had a vastly different outcome.
"Social and criminal justice impacts have also been mixed. One of the best studied
reforms has been the South Australian cannabis expiation notice scheme introduced
in 1987. Evaluators found that ‘decriminalization’ led to increased employment prospects
and increased trust of police (Lenton et al. 1999). Yet, it also led to net-widening.
More people received formal contact with the criminal justice system than prior to the
reform (Sutton and McMillan 1998). In fact, there was a 280 per cent increase in expiable
cannabis offences, which meant there was an overall increase in the burden
on the criminal justice system (Christie and Ali 2000)."
http://web.archive.org/web/20140821135419/http://www.beckleyfoundation.org/bib/doc/bf/2010_Ca itlin_211621_1.pdf
That study suggest that yes. More people like the police and more jobs were available.. but citizen criminal contact with the police went up 280% ?
Check out page 1011.
"From 1997 to 2008, there was limited change in the number of seizures of illicit drugs
in Portugal. The main exception was seizures of heroin, which declined from a peak in
1999 to a steady state in 2004. But there has been an overall increase in the quantity of
illicit drugs seized, particularly those destined for external markets. As one of the evaluation
reports noted between 1995–99 and 2000–04, the amount of drugs seized increased
by 499 per cent: 116 per cent for cocaine, 134 per cent for hashish, 219
per cent for heroin and 1,526 per cent for ecstasy (Direccxa˜o Central de Investigacxa˜o
do Tra´fico de Estupefacientes 2004)."
Drug trafficking went postal. Seizures are up 499%. So it's become easier to manufacture and ship the drugs to "external markets", and people are taking advantage on a grand scale. Talk about your unintended consequences, holy crap.
"You should probably educate yourself a bit more on this subject before making such blanket statements."
I'm entitled to whatever opinion I choose, However, before you throw your arrogant attitude at me again, I suggest YOU read the entire study, and stop cherry picking just the parts that support your argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Best of both worlds
I think your logic concerning this is incorrect. It's like telling someone not to have a child until they can afford one, which is basically saying "don't have children" (because you can never really afford them). Also, who gets to decide when we've become "culturally mature". You? Me? Space Aliens? Who?
I suggest YOU read it more carefully. Simply pointing out that other nearby countries increase as well does not mean shit, and can be interpreted many different ways. The actual study suggest that in numerous places. It suggests that their may be a correlation between the two, but it doesn't prove anything.
It's a pretty accepted practice to compare results with control groups. That doesn't, by any means, equal a direct correlation, but it does give some pretty strong indications that Portugal's policy changes were not the reason for the increase.
Look, it been nice chatting with you and all and it's obvious that you have your opinions about this, but you might want to ask yourself why many respected people are currently question our drug policies, from Eric Holder to some well respected Harvard alumni and beyond. It's been my personal observation that those arguing most stridently against legalization are those whose livelihoods depend on the "War on Drugs" remaining well funded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Best of both worlds
It's a good question, one I do not have an answer too. However, I equate it to sticking your foot in a hot bathtub. You don't need to know exactly how hot the water is when you stick your foot in it to know if it's too hot to get in.
"It's a pretty accepted practice to compare results with control groups. "
I agree completely. But you have to use more than one to get a measurable result. You have Australia and Portugal. Two completely different places, two completely different outcomes. Neither provides definitive proof of anything except for the fact that you can get two completely different outcomes.
I no more agree with our drug policies than you do. I think they are stupid and a waste of resources. With that said, I also don't think you just make everything legal across the board with the throw of a switch, especially in one of the most heavily armed populations in the world.
As with most social issues, the answer is probably somewhere in the middle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Best of both worlds
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Best of both worlds
I said:
"I was saying that just throwing some magic switch that suddenly legalizes drugs across the board would be irresponsible and damaging to our way of life."
He replied:
"I disagree 100% with this sentiment. You should probably educate yourself a bit more on this subject before making such blanket statements."
No strawman here nasch. I was crystal clear with my statement, and Gwiz was crystal clear with his/her response.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Best of both worlds
Manufacturing and distribution should be regulated and taxed, like alcohol. The funding of our police forces should come from some of these taxes, instead of having "drug asset forfeitures" as a major source of their operating budgets. We should also let our judges do their jobs and evaluate situations on a case-by-case basis, instead if being forced to use mandatory sentencing requirements which basically treat a 17 year old kid smoking a joint in the park the same as the guy caught selling crack on the corner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Best of both worlds
Could you please explain what it is you think would damage us anymore so than the quasi-military/police state we've erected to fight the war on drugs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Best of both worlds
Absolutely. Take again the Australian study of 87. The study lists 4 major points gleaned on page 1000.
1. Increased employment prospects.
2. Increased trust in the police.
3. "net-widening" of the police force.
4. 280 per cent increase in ex-piable cannabis offences
With that said, lets pretend we've thrown the magic switch...
Their were 1,561,231 arrests for drug law violations in 2014 in the U.S.
Now, what would happen if the same thing happened in the U.S., that happened in Australia? Our Criminal Justice System would suddenly come under enormous strain and possibly collapse.. did we just make the problem better or worse?
http://web.archive.org/web/20140821135419/http://www.beckleyfoundation.org/bib/doc/bf/2010_Cai tlin_211621_1.pdf
Lets take Portugal again, since that was the original study in question.
In reading the conclusion from the same study; It qualifies some of it's data as being "specific to Portugal". Where it also quotes that these "specific to Portugal" results as being in "direct contrast" to neighboring Spain and Italy. So even right next door they were getting contrasting results, it says so directly in the conclusion on page 1017.
"some effects do appear to be
specific to Portugal. Indeed, the reduction in problematic drug users and reduction
in burden of drug offenders on the criminal justice system were in direct contrast to
those trends observed in neighbouring Spain and Italy. Moreover, there are no signs
of mass expansion of the drug market in Portugal. This is in contrast with apparent
market expansions in neighbouring Spain."
The study also states that they are seizing 499% more drugs destined for illegal export. It says that some of that can be attributed to better police work/resources and such... but 499%.... could you imagine?
So we've thrown the magic switch... do we get the results from Portugal, Spain, Italy, or Australia?
The truth is, we have absolutely no idea what the fuck would happen. The were getting different results in countries right next to each other.
If social and cultural maturity is the wild card, the card that determines which way the ax falls, and IMO I truly believe it is. Throwing that switch would be a disaster right now here the U.S.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Best of both worlds
We have some idea of what would happen. We just have to look at our own history. We've been through this once already and our society didn't crumble to the ground in 1933 when we repealed Prohibition. Here is a former Seattle Police Chief pointing out the parallels between Probation and our current "drug war":
http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/prohibition-a-parallel-to-modern-war-on-drugs/
Throwing that switch would be a disaster right now here the U.S.
I disagree that it would be the disaster you predict. We certainly aren't anymore culturally mature than we were in 1933 and we worked that out OK. Would there be growing pains? Sure. Would it take time to readjust our justice, law enforcement and health care systems. Absolutely. I just don't think sitting on our hands until you think we can handle it as a society is any kind of answer. I believe the status quo is worse than any of effects of legalization would be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Best of both worlds
Drugs are not the same at all. They can be synthesized to any level of potency. Even drugs in small doses very wildly depending on physiology, they could give you a mild buzz.. or they could straight up kill you.
I'm sure it may of happened, but I can't ever recall someone taking a shot of whiskey and diving off a building because they suddenly thought they could fly...PCP on the other hand... You get the point.
IMO it's apples and oranges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Best of both worlds
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Licenses for wrongful discovery.
Is there any contraband out there in which a small amount that is decriminalized by such a dispensation will make a critical amount of difference (say, a few kilos of plutonium)?
On the other hand this could set up a situation where law enforcement officers intentionally do illegal searches to willfully create decriminalized drugs, for a share of the take. But that smacks of cops selling drugs and guns out of the precinct backdoors, which is done anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Licenses for wrongful discovery.
A few kilos (about 11) of plutonium is its critical mass, I would not want to be anywhere near that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Plutonium
I was thinking of Doc Brown's trunk of rods suspended in water.
It does raise the question, how often is contraband something rare, and super dangerous, as opposed to stuff that is out in the public in massive quantities? How often is the containment of contraband a matter of national security rather than party favors for an event, or a week's fix for the local addict population?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Best of both worlds
Either the government has authorized that person to possess those drugs.
Or the government has entrapped that person into criminal possession.
Either way, an arrest and trial for that possession is simply impossible under US law without the government officials involved committing at least one felony each.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I got one! I got one! OH! MY GRAMMAR IS TERRIBLE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DailyDirt Dead?
We haven't had a DailyDirt since July 1 (over three weeks now).
Is he just on vacation, or is this feature actually going away?
If it's going away, that's a pity; I rather enjoyed reading it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DailyDirt Dead?
Is he just on vacation, or is this feature actually going away?
If it's going away, that's a pity; I rather enjoyed reading it.
It's on "hiatus" while we determine what to do with it... stay tuned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DailyDirt Dead?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]