Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Open Government Brainstorm Defies Wisdom of Crowds

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the democracy-that's-easy-enough-for-stoners dept.

Government 709

theodp writes "In May, the White House launched what it called an 'unprecedented online process for public engagement in policymaking.' Brainstorming was conducted in an effort to identify ways to 'strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness by making government more transparent, participatory, and collaborative.' So, what were some of the top vote-getters? Currently near the top of the list are Legalize Marijuana And Solve Many Tax Issues / Prison Issues (#2) and Remove Marijuana from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (#3). For those who remember Obama's earlier Online Town Hall, it's deja vu all over again."

cancel ×

709 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Painful to Watch (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194291)

So on the frton page of the site, I counted more than ten "ideas" from one individual reading all the same (with a handful of votes to each!). They all read:

Hey folks, it seems that the administration is at it again. All of my posts have been removed regarding Obamas legitimacy of his birth certificate. It seems all of you that feel the same way will have yours removed sonner or later so that the ideas input portion of this website seems to consist mostly of garbage that doesnt really natter to true conservatives... How Sad Obama... You can change a leopards spots but you will never change the leopard.

Are there no abuse policy/software in place to catch this?

Even the other users like a person named 'obamawatch' is ranting about the president's birth certificate. I'm embarrassed enough for all parties involved--is this the "YouTube of the Government" to them? This is really what you say when you get the chance to make suggestions to your government?

Where's the "Ron Paul Should Be President" +75,496 idea?

I hate to say it but this might almost not work for a population the size of America. I know on a smaller scale (like in Hennepin County, Minnesota) they get useful ideas from the populace with very realistic goals. I dare say the only way this could work on a national level is to require the user to put in their SSN & birthdate for verification and banning for repeated abuse. But I don't like information going through IdeaScale one bit.

Re:Painful to Watch (4, Insightful)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194385)

With the little knowledge I have of the American political system (mud fight) I expect that people actually get paid to spam the Obama-website.

I think it's a lovely idea, and while the website won't reach any conclusion, the valuable information is that the Obama administration learns what people find important.

And yes, to quite a large population it is important to legalize the weed. About 1/100 of the entire population of the USA is in prison. That's more than anywhere in the world. And the majority (I believe, I have no reference) is related to marijuana.

Regardless of the fact that the open government is being abused, it will generate useful information, after it has gone through a (manual?) spam filter.

marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Watch (3, Interesting)

WillAdams (45638) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194455)

When will there be a way to check a person's marijuana intoxication level quickly and easily at a traffic stop?

Until there is such a check, legalizing marijuana would make the current drunk driving problem many times more difficult in terms of detection and enforcement.

William

Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28194507)

Why are you under the impression that cannabis intoxication is a traffic problem? (There's science done on the subject that I doubt you're aware of)

Cannabis != alcohol. Those two drugs to not have the same issues.

Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (5, Insightful)

mcvos (645701) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194865)

Why are you under the impression that cannabis intoxication is a traffic problem? (There's science done on the subject that I doubt you're aware of)

Cannabis != alcohol. Those two drugs to not have the same issues.

Well, they don't get aggressive or overconfident, which is definitely nice. But someone going 30 on the motorway isn't exactly safe either.

Even so, I've never heard of serious marihuana intoxication problems in traffic, and I live in a country where smoking pot is legal. People who are high have better things to do than driving a car, apparently.

Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (1, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194551)

When will there be a way to check a person's marijuana intoxication level quickly and easily at a traffic stop?

You can tell if someone's level of marijuana intoxication is interfering with their driving quite easily. Are they asleep?

Until you demonstrate some evidence that smoking marijuana actually makes one more likely to get into an accident, you're just FUDding.

Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (4, Insightful)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194577)

Until you demonstrate some evidence that smoking marijuana actually makes one more likely to get into an accident, you're just FUDding.

It doesn't matter how more likely marijuana makes drivers get into accidents. The law as it currently stands forbids driving while intoxicated, and that could be with prescription drugs or weed just as much as alcohol.

Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (5, Insightful)

Denihil (1208200) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194633)

policeman looks for scent of weed (distinctive when you know what you're looking for), red eyes, and smoke. If he sees 2 of 3 signs, he issues a field sobriety test. Problem Solved.

Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (4, Insightful)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194733)

Here is a hint, you can't detect oxycontin from someones breath & someone abusing that shit is about 1000 times more likely to run you off the road that someone high on pot.

Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (5, Insightful)

afidel (530433) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194877)

Doesn't matter, we put up with distracted drivers every day which are just as/more dangerous than people intoxicated by marijuana. The issue of DUI enforcement shouldn't allow us to continue on a proven failed path that is bankrupting the country and ruining peoples lives (disproportionally minority lives). Bust the people who pose a danger for reckless operation with video showing the improper operation and let a jury decide if they posed a risk.

Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28194653)

Research from the Dutch "Nederlands Forensisch Instituut" (Dutch Forensics Institute) shows that the effect of a single joint equates to about 1.1 ppt alcohol in the blood. In 2006, out of 730 casualties in lethal accidents, 75 were drugsrelated (also cocaine, speed etc. but that doesnt impact driving as much as marihuana). Currently experiments are underway to determine intoxication level with drugs out of the cheekslime. To this date a bloodtest is required, which is done on suspects (smells like having smoked pot, eyes looking decidedly vague, reactions not very coordinated etc.)

See http://thecoffeeshops.wordpress.com/tag/jointje/ for the Dutch article.

So it's not FUD, and research has been done over here where its legal to smoke it, and yes it does cause serious traffic accidents.

Note: I am completely in favor of legalizing it. But don't say it's harmless - driving after smoking, especially given current THC levels in joints, is NOT harmless. Oh, and don't compare your homegrown weed with the stuff you buy in the coffeeshops over in Holland. The THC of the current export-quality pot is nothing to scoff at and can knock you out quite easily.

Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (5, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194833)

No marijuana is not harmless, but the fact that I'm sitting here smoking it while watching TV *is* harmless, and that's why it should be legalized. I'm not endangering anybody except myself.

This all comes down to control. U.S. Congress wants to control our morals, like a modern-day version of the medieval church. This is not freedom.

Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28194785)

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't drive under the influence of marijuana. While it doesn't have the same effect as alcohol, in my case it makes it just as likely to get into an accident. I simply become slower... I couldn't react to a sudden change of a situation as fast as I could without any drugs.

Posting anon for obvious reasons....

Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28194901)

Stop smoking indica and smoke sativa instead. Slowness problem solved.

Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (5, Interesting)

wolrahnaes (632574) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194853)

While I certainly don't have the tolerance levels of some of the hardcore stoners I know who have been smoking for ten years, there's no way I'd ever argue that marijuana doesn't reduce driving ability. I've driven high before a few times, I don't like doing it at all and don't do it regularly (only twice in four years of smoking). You don't speed or get reckless like you do when drunk, but your motor skills and reaction times are unquestionably impaired. The last time I did it was a fairly long 3 AM highway trip where I had my in-car camera running, so I have a perfect record of how I drove. Really the only positive thing I can say about my driving that night is I stayed between the lines (barely at times) and didn't really speed by much (70MPH in a 65, which is odd for me, sober I tend to run the Turnpike at 90+). Terrible idea.

Obviously this is just one anecdotal experience and yes I'll agree that it is far safer to drive on weed versus alcohol, but if you believe you drive fine on weed you're lying to yourself.

That said, I'm still all for legalization. They can't tell how much marijuana intoxication is affecting driving as-is, so it wouldn't change anyways. They can't tell how intoxicated you are off of any of the number of OTC or prescription drugs the average American is on either. All that would change is that the states with retarded "any detectable levels of metabolites" laws for marijuana OVIs would have to STFU and figure something else out. I could not smoke anything for a week, be unquestionably sober, and still get popped for an OVI based on a piss test in those states. Fuck 'em, that's not fair at all.

Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (1)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194563)

By that reasoning, you can't buy any night-time medicine.

Oh, those are sold over the counter, and would really affect your ability to drive.

And then there are tons of currently prescribable medicines that would impede someones ability to drive, usually coming with a "Do not operate heavy equipment under influence of this drug"

Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (0, Redundant)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194619)

Easy. The question itself is irrelevant. Regardless of intoxication via alcohol or cannabis (marijuana is a racist term), an individual should be punished for their degree of reckless driving.
If you are chatting on a cell phone, driving angrily or aggressively or just being clumsy (without any chemical intoxication), your punishment for reckless driving should be just as harsh, including loss of license and/or jail time.

Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28194873)

I realize it is a bit off topic, but how in the world is marijuana a racist term? It has negative connotations and I agree that cannabis is probably a better term but marijuana being a racist term? How?

Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194643)

legalizing marijuana would make the current drunk driving problem many times more difficult in terms of detection and enforcement.

Are you trollin' us? Aside from not being able to use the breathalyzer, why would anything else change? Our field sobriety tests [1800duilaws.com] test physical and mental capability such as standing on one leg, walking backwards, and reciting the alphabet backwards. And everybody knows what weed smells like.

Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28194657)

In Australia we already have this:

http://www.police.qld.gov.au/programs/roadSafety/drugDriving.htm

Re:Painful to Watch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28194459)

With the little knowledge I have of the American political system (mud fight) I expect that people actually get paid to spam the Obama-website.

With a little bit of planning, one only needs to spam a little bit. The conspiranuts will do the rest for free.

Re:Painful to Watch (2, Informative)

Quothz (683368) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194519)

And the majority (I believe, I have no reference) is related to marijuana.

Estimates range from 10% to 20%, but nobody really knows. This includes those who are in for both pot-related and other offenses, however. If I were to learn that the majority of prisoners had at least one drug-related charge I would not be surprised (I'm not claiming that's the case, just speculating).

Re:Painful to Watch (2, Interesting)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194775)

With the little knowledge I have of the American political system (mud fight) I expect that people actually get paid to spam the Obama-website.

You don't have to pay people who are brainwashed.

About 1/100 of the entire population of the USA is in prison.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in June of last year there were 3,851,789 people in custody in the US. This does not count the hundreds of thousands that are in municipal lockups in every city in America. Estimates put the total at about 4.5 million. Now, if you throw in the countless (uncountable?) people sitting in secret prisons outside the US, and people in military custody, it starts to make Stalin and other dictators look like pikers.

"The greatest nation on god's green earth" according to right-wing talk show host and swishy ideologue Michael Medved.

If you really want to learn about the hidden history of the USA (a country I happen to love despite its many serious failings) I recommend reading Peter Levenda's Sinister Forces, A Grimoire of American Political Witchcraft. This meticulously researched and well-written book will curl your hair. Just don't expect to find it in any public library.

Re:Painful to Watch (5, Insightful)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194401)

You give the population the chance to shape their own society for a change, you should expect that what they create for themselves won't resemble what currently exists and won't have the same priorities or measure of success as what currently exists. If that doesn't happen, the system is corrupted. The only way that this initiative can be made consistent with the views of the established order is to corrupt it to the point of uselessness and hypocrisy.

When you say "realistic goals", all you really mean is "goals that are realistic while still holding XXX sacrosanct". What you mean is, "freedom within the narrow bounds of what the tyranny allows".

You reveal yourself to be an enemy of freedom. Wave and say hi.

Re:Painful to Watch (2, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194889)

When you say "realistic goals", all you really mean is "goals that are realistic while still holding XXX sacrosanct". What you mean is, "freedom within the narrow bounds of what the tyranny allows".

That's being more than a bit presuming and putting words into my mouth, wouldn't you say? All I mean by realistic goals is "realistic goals." That is, things that are achievable, measurable, actionable, time-bound and adhere to current laws. If they want to repeal current laws, they should include that in their rant--like the pro-marijuana posts.

When you say "holding XXX sacrosanct," the only thing I hold sacrosanct is every individual's right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness without interfering with another individual's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. That is the primary goal of our government, it should be in place to protect that for all of us.

You reveal yourself to be an enemy of freedom. Wave and say hi.

Ah, so you have designated yourself a judge of who is and who isn't an enemy of freedom?

I apologize for having an extreme urge to shape new ideas into something tangible and workable. Good luck with your witch hunt!

Re:Painful to Watch (2, Interesting)

SailorSpork (1080153) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194425)

Well, in the "Obama Birth Certificate" defense, the sum of the votes for that general idea outweigh the sum of the votes to legalize pot.

I'm not making a judgment for or against any ideas (at least not here, too much flame potential), but I think a system like this needs to be a little bit more rubust:

  • Same ideas aggregated
    • "Wiki"-style format for adding details to ideas so that an individuals don't post similar but slightly different ideas
      • Limited # of votes so that "show your birth certificate B. Hussein" doesn't end up as #'s 5,6,7 and 8; all likely voted up by the same people

        It's not that this isn't working per se, it's that people are very passionate about their ideals, and this structure encourages abuse of a technological system that needs to be more robust.

Re:Painful to Watch (1, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194445)

Where's the "Ron Paul Should Be President" +75,496 idea?

Where's the CowboyNeal for President?

Re:Painful to Watch (1)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194521)

From looking at the top vote getters, it looks like all of those are well thought out ideas that are not simply trolls. I think the voting system is their abuse and policy system.

Re:Painful to Watch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28194539)

It's an abuse of the site if you disagree with the suggestion? You have an odd perception of what "public engagement" involves.

Islands of Sin - America needs a litte Amsterdam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28194545)

Bad things need to be carefully controlled.And the lessons of prohibition learned.
More dangerous alternatives are out there - because the lower / safer products are too high to access, unless you are rich or a celebrity. America already has Las Vegas and other gambling 'islands', and known red light areas - and unfortunately , crack houses.

So no, decriminalize, and make it available in a tightly controlled zone that is hostile to addicts
Amsterdam does this very well.Property and revenue taxes are up.

Lesser evil works.

As for Jails being full, segregate the junkies, and offer them free unlimited drugs - with one catch - a no resuscitation policy.

Re:Painful to Watch (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28194583)

I'm not surprised. This is a very corrupt adminestration. If you haven't seen it check out The Obama Time Line at www.colony14.net. Especially the 1961-1966 timeline, is very revealing. the media needs to start covering this issue in more detail. This guy is hiding something and itâ(TM)s up to the media to expose this imposter. Proving that he is lying about his eligibility will be the fastest way to get him out of office and stop the buyouts, porkulas spending, massive employment meltdown, massive 401K meltdown, massive business meltdown, nationalizing of the banks, bankrupting of the automobile companies, and the upcoming nationalizing of the heath care industry. This guy is bankrupting our country. Itâ(TM)s all there in Don Fredrickâ(TM)s Timeline.

Re:Painful to Watch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28194757)

It's called a recession, or mild depression. Shit happens. It's as a result of the past 8 years worth of government, not the past 6 months. Idiot.

Re:Painful to Watch (-1, Troll)

ground.zero.612 (1563557) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194597)

^^Obvious closet Pbo supporter. Why shouldn't he have to prove he is a natural born citizen, considering that is a requirement to hold that office?

Anyway, I'm actually scared that the marijuana legalization is near the top of the list. That is the last thing we need right now in the times of poor education, glorification of stupidity and obnoxious behavior, and total sympathy with our enemies.

"Doping" the masses... I'm fairly certain I've read books about this... none of them ended well for the individual.

Re:Painful to Watch (1)

InsertWittyNameHere (1438813) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194621)

People should be able to sign up and get mod points so that the people can moderate (like Slashdot).

Of course then we'll see a surge of +5-funny-seeking suggestions...

Re:Painful to Watch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28194673)

Painful, indeed. It looks like a bunch of lunatics on soapboxes suddenly went to their local internet cafe and started typing. Get the nets!

Re:Painful to Watch (1)

Ukab the Great (87152) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194731)

So on the frton page of the site, I counted more than ten "ideas" from one individual reading all the same (with a handful of votes to each!).

And the "completely ban the Internet for anything" demographic was horribly underrepresented, too.

yah! (-1, Troll)

ionix5891 (1228718) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194293)

free da weed!

Well it's a popular thing (5, Interesting)

Nursie (632944) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194299)

And it embodies, IMHO, a wider question about the freedom of the people to act as they wish without *very* good reason from the government and without demonstrable harm to other folks.

Shame it'll just be written off with excuses like it always is all over the world.

Re:Well it's a popular thing (3, Insightful)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194397)

I agree - I'm not saying that this voting system is representative of public opinion (often petitions/etc are very bad indicators), but I fail to see why the perfectly valid viewpoint that perhaps people shouldn't be criminalised for doing something with their own bodies is cited as an example of the system going wrong.

I'm not sure what the point of this article is. It's not even referencing an article - it's just some random guy (theodp) making a comment based on what he's seen on the site. And it's a poor comment at that. Even if one believes that some (and only some) drugs should be criminalised, I don't see why this reflects poorly on the Open Government system.

In the UK, we have local elections coming up, and the main argument the Conservative leaflet made against the Liberal Democrats was "OMG, they don't want to put people in prison for simple possession of weed" as if that was of utmost importance with the economy going down the tubes. I was like "Wow, I didn't actually know that, another reason I'll vote Lib Dem then".

Also we have an online "No 10 Petition" system which sounds similar to this - it gets criticism that the Government never listens, but I think that's a good thing, as petitions generally allow vocal minorites to push bad laws. For every petition I agree with, there's plenty I'd hate to see acted on. It used to be the case that petitions were handed to No 10 in real life, which much media fanfare, causing the Government to think it must do something (e.g., the recent criminalisation of possession of adult images the Government doesn't like resulted from one such publicised petition).

Re:Well it's a popular thing (2, Insightful)

Nursie (632944) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194427)

"For every petition I agree with, there's plenty I'd hate to see acted on."

Oh hells yes, there are some real crackpot things that get voted up on that thing. That site is a great argument against direct democracy (or mob rule at any rate).

It's an important thing (5, Insightful)

DoctorNathaniel (459436) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194623)

Marijuana decriminalization is not simply a "stoner" issue. It's actually a very important one.

The US has disproportionately crowded jails, filled disproportionately with African-Americans, and a very large fraction of which are there on drug charges. The US "War on Drugs" has led to many many convictions over marijuana and we are paying the social and monetary cost of imprisoning lots of people.

This is not a Cheech and Chong movie - these are people in jail for doing something that is widely regarded as harmless in of itself.

So, I don't think it's any surprise when you have a very vocal segment of the population calling for decriminalization... particularly in this forum! Establishment media and other outlets for vox populi are likely to steer away from this issue due to editorial concerns - no one wants to look "pro drugs", so the issue will be touched very carefully in a newspaper.

Do _I_ think it's the most important issue? No. But then my brother isn't in jail for dealing.

Re:It's an important thing (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28194685)

The US has disproportionately crowded jails, filled disproportionately with African-Americans, and a very large fraction of which are there on drug charges.

Why bother to bring that up? Racist.

The race of criminals shouldn't matter, at all.

Re:It's an important thing (1)

e4g4 (533831) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194823)

It shouldn't - and yet the patterns of drug enforcement and sentencing are such that it very much does. The system for drug control in this country is completely out of whack, and desperately needs to be corrected. I, personally, think a good first step is legalizing the least harmful intoxicant anyone in the country consumes.

Re:Well it's a popular thing (2, Insightful)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194797)

> And it embodies, IMHO, a wider question about the freedom of the people to act as they wish...

And who the Hell thinks we are Free? Who the Hell even WANTS to be Free anymore? To listen to the talking heads on TV everyone is currently just stoked about the coming universal healthcare fiasco. Sorry, you can't have the government take care of you from Womb to the Tomb and be allowed to be Free. You give away responsibility and the freedom goes with it. People are dumb enough to think the government will legalize legal dope while the government is deciding how much TRANSFAT you can consume and will soon be regulating normal fat? Hello!

Two options here, continue to give up liberty for security or demand FREEDOM and the RESPONSIBILITY that goes with it. But expecting to mix a welfare state and drug legalization is insane. And don't believe for a second it would stop with weed. The second it was legalized the same teenage morons would exchange one leaf on their t-shirts for another, the coca leaf. Then it would be the heroin poppy, etc. Without the welfare state I'd say legalize it all, as is I'm having enough trouble paying taxes as it is, I don't want to pay even more to clean up the mess drug legalization would stick the taxpayers with.

"wisdom of crowds" (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194309)

yeah don't make me laugh.

Brainstorm me this (1)

UnixUnix (1149659) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194311)

Cowboy Neal for Internet czar!

Re:Brainstorm me this (1)

Sj0 (472011) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194377)

In America, you can always find an Internet Czar. In Soviet Russia, the Internet Czar can always find YOU.

Re:Brainstorm me this (1)

MasterOfMagic (151058) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194501)

2.5 (out of 10) from the East German judge.

Seriously, if you're going to use this meme, at least please use it right. The original line is:
"In America, you can always find a party. In Soviet Russia, party finds you!" [wikipedia.org]

Therefore, the correct mutation of the above meme is:
"In America, you can always find Internet Czar. In Imperial Russia, Czar finds YOU".

Thanks for playing!

Wrong Idea Form (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194319)

Here's what you're prompted with when you author a new idea: Title/Subject, Why Is This Idea Important?, Category & Tags.

That's not going to help people articulate ideas let alone produce anything usable. Half these things read sort of like a rant. IdeaScale should implement sections like the following:
  • Title/Subject
  • Problem You Are Addressing (Be Specific)
  • Solution (Include people involved, milestones, goals and how to measure success)
  • Foreseen Risks and Costs
  • Mitigation Plan to Risks & Failure
  • Category
  • Tags

Go to corporate America and ask any CEO what he expects to see in an idea presented to him from an underling. Then you'll get an idea of what kind of data we should be seeking from people with ideas.

I mean, this site should at least try to help people from making asses of themselves and instead 90% of these posts sound like people thinking they have the floor to say whatever they want about whatever they feel like. It's not coherent, it's not helping, it's nothing but internet drivel.

Re:Wrong Idea Form (4, Insightful)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194513)

Well, a representative is not a CEO. It is not a boss, a chief that doesn't have time for your ramblings. It is the representatives' very job to articulate popular rants into concrete propositions. This form is made so that people can express easily, even ideas that are incomplete. It doesn't prevent anyone, however, to present a very well constructed proposition. I would however, remove one thing : the pseudo of the author of a proposition. This could turn too quickly into an ego competition.

Re:Wrong Idea Form (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28194681)

The website serves its purpose perfectly.

The administration is able to "reach out to the people" and "foster new communication channels". 'Only with open discussion will we bring about change'. Blah blah blah.

What really happens is that it keeps the plebs busy expressing their ideas and hopes. While "the people" are pouring their hearts into the bit bucket, the government is busy doing whatever it wants without the scrutiny or hindrance of the populace.

Did you really ever think that any national government would take advice from "the people". Especially when "the people" are anonymous trolls of any age, possibly from anywhere in the world.

This is the change that you all wanted so much! Are you still too naive to realize when you are being pandered to and when you are being ignored. How long before he actually comes out and says STFU? Oh yea, second term.

This just proves (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28194331)

stoners have too much time at their hands spamming the gov servers.

We all laugh (5, Insightful)

mdarksbane (587589) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194357)

But I think the fact that this issue keeps coming up shows that marijuana legalization isn't as much of a fringe, oddball, shouldn't-even-talk-about-it issue as some people seem to think. Polls are showing around half of the people in the US could go for completely legalization, and more than 70% are in favor of medicinal legalization. It's kind of ridiculous that despite the support for this issue it is still considered such a non-issue.

Hell, the numbers in favor of legalization are *much* larger than the numbers in favor of gun control, and they still talk about trying to push that through!

Re:We all laugh (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194371)

Interestingly there's no mention of that issue on the open government blog and the survey site seems to be down.

Re:We all laugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28194433)

Think of the children?? No? Nothing?? Ah crap, now what catch phrase are we gonna use...

Re:We all laugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28194439)

Polls are showing around half of the people in the US could go for completely legalization, and more than 70% are in favor of medicinal legalization.

Hell, the numbers in favor of legalization are *much* larger than the numbers in favor of gun control

your proof, sir?

Re:We all laugh (4, Informative)

dpilot (134227) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194441)

There are really bigger issues behind this.

The entire War on Drugs would be a farce, if only it weren't such a disaster with such bad side-effects. Not only does our drug policy not work, it has destabilized governments of many other nations, particularly in the western hemisphere south of the US, and is a root cause of a heck of a lot of deaths and human-rights violations. In addition, at least partly due to our drug policy, we have criminalized a larger percentage of our population than any first-world nation, perhaps the highest overall.

IMHO we should focus on treatment (demand reduction) and stopping crimes of financing (stealing money for the next fix) that harm uninvolved innocents, as well as any other related violent acts. Trying to restrict supply while taking a "Just Say NO!" policy on demand is not only doomed to failure, it HAS been failing for decades. The side-effect is that it raises the price of drugs, pushing a LOT of money into the drug business, and saps more money out of the "good" economy by people buying their drugs.

Re:We all laugh (3, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194449)

the reason is because the VOTING public don't want it. once the students and younger generation become old enough that they actually turn up to cast their vote, they've had enough life experience that they've figured out more drugs isn't the answer to society's problems

Re:We all laugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28194479)

Then why have so many states voted to legalize it in some form only to have the federal government slap them down?

Re:We all laugh (3, Insightful)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194593)

they've had enough life experience that they've figured out more drugs isn't the answer to society's problems

That is irrelevant to the question of legalisation.

And more likely people know that to get on in their career, they had better not espouse support for such an idea, or draw attention from law enforcement -- if you are sporting a "Legalise marijuana" bumper sticker, you'd have to be prepared to have your car, and your person, searched rather more often than otherwise, for example.

Re:We all laugh (5, Insightful)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194647)

The experience of the pharmaceutical industry is that Americans LOVE drugs, especially the old folks.

Re:We all laugh (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28194709)

It's not a matter of life experience to find out that drugs aren't the answer to society's problems, that eschews the entire issue. It's a question of morality and liberty: If you believe that the government should get its hands out of your body/bedroom/bank account/business then it is inane that the state is allowed to tell you that you aren't allowed to ingest something into your own body. If on the other hand, you're one of the people who don't believe in liberty, and believe that the state should be allowed to tell you what you are allowed to do with your body / who you can sleep with / how much money you can have, how you spend it, and can seize it forcibly / what your business can and can't do, then you would have forfeited any claim to make decisions for yourself, so it doesn't matter what you believe anymore.

Re:We all laugh (4, Interesting)

krou (1027572) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194809)

Actually, I think you completely misunderstand why many people want drugs like marijuana legalised.

It's not just so you can light a joint any time that you want without risk of being caught. There are a lot more important issues here.

It's because the current system is harmful, wastes money, and doesn't work. It's got sweet FA to do about taking the drugs themselves to solve society's problems. It's about legalising drugs in order to solve problems the Drug War and prohibition creates. It's about solving the issues of: wasting public money in a drugs war that has had no tangible effect; treating drug users as criminals and overburdening the prison population (not to mention the cost of incarceration, the cost to the economy, and the social costs as well); it's about focusing on the real issue, which is addiction and rehabilitation.

Sit down and read through this website [drugwarfacts.org] and hopefully you'll understand why the War on Drugs is bogus, and why marijuana (at the very least) should be legalised. I, myself, take the view that the Dutch model is the way to go (so I go further than just legalisation of marijuana).

Incidentally, in my opinion it's not that the voting public don't want it, it's that it's not an issue on the agenda in the media itself, which shapes the opinions of the voting public (never mind that the US government and certain banks have and continue to make extremely large profits as a result of drugs). The "War on Drugs" has been and is extremely lucrative for big business, and for the government, in terms of profits and control, and that's one of the underlying reasons why the myths of the dangers of legalising drugs like marijuana continue to dominate discourse.

Re:We all laugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28194461)

Why not? If the Gov can smoke through our money, we should be allowed to smoke through our problems they cause.

Re:We all laugh (4, Insightful)

Glock27 (446276) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194495)

Exactly. I'd say this exercise DID show the "wisdom of the crowds" to a large extent. Marijuana use may not be beneficial, but it's certainly no worse a drag on society than alcohol. Regardless, marijuana enforcement has been a much worse drag on society, resulting in a general loss of civil liberties, an increase in government confiscation, and millions of citizens unnecessarily incarcerated, many with felonies. Oh, and the illegal marijuana trade is largely responsible for destabilizing Mexico almost to the point of civil war.

-

It's clearly time to rethink marijuana policy. This country has too many serious problems that require attention.

Re:We all laugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28194641)

Online polls and these forums are not representative of the population, I probably don't need to remind you of the fervor Ron Paul generated during the last election. All of the online social aggregators had him picked as the best choice for america, and we all know where that got him.

The truth is that what goes on online, is not in sync with the rest of the world.

Gov't logic reguarding the risk of legalization... (4, Insightful)

jsnipy (913480) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194403)

"Think of all the DA's, DEA employees, prison workers that would be out of a job"

Re:Gov't logic reguarding the risk of legalization (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28194499)

Yes, the War on Drugs is as massive a failure as the War on Poverty. When the gov't declares war against an idea, it just means that they're going to funnel a bunch of money to their lackeys who work in that field, without any accountability and without any goals or measurable results... Ever. But hey, big gov't types love to throw money at causes because it makes them feel like they're doing something, without actually having to do something. Every time I hear someone say that there should be a gov't program for this cause or for that cause, I just want to slap them on their bitch mouth.

Re:Gov't logic reguarding the risk of legalization (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28194749)

They'll say that, but they'll really be taking RIAA campaign contributions on the side and retasking those DA's DEA, employees, etc. to deal with all those evil music pirates out there.

The marijuana crowd is retarded (2, Interesting)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194463)

Check this out [craigslist.org]

Cannabis intended for recreational consumption comes in several different grades ranging in price from $10 a pound for compressed bricks of seedy Mexican hemp flowers purchased near the source up to $3,500 a pound for manicured colas grown indoors by farmers who produce small crops. That same $3,500 pound can be sold to consumers for up to $25 a gram, meaning that pound's street value if sold by the gram is in the neighborhood of $11,000.

But, the case in point is the series of raids this summer, which authorities claimed netted 138 pounds of cannabis from 340,000 plants. Since they raided in August, the plants they took were immature [...] and at least half would have been male plants that produce nothing. Had those plants, which represent less than 10 percent of the county's entire crop, survived to maturity they would have yielded somewhere in the neighborhood of three-quarters to one pound per plant or about 150,000 total pounds of low- to mid-grade cannabis which would have been valued at something like $500 to $1,000 a pound [...] for an estimated net sale price of conservatively $75,000,000. Factor in the percentage of undetected crops and we see the county's illicit outdoor cannabis crop can conservatively be valued at $750 million in initial sales. [...] it would not be unreasonable to place a value of Tulare County's current cannabis industry at $1 billion, all of it untaxed.

Let me isolate that statement for effect: Tulare County is currently home to a $1,000,000,000 unregulated, untaxed industry that our elected officials are actively and ineffectually attempting to eradicate at the taxpayers' expense, thus depriving the county and state of at least $80,000,000 in annual sales-tax revenues while they charge us for the privilege.

Think about that when you read we cannot afford to fund rural health clinics or that our schools are in need of repair or that we can't afford rural fire stations or if you live along or must drive ill-maintained county roads or if you're one of the thousands of unemployed or are affected by that unemployment or if you or one of your family members is considered an outlaw because they use cannabis or if you think it's wrong to destroy Yokohl Valley in the hopes of generating a tenth the revenue cannabis could provide the moment it is legalized.

You know, if I can just grow the shit, I'm not paying $3500 for it. Let's say cigarettes (which are legal, and a huge industry) cost $25 a gram for tobacco. A cigarette contains about 0.8 grams of tobacco (a bit less); a pack contains about 20 grams. So that's like $500/pack. Now, I don't smoke; but if a trip to the gas station for a pack of cigs cost me $20 to fill my tank and $500 for a pack of Malboros? I'd grow my own tobacco.

The whole argument for marijuana tax hinges on artificial scarcity. Marijuana is a weed, literally. It grows anywhere, it's the easiest shit to grow, and everyone already knows how to grow it. Seeds are easy to find. If you legalize it everybody will grow it; growing plants are harder to hide than a pocket-sized bag full of mulch, but nobody cares if the plant's now legal!

Re:The marijuana crowd is retarded (5, Insightful)

Spasemunki (63473) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194609)

Right, just like no one would ever but pre-made hamburgers at a markup if beef and bread were readily available in grocery stores...

Re:The marijuana crowd is retarded (1)

rotide (1015173) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194857)

Even more to the point. Tomatoes, Peas, carrots, etc, etc, etc.

Anything easily growable.

Why would anyone buy those items at a mark-up when you can have a garden full of it in your backyard?

Merely because it is easier to go to the store to get a quality item than it is to maintain and labor over a harvest of your own. Never underestimate the buying power of the lazy.

Re:The marijuana crowd is retarded (5, Insightful)

ikefox (1566973) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194825)

And you're using TOBACCO as an example? You do realize tobacco is a plant that grows anywhere, right? But how many people are growing it themselves to make their own cigarettes? The price of cannabis is directly linked to its illegality. After 10 years of it being legal, an quarter ounce of marijuana will cost as much as a six pack of beer.

Democracy isn't perfect. (0, Troll)

tygerstripes (832644) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194473)

All sorts of people wiser and more eloquent than I can help to explain why such decisions should not be left open to public vote. A good recent example is Clive James' commentary on democracy [bbc.co.uk] which just finished it's run over on the Beeb.

It comes down to the fact that most people don't really know what's best for society, which is why we grant stints of power to those who (we hope) do. When dealing with complex issues such as law-making and governance, we need to locate and consult suitably educated experts to make these decisions.

Related, in a way (5, Informative)

Looce (1062620) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194475)

I used to think that all drugs were bad, and all that stuff. But after reading the second linked thread, the Schedule I thread [ideascale.com] , specifically the bits about

* marijuana not killing people as much as tobacco and alcohol;
* pure THC being ranked as a Schedule III drug and marijuana as a Schedule I drug (see comment by user pbrigando13);
* Oxycontin et al., more damaging and causing more of a dependency than marijuana (which creates none), not being on the Controlled Substances List altogether;
* (taking this one with a grain of salt) the advantages of marijuana, rarer use of violence and driving accidents from users than alcoholics, etc. (see comment by user onegod1world)

, I'm reconsidering that stance.

Also, I'd like to point out that #1 is End Imperial Presidency [ideascale.com] -- with 755 votes against #2's 351 --, heavily criticizing Bush's presidency and calling out what happened in Iraq as war crimes, as they should be called. That is a serious one, and I for one am glad that it got voted up top.

Erratum (2, Informative)

Looce (1062620) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194585)

#2 has 531 votes, not 351. Typos rule.

Hey, wait a minute... (1)

thedonger (1317951) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194489)

[from TFS]

In May, the White House launched what it called an 'unprecedented online process for public engagement in policymaking.'

Don't we already have this? It's called voting. The congress works for us, and it is our job to use our vote and our voice with our local representatives to effect policy change. This idea sounds more like the equivalent of inviting the entire country to a 'town hall' meeting.

I get the feeling that people think our government is broken. It is no more broken than your car is if you drive to work backwards. Either you are using it wrong, or you are too stupid to use it correctly. Either way, don't blame the car; get a new driver.

Re:Hey, wait a minute... (1)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194639)

I get the feeling that people think our government is broken. It is no more broken than your car is if you drive to work backwards. Either you are using it wrong, or you are too stupid to use it correctly. Either way, don't blame the car; get a new driver.

Blaming the voters for government problems might have been reasonable two centuries ago, but it's pretty widely recognized in political science that the way American democracy is set up leads necessarily to two-party stagnation and deadlock. While parliamentary systems have their flaws, I'd say the US is rather broken in comparison.

Re:Hey, wait a minute... (1)

ynohoo (234463) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194645)

if all the candidates are already bought and paid for by corporate interests, then the election is a sham, just like in single party states. The single party in US elections is the Corporate Party, which seeks to hide its own existence.

Re:Hey, wait a minute... (1)

locallyunscene (1000523) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194765)

Except what if you only get a choice between two drivers each time? I see nothing wrong with having a forum to voice concerns that is open directly to the public.

deja vu (1)

gregthebunny (1502041) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194491)

For those who remember Obama's earlier Online Town Hall, it's deja vu all over again.

So this is the second time we're experiencing deja vu? Am I the only one who fails to RTFA because they can't get past the horrible grammar in the synopsis?

Re:deja vu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28194573)

Yes, it's the grammar which makes everyone not RTFA. It's always the grammar.

Re:deja vu (1)

knewter (62953) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194781)

You've seriously never heard that phrase? Geezus.

Re:deja vu (1)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194793)

So this is the second time we're experiencing deja vu?

"This is like deja vu all over again." -- Yogi Berra

It's become an idiom in American English [google.com] .

HTH. HAND.

Re:deja vu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28194843)

"Deja vu all over again" was once said by Yogi Berra. It became a sort of cultural anecdote in America. As used here it's not an accident due to bad grammatical skills.

Democracy is the problem (5, Interesting)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194559)

The problem being illustrated is with the concept of 'democracy', an idea our Founding Fathers was aware of and not only discarded it was a notion they took great measures to prevent. Instead we were given a Republic, if we could keep it. Epic Fail.

Democracy means if you have a group of a hundred people, fifty one can vote to piss in the Corn Flakes of the other forty nine and if everyone believes in Democracy there can't be any objections if the votes were counted properly. Because that is what Democracy IS, the People can have anything they vote for. We had a Republic with a written Constituition that laid down hard limits that while changable, were intentionally difficult. This created the Rule of Laws instead of the Rule of Men. We had divided and limited government. But we threw that away and now have the Rule of Men and our civilization is declining.

Re:Democracy is the problem (1)

nadamsieee (708934) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194721)

AMEN!

Re:Democracy is the problem (0, Troll)

goldaryn (834427) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194863)

The problem being illustrated is with the concept of 'democracy', an idea our Founding Fathers was aware of and not only discarded it was a notion they took great measures to prevent [...] This created the Rule of Laws instead of the Rule of Men. We had divided and limited government. But we threw that away and now have the Rule of Men and our civilization is declining.

You are wrong. A bunch of dead white men from several hundred years ago don't know what's best for 2009.

Ubuntu brainstorm gets more votes than these (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28194575)

not that I disagree with some of them.... maaaaaayn....

Defies? (1)

SlashDread (38969) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194601)

Why exactly is it not "wisdom of the crowd" to legalize MJ if SO MANY people vote for it? Id reason it indeed would gain massive tax income, and lower prison population.
DISCLAIMER: Im Dutch.

Think about it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28194603)

These are useful ideas, and they should be seriously considered. Read The Emperor Where's No Clothes by Jack Herer and learn why and how cannabis was made illegal in the first place. It's not any more harmful than beer or cigarettes, and it could be extremely helpful if used in the right ways. Aside from medicinal use it can be used to make paper, food, FUEL, and more. It would be an a huge cash crop if it was legalized, and would create an entire new industry. Lots of jobs, lots of tax revenue. Everyone is smoking the shit anyway. Legalize it and the money stays here instead of going to thugs in Mexico. The war drugs does more damage than the drugs themselves. Do the research. Think about it.

Think again (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28194683)

It is ridiculous to assume that because the crowd opinion does not match your own that the crowd is wrong. Perhaps legalization is the correct course of action, and you are blinded by your own puny intellect.

Legalization would save tens of billions of dollars in law enforcement and prison system fees. This money could easily be redirected to proping up companies that make cars that no one wants, making the world a better place.

another few (100) billions 'vaporize'? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28194779)

JPMorgan to break up unit's hedge fund business

        * On Wednesday June 3, 2009, 8:07 am EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) - JPMorgan Chase & Co (NYSE:JPM - News) is disbanding its stand-alone Principal Investment Management Group's hedge-fund business and private-equity division and shifting staff from this unit to sit within existing businesses, according to a person familiar with the reorganization.

The main goal is to better align principal investing with JPMorgan's traditional investment banking business lines, the person said.

JPMorgan's commodities group, for example, already has a principal investment management team attached to it -- and more businesses will be set up this way after the reorganization.

The bank's Asia-based private equity team will be incorporated into its global emerging markets and credit trading unit, the person said.

JPMorgan declined comment.

(Reporting by Elinor Comlay in New York, with additional reporting by Ajay Kamalakaran in Bangalore; editing by Simon Jessop and Gerald E. McCormick)

Copyright © 2008 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republican sponsorship of this debacle is not acknowledged. redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Copyright Policy - Send Feedback

The public just need a veto on legislation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28194789)

There's no need for all this phony 'consultation'. It leads nowhere in any case. The legislators simply legislate the way they want to regardless and use the feedback, if at all, to help them figure out how to sell their self serving new laws.

A practical form of referendum on legislation, effectively providing the population with a veto on legislation would work.

That way, politicians would not waste time on legislation unless they believed that the public would go with it. More importantly, the politicians would have to keep the public informed (in a way that they don't bother to currently) and explain why legislation is needed.

Frightened that the mob use their communal ignorance to stop all progress? Give them some credit. You are part of that mob too.

The DEA should have got the memo by now (4, Insightful)

petrus4 (213815) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194795)

The War on Drugs isn't one that they can hope to win, primarily because the enemy are their own constituents.

I don't consider marijuana a desirable substance myself (and stoners who insist on self-justification beyond all rationality, go away. Yes, I have smoked, and inhaled, despite your insistence that it is impossible for anyone who has smoked to have a negative opinion on the substance) but I also know very well that criminalisation does not work, and will never work.

As a (admittedly informally, and generally fairly secretively) practicing Shakta Hindu, I could also if I wanted, claim historical precedent for my own use of marijuana as a religious sacrament. (Although AFAIK, in India at least, marijuana is more commonly used in association with Shiva, but it has been consumed as part of the worship of Kali)

Although I hold nothing against other adherents of various religions who do so, I have made the decision not to do that, as my own experience has led me to believe that marijuana is not b primarily beneficial substance, at least in the case of my own specific physiology.

I acknowledge, however, that it is not up to me to make that decision for anyone else other than myself. I further acknowledge that the plant does have certain extremely legitimate medical uses; I have advocated at least trying it with a few people I know at times, when they have been in extreme pain.

There is a certain percentage of the population (whether they are a minority or not, I do not know specifically, and make no claim about) who whether for good or ill, are mortally determined to smoke marijuana. Given their level of adamancy on this especially, it is not the place of government to make the decision for these individuals as to whether they should be allowed to smoke or not, especially considering that such a decision is usually made against these individuals' implicit, if not explicit, consent.

It has long been my opinion that the American government is, and always has been, at its' heart, a fundamentally tyrannical and insidious institution, which will, at any opportunity afforded to it, enthusiastically act as the mortal enemy of its' own constituents. The long term war that the Drug Enforcement Administration has been waging against said constituents, is in itself compelling proof of this assertion.

The DEA, in its' own defense, would likely try to claim that many of the substances which it crusades against the use of are gravely harmful; sometimes lethally so. In the cases of heroine, cocaine, and methamphetamines in particular, I would not argue against such an assertion. However, whether the drugs themselves are lethal is not the point.

The point is that it should not rightfully be the role of government to act as a parental figure for its' constituents. As adults, said constituents are supposed to be able to serve that role for themselves.

I also believe that criminalisation, rather than reducing the use of these substances, in face greatly contributes to their appeal, as it is well known that both teenagers and retrograde adults take particular delight in doing certain things, primarily when they know that said things are illegal or taboo. If many of these drugs, marijuana included, we made legal, use of them would cease to appear to be an act of rebellion, and would instead become socially mundane.

A third point is that many of the entheogens have not been allowed virtually any academic study, because of a hysterical, knee-jerk governmental approach to criminalisation. Some early work was done with LSD, yes; but very little such work has been done with other substances such as MDMA. If this research was permitted to be conducted, more could likely be learned about the drugs' drawbacks, potentially beneficial uses, and guidelines could possibly even be developed for the safe and guided use of the substances by those who still wished to consume them.

Here in the UK we call them Quango's (1)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194805)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quango [wikipedia.org] generally they are quite hard to get on unless you are the wife of an MP or Captain of Industry or hubbies 1st name is either Sir or Lord. I seem to recall you get quite well paid for being on one too something like £500 a day + expenses (Obviously Citation needed but can't find one).

I really think that Tommy Lee Jones (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28194817)

said it best in Men in Black:

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."

So let me get this straight.. (1)

Strange Ranger (454494) | more than 5 years ago | (#28194847)

In Digg We Trust?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?