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!

US Open Government Initiative Enters Phase Three

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the madisonian-moment dept.

Government 572

circletimessquare writes "The Obama administration opened a discussion forum in January of this year which has become an electronic suggestion box. It is now entering stage three, following brainstorm and discussion phases: the draft phase, in which the top subject matter is codified into suggestions for the government. 'Ultimately, the visitors advanced more than 3,900 ideas, which in turn spawned 11,000 comments that received 210,000 thumb votes. The result? Three of the top 10 most popular ideas called for legalizing marijuana, and two featured conspiracy theories about Mr. Obama's true place of birth.'"

cancel ×

572 comments

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

Lol Democracy (1, Flamebait)

AnonGCB (1398517) | more than 5 years ago | (#28433813)

I'm fairly certain they're still ignoring the issue that the most people were interested in changing, legalization of marijuana.

Re:Lol Democracy (3, Funny)

Starlon (1492461) | more than 5 years ago | (#28433827)

Don't knock democracy. It's the most efficient way out from under a tyrannical government.

Re:Lol Democracy (2, Funny)

darjen (879890) | more than 5 years ago | (#28433881)

...and right back in to another one.

Re:Lol Democracy (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28433989)

Democracy is a POS form of government. Has been at least as far back as the Greek empire. And there is no promise of a democratic form of government anywhere in the foundational documents of the United States of America, every state is guaranteed a republican form of government, just like the national government was intended to be. Democracy is the enemy of liberty just as surely as tyranny is.

Re:Lol Democracy (4, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434159)

I'm fairly certain they're still ignoring the issue that the most people who participated in this poll and who are in all likelyhood are not representative of the voting publicwere interested in changing, legalization of marijuana.

Fixed that for you.

An online poll conducted like this is going to be ridiculously skewed. Even if no one cheated, voting hundreds of times for their own "legalize pot" suggestions, the demographic here is going to be much MUCH younger than the average voting population. No age restrictions. And half the people who posted on there probably sent a link to all their friends and posted it on like-minded forums. Those people who are really REALLY opposed to legalization are also less likely to participate in this. Likewise, a lot of those people most in favor of legalization don't vote or can't vote yet.

I think it's more likely this was actually a way of getting younger voters interested in government.

Re:Lol Democracy (1)

SpryGuy (206254) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434261)

Actually, a majority of the population supports decriminalization of marijuana.

And it's not only popular, it's a really good idea in virtually every imaginable way.

It's such a smart thing to do, in fact, that there's no way it'll ever get done.

Re:Lol Democracy (1, Interesting)

hedwards (940851) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434427)

Every way? Now lets not exaggerate. Have you any idea how much time and energy has gone into getting people to give up Tobacco now that they're accustomed to it? Or to get people to drink responsibly?

Sure it may turn out to be more or less harmless, but this is the same sort of poorly formed logic that leads people to conclude that we ought to legalized the possession of all forms of firearms. It's easier to change our mind to allow it if it proves to be safe than it is to get people to give it up should it prove to be dangerous. Remember it's the burden of proof of those that want legalization not those that view it as being harmful.

Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28434421)

During the election, about 95% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin. See the exit-polling data [cnn.com] by CNN.

Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc. These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks). Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian. So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern. Only about 65% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama. In other words, a maximum of 65% support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable.

If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65% of them would have supported Obama. At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.

At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals. That claim is an outright lie. Look at the exit-polling data [cnn.com] for the Democratic primaries. Consider the case of North Carolina. Again, about 95% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton. Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical. Yet, 95% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton. Why? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.

Here is the bottom line. Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America. He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.

African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100% acceptable. Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior. Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color. Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American. You need not defend your actions in any way. Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by the standards of today's moral values.

Legalize it? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28433833)

Not sure if that's a brilliant idea or not, but surely removing it from schedule 1 status is the right thing to do.

That Nixon-era policy makes classifies it as having "no medicinal value" and is considered "highly addictive". Both are jokes.

The status above cocaine gives law enforcement more incentive to go after potheads than Colombian smugglers. Ridiculous.

Re:Legalize it? (5, Interesting)

Starlon (1492461) | more than 5 years ago | (#28433855)

The Government's leading expert on marijuana says legalize it. He claims it causes less damage to society and health than both tobacco and alcohol. Look him up. His name's Dr. Donald Tashkin.

Re:Legalize it? (1, Informative)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 5 years ago | (#28433921)

The Government's leading expert on marijuana says legalize it.

His name's Dr. Donald Tashkin.

I could not find anything to support your claim of Mr. Tashkin being a "government expert". Can you provide a citation for that claim?

Re:Legalize it? (5, Informative)

Starlon (1492461) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434069)

He's a researcher at UCLA and has ran a government study over the course of 30+ years to conclude that marijuana does not cause cancer, and even possesses anti-cancer qualities. Cells die before they have a chance to mutate. The closest thing you'll get to his research is an interview with him on Youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJmQ16cGBHU&feature=player_embedded [youtube.com] And you can see Dr. Tashkin's profile at the UCLA website. http://www.lung.med.ucla.edu/faculty/tashkin.htm [ucla.edu] He's America's leading expert into smoked marijuana, and he was employed to conduct this research by the US Government quite some years ago.

Re:Legalize it? (4, Informative)

UncleTogie (1004853) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434071)

I could not find anything to support your claim of Mr. Tashkin being a "government expert". Can you provide a citation for that claim?

Sure, if you include the NIH! [nih.gov] His name came up in multiple studies on pot when I entered his name in the search bar there. He's also referenced here [slate.com] in paragraph 8.

Re:Legalize it? (-1, Offtopic)

carrol123 (1582975) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434465)

I am very much impressed with the above thought and love to be the part of it. Carrol spncr Merchant Account Canada [squidoo.com]

Re:Legalize it? (3, Interesting)

jank1887 (815982) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434371)

Just for kicks:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=author%3AD-P-Tashkin [google.com]

And cherry picking one result just to fan some flames:

Pulmonary hazards of smoking marijuana as compared with tobacco
TC Wu, DP Tashkin, B Djahed, and JE Rose - N Engl J Med. 1988 Feb 11;318(6):347-51

"We conclude that smoking marijuana, regardless of tetrahydrocannabinol content, results in a substantially greater respiratory burden of carbon monoxide and tar than smoking a similar quantity of tobacco"

Yes, there's more to it than that. And yes there are 612 items listed under that google search. And no, I didn't read through them for a counterpoint. Feel free. But I have no problem believing him to be a gov't funded expert. (note that doesn't make him a government expert.)

Re:Legalize it? (5, Informative)

shaitand (626655) | more than 5 years ago | (#28433953)

Marijuana is a fairly safe herbal supplement with thousands of years of demonstrated safe use. By even the most exaggerated accounts it is less addictive than most cough syrups. The known side effects are less severe and occur with less frequency than over the counter medications like say Aspirin and many other herbal supplements.

According to the FDA's own rules an herbal remedy with an established long term history of safe use should be unregulated right alongside all the other herbal supplements from the scam diet pills to those supported by clinical evidence like Ginko Biloba.

There is no legitimate reason to make marijuana a black market product but there are plenty of illegitimate reasons.

Re:Legalize it? (2, Funny)

joemck (809949) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434433)

>Effective and potent diy marijuana pill kit: http://www.cannapill.com/ [cannapill.com]

That's a LOVELY wiki you have there...

Re:Legalize it? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434447)

Over all you're likely correct, but keep in mind that until there's a good understanding of how it actually works in the body and what the effects of various strengths of plant have, it's premature to talk about that sort of step. That's not to say that a reasonable balanced couldn't be struck, but more to say that our method of refusing to regulate herbal supplements is probably not a good idea either.

Re:Legalize it? (5, Insightful)

Will.Woodhull (1038600) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434271)

Legalize it, then it can be taxed and regulated. We should strongly consider doing the same thing with other drugs, too. If drugs were legally available, there would be no profit in the illicit drug trade, we would see a reduction in crime at all levels, and the medical costs associated with overdoses and adulterated drugs would also decrease. Legalizing marajuana would be an excellent test case.

Also, if marajuana was legalized, then hemp would be legalized, and the USA would again have a valuable cash crop to grow on marginal lands. It is stupid that hemp is an illegal crop... the only reason for it being illegal is that it seemed easier to pass a law against hemp than to train law enforcement personnel in the simple botany needed to make the distinction. I, for one, think that our cops are smart enough to learn how to do a simple field test.

Of course, legalizing any of the highly profitable black market drugs would mean bucking the lobbying efforts of one of the USA's major industries, and one of the very few that enjoys freedom from paying any taxes on its profits. So I don't expect this to happen soon or without great effort.

Behold, the power of Net (3, Insightful)

Tom90deg (1190691) | more than 5 years ago | (#28433857)

Ahh, once again, the power of the internet proves that the majority of people are pretty stupid. Of course, we already knew that because of Myspace. Yay glitter!

Re:Behold, the power of Net (3, Insightful)

twostix (1277166) | more than 5 years ago | (#28433957)

Let me guess...the "majority of people" doesn't include you does it?

Funny that.

Re:Behold, the power of Net (2, Funny)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434131)

Nor you, apparently. Nor me.

Re:Behold, the power of Net (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28434595)

I'm fairly certain by definition the majority of people are not me. Unless I missed something big.

Re:Behold, the power of Net (3, Insightful)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434291)

Well, some people *are* better than others.

Let me guess. You are not one of those that scores high in anything?

Funny that.

Re:Behold, the power of Net (3, Funny)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434331)

Does golf count? I always get the high score.

Re:Behold, the power of Net (1)

twostix (1277166) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434547)

Yes and it always depends on the person defining the parameters of "better" as to what "better" is. They always tend to make sure they're in the group that's "better".

Apparently you define being "better" as "scoring high" in things that makes you a better person then someone who doesn't. Of course I assume you'll have a a self styled list of things that do and don't count. I also didn't actually think your parameters would be quite so pathetic as that...

Yes some people are better than others but then here we are again...You assume your one of those people don't you?

Here's a hint for you *everyone here thinks that* but it can't be true for everyone can it?

I'd say a pretty huge portion of people would say your arrogance and assumption that you're "better" than nearly everyone else makes you nothing but an arse.

But then we're all beneath you so it doesn't matter does it?

A real example of average american mentality. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28433871)

Seriously, from all the important topics available for discussion, they care with marijuana legalization and President's birth place?

I'm sure most people don't know that marijuana is the most common cause of acute psychosis in adolescents.

Re:A real example of average american mentality. (5, Informative)

Starlon (1492461) | more than 5 years ago | (#28433961)

That's a lie. The only connection marijuana has with psychosis is that it irritates schizophrenic symptons, but so does alcohol. The psychiatric community is deathly afraid of marijuana, and make all sorts of claims as to its dangers, without a hint of hard, real research. If a patient smokes marijuana, they claim every single problem the patient is facing stems from the fact he or she smokes marijuana. From psychosis to depression -- it's all caused by marijuana. They claim marijuana's a depressant. The government claims it's a hallucinogen. Science claims it's medicine -- anti-nausea, pro-appetite, anti-depressant qualities. Don't believe me? Believe some real research. "The endocannabinoid system has been involved in the control of several neurophysiological and behavioural responses. Indeed, recent studies have suggested that the cannabinoid system could represent an important substrate for the control of emotional behaviour, and further research would probably help to identify new promising therapeutic targets. This paper reviews the results obtained in different animal models used to investigate emotional states after the manipulation of the endocannabinoid system. Cannabinoid compounds can induce anxiogenic- and anxiolytic-like responses in rodents depending on the experimental conditions. Studies using knockout mice lacking the CB1 cannabinoid receptors have shown the participation of this receptor in several behavioural responses including anxiety- and depressive-like states. Furthermore, the endocannabinoid system regulates the hypothalamic-pituitary adrenal axis, which is involved in providing an appropriate response to stressful situations. Recent studies have also demonstrated that the endocannabinoids can function as retrograde messengers, modulating the release of different neurotransmitter, including opioids, GABA and cholecystokinin that have been classically involved in the control of anxiety-like responses. All this recent information has further clarified the role played by the endogenous cannabinoid system in the control of emotional behaviour and provides data to support a new possible therapeutic use of cannabinoid compounds." Valverde, O. "Participation of the cannabinoid system in the regulation of emotional-like behaviour." 26 Nov. 2005. National Center for Biotechnology Information. 5 Jan. 2009. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed...kpos=4&log$=relatedreviews&logdbfrom=pubmed [nih.gov]

Re:A real example of average american mentality. (5, Funny)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434145)

Does it cause the user to submit long rambling posts which include no white space?

Re:A real example of average american mentality. (1)

Starlon (1492461) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434177)

Blame Slashdot. I had formatted the message fine. I'm still new here though, so it's likely I just don't know how to use it.

Re:A real example of average american mentality. (1)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434273)

Ah, welcome. I meant no harm. I actually found your post interesting, albeit hard to read. Part of it, I'm sure, is that I have a new (13 weeks old today) child and I'm fairly sleep deprived.

So please don't let my humor-cum-snarkiness turn you away.

I'm sure there's a better way to do this, but I personally split each paragraph with '<br/><br/>'.

Re:A real example of average american mentality. (2, Informative)

compro01 (777531) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434265)

No, the leading cause of that is forgetting to set the formatting mode to "plain old text" rather than "HTML formatted".

Re:A real example of average american mentality. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28434167)

The only connection marijuana has with psychosis is that it irritates schizophrenic symptons

And isn't enough? There is people that would never developed schizophrenic symptoms if they didn't smoke marijuana regularly.
So clearly I have a point.

Also, it's easy enough to get a study for . The science community (needs | is forced) to regularly publish their work, so it is quite understandable that they "make things" up or make the most stupid associations just to get something published.

Re:A real example of average american mentality. (1)

Sparr0 (451780) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434425)

Since alcohol has the same effect, and it is legal, then no, that isn't enough.

Re:A real example of average american mentality. (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 5 years ago | (#28433975)

"I'm sure most people don't know that marijuana is the most common cause of acute psychosis in adolescents."

Probably because it isn't true. Correlation doesn't equal causation.

Re:A real example of average american mentality. (1)

muridae (966931) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434279)

But if you are already experiencing the symptoms leading up to acute psychosis, you might be more likely to try what ever drug you can get to alleviate those symptoms.

Not really at all. (2, Funny)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434267)

Seriously, from all the important topics available for discussion, they care with marijuana legalization and President's birth place?

Of all the important topics available for discussion, yes, the internet users who happened to hear about this and cared enough did choose those. The only people who still care about Obama's place of birth congregate online. This is not a good example of american mentality, unless you define american mentality as what you run into in the dark corners of the net.

I have a few guesses at some of the other items that were high on the list

-What's at area 51 really?

-Who shot JFK really?

-Did we actually land on the moon?

None of which are concerns for most americans.

 

I'm sure most people don't know that marijuana is the most common cause of acute psychosis in adolescents.

I'm sure I don't care, and I'm also sure that even though I have no desire to see it legalized, that's a terrible reason to keep it illegal for everyone who is not an adolescent.

Re:A real example of average american mentality. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28434559)

      There is some real evidence there's a correlation, but not only does correlation not necessarily imply causation, but here, there are some stronger alternate theories. One of them is that persons with schizophrenia tend to try various forms of self medication, especially if they are not yet diagnosed and treated. There's a lot of evidence from initially unrelated studies on different drugs that a huge fraction of people who report starting drinking at very early ages (i.e. 12), using opiates before age 15 or so, or even ones that started smoking tobacco at such early ages and became hooked on nicotine quickly, all have a very high portion of chronic schizophrenics among them, relative to the general public. The correlation is highest for some of the strong legal tranquilizers, and stronger for the opiates than for marijuana. Depending on the era, Alcohol has somewhat different indexes of use, and these may correlate with how common underage drinking was in general.
      It's at least possible pot has a primary causal effect rather than being a later stage in a causal chain. It's more probable it could be called primary for a minority sub-group of users and a response to other more primary factors for the majority of users who end up showing psychotic symptoms. It would be nice if we could neatly assign the relationships of cause and effect here, but there are key pieces missing.
      Remember, the word acute in a medical diagnosis relates to whether the condition lasts long enough to count as chronic, but sometimes it gets used to mean extensive or severe by non-medical people reporting, so this (among other factors) smears the data.

        I do agree that this isn't really the topic that should be highest for such a program. I think there's another significance to it though. The marijuana questions probably came from a lot of independent enquirers and some small, not very well organized groups, i.e. there may have been an article in High Times or two urging people to ask about it, but probably no more than one or two persons in ten got the idea from such an organized source. The Obama birth certificate questions originated in a well organized and rather monolithic political movement, and probably eight out of ten of those enquirers first got their ideas from a few specific, well paid sources. Given that, I'm glad the birthers didn't manage to come in first - at least they put a whole lot of effort out and still only made second.

Really?? (2, Interesting)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 5 years ago | (#28433889)

Hmm. Our economy is a disaster. We have two wars going on with no real plan to get out of either. We have a health care problem in this country that nobody has proposed a meaningful solution to. The national debt is increased every year with no end in sight. We have multiple states on the verge of financial ruin. Our national infrastructure is falling apart in many ways and places. Our education system is falling behind further every year.

And several critical countries around the world are increasingly unstable; including one that is developing nuclear weapons and ICBMs that could reach our country.

And for some reason marijuana is an important issue? Are you kidding me? I don't see how it could possibly be more relevant than any of the issues I already listed. If we could solve all of them, then I would be comfortable with our national government looking into this "marijuana issue" (whatever the hell the issue is). But until then I don't see why it merits the time of our government.

Re:Really?? (4, Insightful)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 5 years ago | (#28433919)

"...But until then I don't see why it merits the time of our government."

I think that's part of the point. All this other crap going on and we're still arresting people for smoking pot!?!

Re:Really?? (4, Insightful)

PottedMeat (1158195) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434079)

Arresting pot smokers is an incredibly lucrative business! That's why it's still banned.

Re:Really?? (4, Insightful)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434163)

Of course, so would be taxing pot smokers.

Re:Really?? (5, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#28433967)

And for some reason marijuana is an important issue? Are you kidding me? I don't see how it could possibly be more relevant than any of the issues I already listed. If we could solve all of them, then I would be comfortable with our national government looking into this "marijuana issue" (whatever the hell the issue is). But until then I don't see why it merits the time of our government.

Lets see... You legalize marijuana and you can cut down on the number of arrests made, cut down on the number of cops, when you legalize it you would also allow for new industries to thrive, tax dollars to collect, Assuming even only a moderate increase of marijuana consumption as a part of it being legalized, you open up an entire new industry, more jobs, less spending for the government, more freedom and more revenue.

There is no way you can argue for marijuana to not be legalized by a purely financial standpoint. Plus, legalizing it will cut costs, and spend less time looking at the issue rather than the more time you are foolishly suggesting.

Re:Really?? (-1, Troll)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434119)

[...]when you legalize it you would also allow for new industries to thrive[...]

You're really stretching the plural on that one. I was unaware that making bongs was considered a potential new growth industry.

Re:Really?? (2, Informative)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434207)

Hemp happens to be really useful though. Good for most kinds of clothing (they can make surprisingly soft clothes out of hemp), ropes, belts. My shoes are hemp and rubber. All of that stuff would be cheaper if we could grow it here. Add to that medical uses for THC and the huge amounts of money we waste arresting people who are just hurting themselves and it starts to get really obvious that legalizing marijuana is actually worth pursuing.

Re:Really?? (1)

Starlon (1492461) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434223)

Hey now, the artful glass pipes are popular. You can't deny there's a market.

Re:Really?? (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434229)

The same could be said for the tobacco industry, but you not only have the growing of the marijuana but also the processing, packaging, shipping, etc. of it along with the accessories (pipes, bongs, etc).

Re:Really?? (5, Informative)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434327)

when you legalize it you would also allow for new industries to thrive

You're really stretching the plural on that one. I was unaware that making bongs was considered a potential new growth industry.

Paper. Clothes. Construction materials. Food. Medicines. Fuel. There's a lot that you can do with hemp. End your ignorance. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Really?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28434231)

And for some reason marijuana is an important issue? Are you kidding me? I don't see how it could possibly be more relevant than any of the issues I already listed. If we could solve all of them, then I would be comfortable with our national government looking into this "marijuana issue" (whatever the hell the issue is). But until then I don't see why it merits the time of our government.

Lets see... You legalize marijuana and you can cut down on the number of arrests made, cut down on the number of cops, when you legalize it you would also allow for new industries to thrive, tax dollars to collect, Assuming even only a moderate increase of marijuana consumption as a part of it being legalized, you open up an entire new industry, more jobs, less spending for the government, more freedom and more revenue.

There is no way you can argue for marijuana to not be legalized by a purely financial standpoint. Plus, legalizing it will cut costs, and spend less time looking at the issue rather than the more time you are foolishly suggesting.

Don't kid yourself... for every cop job that is saved, 3 bureaucratic jobs each at 3 times a cops salary will be created in Washington to regulate this new industry you speak of.

I personally don't care whether pot is legal or not, but the only benefit I see with officially legalizing it is to stop hearing all the pot heads spew off all their reasons as to why pot should be legal (no matter how illogical the argument is)..... I guess that reason by itself is to support the cause.

At the same time, though, I think there are more pressing issues to waste time debating.

Re:Really?? (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434275)

Don't kid yourself... for every cop job that is saved, 3 bureaucratic jobs each at 3 times a cops salary will be created in Washington to regulate this new industry you speak of.

Sure, but honestly if the government was sane (which, most of us know from experience it doesn't do anything logical) they would simply amend laws dealing with tobacco/alcohol and change it to be marijuana. (for example, no smoking would mean no smoking tobacco nor marijuana, along with driving while under the influence of marijuana would be the same as if you were drunk, the age limits and such would remain the same, etc).

Re:Really?? (2, Interesting)

Starlon (1492461) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434527)

The problem with grouping driving under the influence of marijuana with alcohol is that you don't build the same tolerance to alcohol. The so called high you get from marijuana goes away after continual use, much like many medicines that come with the warning about operating machinery. Driving on marijuana is a totally different creature than driving while drunk, and should not be zealously grouped with the leading problem with mis-operating motor vehicles. I can guarantee you sleep deprivation and driving is more harmful than marijuana and driving, especially once the person's used to marijuana and no longer experiences the high, like is the case with most medical marijuana patients. Recreational smokers space out their smoking so they experience the high.

Also, the fact that marijuana's illegal causes more people to drive under the high of marijuana, as recreational smokers often hide their use, and take road trips to have some privacy.

Pot dumbs you down! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28434245)

I used pot so I know.

It dumbs down people who use it.

I stopped early, once I realized what it was doing to me and how I was going around and trying to convince everybody it wasn't a problem.

Pot is to humans, like catnip is to cats.

Re:Really?? (0)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434277)

There is no way you can argue for marijuana to not be legalized by a purely financial standpoint.

The evidence strongly suggests that regular use of marijuana impairs short-term memory, amongst other things. It continues to effect the person for days or weeks, unlike many other kinds of drugs. I'm not good enough with statistics to venture a guess on the impact on productivity at a societal level, but I'm confident it would dwarf the DEA's budget. Are you really that sure that the tax revenue and private sector profits would outweigh that loss?

Re:Really?? (2, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434339)

Right. Because we all know that today no one smokes marijuana on a regular basis. I don't think that you would see an astronomical amount of new users if this was legalized similar to how even though tobacco is legal less than 20% of adults smoke. Current figures say that 6% of the US adult population uses marijuana (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/FASTATS/druguse.htm), assuming a non-radical climb, you wouldn't have a societal level of use. Similarly, alcohol does a lot of that stuff, yet more people use it and its legal.

Re:Really?? (0)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434439)

Similarly, alcohol does a lot of that stuff, yet more people use it and its legal.

That's not an argument for legalization, or at least, it's a very poor one. A similar logic would be to argue that smoking cigarettes is legal, that it eventually kills the user, and therefore murdering smokers should be legal. killing them would save hundreds of thousands in medical costs, and have a clear social benefit.

Logic like this is very dangerous. Stick to the original question: What is the monentary benefit from legalization of marijuana (private sector profits, revenue from taxation, cost benefits from ending law enforcement) versus the monentary cost -- health care, loss of productivity, and secondary effects (crime, addiction, etc).

The financial argument here is anything but clear cut; I assure you it won't be resolved in a simple slashdot post daring anyone to come up with an argument against it. There are some very, very good arguments against it, but they're far too complex for a public forum like this to appreciate.

Re:Really?? (2, Funny)

Phil06 (877749) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434571)

Marijuana makes you stupid, and it makes you write exceedingly inane song lyrics. We need less of this in America.

Re:Really?? (0, Redundant)

Rakishi (759894) | more than 5 years ago | (#28433981)

Interesting how you find no connection between our nation's financial problems and the massive amounts spent on law enforcement and incarceration for marijuana related crimes.

Re:Really?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28434235)

Because there is no connection...

Plan and simple legalizing it will mean the following:
- New laws to mirror those of tobacco -- no smoking in public places or indoors (I really don't want to be around it at all or exposed to it in any way)
- New laws to prevent driving while high -- I don't want more missiles being aimed at me or anyone's family as they drive because it's legal to smoke it
- New tools for law enforcement to detect when you're high on the road past a certain blood-pot-count
- New laws governing the use of said tools
- More lawers fighting to get the source code for the tools released.. blah blah

If there was a genetically engineered pest that would erradicate all of tobacco and pot i'd release it.

Re:Really?? (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434575)

All of those laws and that technology already exists.

If there was a genetically engineered pest that would erradicate all of tobacco and pot i'd release it.

Any ethnic groups you'd like to exterminate too?

Re:Really?? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28434021)

Says who?

Typical Marijuana Side Effects:

        * Enhanced cancer risk
        * Decrease in testosterone levels and lower sperm counts for men
        * Increase in testosterone levels for women and increased risk of infertility
        * Diminished or extinguished sexual pleasure
        * Psychological dependence requiring more of the drug to get the same effect
        * Sleepiness
        * Difficulty keeping track of time, impaired or reduced short-term memory
        * Reduced ability to perform tasks requiring concentration and coordination,
            such as driving a car
        * Increased heart rate
        * Potential cardiac dangers for those with preexisting heart disease
        * Bloodshot eyes
        * Dry mouth and throat
        * Decreased social inhibitions
        * Paranoia, hallucinations
        * Impaired or reduced short-term memory
        * Impaired or reduced comprehension
        * Altered motivation and cognition, making the acquisition of new information difficult
        * Paranoia
        * Psychological dependence
        * Impairments in learning and memory, perception, and judgment - difficulty
            speaking, listening effectively, thinking, retaining knowledge, problem solving,
            and forming concepts
        * Intense anxiety or panic attacks

reference:
http://www.marijuana-addiction.info/side-effects.htm

btw: I have a friend that used to smoke pot every single day. He is now in a psychiatric hospital with a severe psychosis and paranoia.
If you want to fsck up your brain, do it alone. Don't mislead other people.

Re:Really?? (5, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434089)

And, I'm sure if you spent enough time creating moral panic over alcohol, tobacco and easy to find over-the-counter drugs, you would find that the results are the same if not worse.

Re:Really?? (5, Informative)

BlueBoxSW.com (745855) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434473)

I would just like to point out that Narconon runs the web site you pulled this info from. According to Wikipedia:

Narconon is an in-patient rehabilitation program for drug abusers in several dozen treatment centers worldwide, chiefly in the United States and western Europe. Each Narconon center is independently owned and operated under a license from ABLE International, a Scientology-related entity.

With all those problems (4, Insightful)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434067)

It's not surprising people want to get get high.

Re:Really?? (1)

zendog (78433) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434147)

Dealing with one thing doesn't preclude dealing with the other.s There's actually surprisingly little overlap between domestic law enforcement and things like fiscal and foreign policy, health care, public works and education.

See under: Walking, Chewing Gum.

Re:Really?? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434175)

I have this sneaking suspicion that arresting pot users consumes more of the time of our government than not arresting them would....

Further, for a fair few pot smokers, the state is probably a greater immediate threat to their peace and security than any foreign power is likely to be. Not a giant shock that they'd be against that.

And, last but hardly least, depriving people of their liberty(and from time to time their lives) without quite compelling justification just isn't ethical. Stopping doing whatever unethical thing one is doing is a pretty high priority(unfortunately, that particular standard gives us a damn long list of high priorities...)

Re:Really?? (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434321)

All of the reasons you listed sounds like a good enough reason to legalize marijuana.

If marijuana were legal, the government would be wasting less time.

FWIW, I wouldn't use marijuana even if it were legal. I don't drink but once in a long while and really don't like inhaling smoke of any kind. But I wouldn't seek to remove the right to doing it from anyone else...so long as they don't smoke around me which is no different than cigarettes and cigars.

Re:Really?? (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434349)

I'll go for funny on this one ...

Legalize it. Put Clinton back in office. Bring back Cuban cigars. Sit back and enjoy the cloud that settles in and rest assured knowing that we're not going to attack anyone, we'll be too busy playing video games and eating Doritos, while the president rides around in a limo stoned off his ass using the cooch of a cow who slept her way to the whitehouse as a cigar cutter.

Doesn't really sound that bad to me.

Re:Really?? (1)

twostix (1277166) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434405)

Your countries financial problems are unsolvable by anybody, let alone the average man on the street short of revolution French or Russian style to make the bastards who did this to you all pay and I'm not even talking about the banks.

Even if every man, woman and child in your country starting today gave 100% of their income to your Federal Government and your government approved no new spending it would take over a century to pay down the existing debt while continuing to meet the governments current obligations.

The only way out is for your government to massively devalue your currency or default.

Yes actually it really is *that bad*. This isn't some magical movie where everything just works itself out. Nor is it some baseless scare mongering, your citizens and government have been maintaining their lifestyle and country on cheap Asian credit for the last decade. And now they're getting very very nervous about your ability to meet your obligations to them.

At best they'll just cut you off but continue to hold onto their US TBills, that's at best and it's still going to hurt you all *a lot*.

And to answer your question, the "Marijuana issue" costs you billions of dollars each year. Your spending tens of billions of dollars worth of Asians money every year - money that you have to pay interest on on this "Marijuana issue".

Good luck for the coming few years America.

Re:Really?? (1)

michael021689 (791941) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434429)

Other than the already stated fact that all that shit makes illegal marijuana seem like a waste of time, maybe it is a sign that *surprise* people care more about their own lives. You could say something negative about that, but screw it, I agree. Maybe if we stopped wasting time and money around the world, we could get issues taken care of at home.

How about a real open governance system (4, Interesting)

Toe, The (545098) | more than 5 years ago | (#28433895)

The article gets it right in saying it is a "suggestion box." All we can do is suggest to our rulers what we want them to do: they still get to decide. This is still not democracy. It's barely even a democratic republic.

If you want real democracy, please consider joining the Metagovernment [metagovernment.org] project which is a collective of projects [metagovernment.org] working to make governance a truly open system for everyone.

Also, consider attending Participation Camp [mudball.net] . The virtual meeting started this morning, and there will be a brainstorm session [gmane.org] tomorrow morning (1500GMT, ie 11:00 AM Eastern).

Re:How about a real open governance system (3, Informative)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#28433999)

The only way to have a truly free government is to have a government that protects only against force and fraud. That way you have freedom to do whatever you want to while being safe because of the government.

Re:How about a real open governance system (5, Insightful)

Mr2001 (90979) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434099)

The only way to have a truly free government is to have a government that protects only against force and fraud.

If so, then people who ask for a "truly free government" should be careful what they wish for.

That way you have freedom to do whatever you want to while being safe because of the government.

Well, no, not quite. A ban on force and fraud is, itself, a restriction on your freedom: you aren't free to do whatever you want if what you want involves force or fraud. It's a perfectly justified restriction, but it's still a restriction.

More importantly, a government that only protects against force and fraud is a government that doesn't regulate industry. We've seen where that leads, from healing tonics to meat packing to investment banking. There's plenty of deception and destruction that doesn't quite fall under the umbrella of "force and fraud".

Re:How about a real open governance system (1, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434193)

Well, no, not quite. A ban on force and fraud is, itself, a restriction on your freedom: you aren't free to do whatever you want if what you want involves force or fraud. It's a perfectly justified restriction, but it's still a restriction.

Well, by design governments are meant to limit freedoms in some ways and the only way to function without a government is to have a sort of "spiritual anarchy" where people follow a code because they want to (usually because of a religious belief)

More importantly, a government that only protects against force and fraud is a government that doesn't regulate industry. We've seen where that leads, from healing tonics to meat packing to investment banking. There's plenty of deception and destruction that doesn't quite fall under the umbrella of "force and fraud".

Ok, if the healing tonics say that they work and they don't you can sue them for fraud. If the meat packing industries claim they are safe to eat (or insinuate it due to advertising or product placement) and they aren't you can sue them for fraud. If the investments aren't as secure as their ratings say they are, you can sue them for fraud. Eventually, businesses will regulate themselves especially in today's atmosphere of information, it only takes a few leaked photos of unhealthy conditions snapped by a disgruntled employee to make people second guess buying those products. I would imagine that if regulations of businesses by governments ceased, we would see a raise in third-party de-facto regulations. Just look at the ESRB ratings or the ones that came before that (if I remember correctly Sega had one) that regulated games that had no potential for any harm. Think about how much more third-party regulators would do for things that might actually cause illness.

Re:How about a real open governance system (5, Insightful)

Mr2001 (90979) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434329)

Ok, if the healing tonics say that they work and they don't you can sue them for fraud. If the meat packing industries claim they are safe to eat (or insinuate it due to advertising or product placement) and they aren't you can sue them for fraud. If the investments aren't as secure as their ratings say they are, you can sue them for fraud. Eventually, businesses will regulate themselves [...]

That's easy to say, but in practice it hasn't worked that way. It took the establishment of the FDA and SEC to actually make food and investments safer, and even now it still isn't perfect (witness the recent banking fiasco).

Think about how much more third-party regulators would do for things that might actually cause illness.

It's nice to imagine things like that, but again, if it's as simple as you make it sound, why haven't third party regulators actually sprung up and done anything? No one stopped third party food and drug regulators from coming into existence before the FDA, so where were they? Where were the independent securities rating agencies during the recent banking fiasco? They were in the pockets of the very institutions they were supposed to be rating.

Re:How about a real open governance system (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434411)

It's nice to imagine things like that, but again, if it's as simple as you make it sound, why haven't third party regulators actually sprung up and done anything? No one stopped third party food and drug regulators from coming into existence before the FDA, so where were they? Where were the independent securities rating agencies during the recent banking fiasco? They were in the pockets of the very institutions they were supposed to be rating.

The reason why third party regulators didn't step in before the FDA is because people back before The Jungle was published were blissfully ignorant. There was no internet, newspapers had a tiny circulation (as in, news of such a thing wouldn't leave town), and a lot of Americans didn't use pre-packaged meat. Remember, this was in 1906, information didn't spread very fast.

For the investment firms, most Americans didn't really care how they were investing. Rather than doing research they decided to hire someone to put their money in a bunch of stocks that they didn't pick out. Thats what carelessness gets you.

Re:How about a real open governance system (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434353)

The only way to have a truly free government is to have a government that protects only against force and fraud. That way you have freedom to do whatever you want to while being safe because of the government.

Safety is relative, and the terms "force" and "fraud" are vague and ill-defined, and even if they were well-defined it would have zero relevance to safety. I'm sorry, but society tends towards increasing, not decreasing, complexity as the method of advancing social justice and adapting to changes in our environment. Reducing complexity would, necessarily, make it less adaptive to its surroundings (which are in a constantly increasing state of entropy) and the end result would be an increase in chaos. Over a long enough timeframe, it would become indistinguishable from anarchy.

Re:How about a real open governance system (3, Interesting)

PottedMeat (1158195) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434115)

I don't want a democracy. I don't want a democratic republic. I want a REPUBLIC.

Too few people know the difference.

Re:How about a real open governance system (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28434165)

Do you suppose anyone who functions in the real political system would do anything but laugh at this nerd masturbation?

Re:How about a real open governance system (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434201)

A real democracy would be a disaster, simply because most people lack the inclination to become educated on the large number of social issues. As well, civil rights improvements have historically been championed by a small, but vocal and active minority. The majority would have us praying to giant fifty foot jesus statues every morning, driving at only the posted speed in the fast lane would be punishable by summary execution, hunting licenses for gays would be introduced, and the list goes on.

I am quite comfortable with handing power over to a few elected officials that have some semblance of a conscience, or lacking that, at least the business sense to sell out at a decent price. The average person would sell their freedom of speech for a double-scoop of ice cream.

Re:How about a real open governance system (2, Insightful)

Toe, The (545098) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434481)

Democracy is not strictly defined as majority rule. If you read the linked site, most of the developing governance systems are about consensus democracy, liquid democracy, or other more advanced and thought-provoking forms than mere rule by the 51%.

The scenarios you suggest don't play out when consensus governance systems start in small communities and gradually scale to larger and larger ones. instead, you find that interested people work to make their communities genuinely better.

Re:How about a real open governance system (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434569)

A real democracy would be a disaster, simply because most people lack the inclination to become educated on the large number of social issues.

The other problem is that most politicians suffer from the same lack. Look at our state government here in California. They live in a big bubble and have no freaking clue what is going on.

The other other problem is that our system is now designed (or, more accurately, has evolved) to put only extremist sociopaths into office. They're all batshit insane on the inside their thick, insulated skulls. And, sorry kids, that includes Obama. he was just two points less insane than McCain, but 1000 points less insane that Palin. Seriously, McCain threw the election by choosing Palin.

Re:How about a real open governance system (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434309)

This site isn't about changing the way the goverment makes its decisions, its about giving the people access to those decisions, what info they had going into those decisions, and in general just making it so we know what they know wherever possible.

That is the point of this site (or at least thats the claim, its prolly just a way to distract people :).

Its about getting the people information, not changing how the goverment works. Open has many many meanings and your version of open isn't the same version of open as this project is going for, sorry for the confusion.

Our government setup is fine assuming that people aren't corrupt, but they are, so this project is trying to make it much easier for us to see the corruption and incompetence so we can then use our government setup to fix^W remove the broken people from office.

Nice website plug though, almost on topic.

Re:How about a real open governance system (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28434313)

Considering the critical thinking most of us Americans do, I would rather not have a true democracy.

Welcome to the internet, Mr. President. (3, Funny)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#28433987)

I think I see a flaw in your cunning plan, Mr. President: The people who voted for you are also online. And dear god, are they stupid. Don't feel bad though; The ones that voted for the other guy aren't any smarter. -_- But then, what did you really expect? Given a choice between democracy and educated civil discourse, or a large smack of porn and screaming matches, 9 out of 10 internet users prefer the latter. And the 10th one was a cat walking over the keyboard.

Re:Welcome to the internet, Mr. President. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28434061)

This from "girl in training" suggesting you're some kind of transvestite commie pervert.

PS. You're not as smart as you think you are. Despite the dunderheads under you, they are many above you. Including for example a none-too-bright rock that I saw in my driveway yesterday.

Re:Welcome to the internet, Mr. President. (1)

macshit (157376) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434101)

Given a choice between democracy and educated civil discourse, or a large smack of porn and screaming matches, 9 out of 10 internet users prefer the latter. And the 10th one was a cat walking over the keyboard.

The cat actually had some pretty insightful observations, though...

Re:Welcome to the internet, Mr. President. (1)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434197)

Did you mean this cat and keyboard? [youtube.com]

Re:Welcome to the internet, Mr. President. (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434311)

I suspect this whole thing was only to try to get kids interested in government. Which, assuming they like most generations eventually get their heads screwed on straight, is a good thing.

Modding already done (1)

hoarier (1545701) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434007)

"Visitors could flag off-topic comments", says the NYT article.

I wonder if the off-topic commenters were then told they had "bad karma".

Explicit comparisons (see the article) of this scheme with Wikipedia, echoes in it of Slashdot — I suppose all of this will be taken by the "birthers" (so active there, we read) and other wingnuts as yet more evidence of a nefarious conspiracy toward the construction of a socialist caliphate [wonkette.com] .

The Reason Why the U.S. is a Republic (1)

mpapet (761907) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434057)

is so that elections aren't about a 'controversy' like Obama's birthplace. A republic works reasonably well if the citizens participate in it. Few of you can comment with any authority on that last statement.

What's scarier though, is that Obama's birthplace is, at this point in his presidency *still* an issue. Getting those voters participating some other way is critical.

Re:The Reason Why the U.S. is a Republic (1)

cptnapalm (120276) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434525)

Easiest way to get those voters to participate in some other way is to give them what they want.

Pines of Mar Gables? (1)

HomerJ (11142) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434125)

So when is one of Obama's relatives going to buy him a Cadillac so Jack Klompus can start the impeachment hearings?

Let's just hope Biden didn't steal anyone's marble rye.

How you can detect that such a software works well (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434127)

Simple. If you can remove the politicians. Completely. And it still works, or works even better. :)

I know it will happen. I just wonder when. :)

My suggestions (1)

bughunter (10093) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434137)

  1. Introduce Transparency In Government. Release all internal memos regarding controversial subjects, open your visitor logs, and publish transcripts of all your [non-classified] meetings. Require all administrative branch personnel to do the same.
  2. Apply Civil Rights Uniformly. Restore Habeas Corpus and eliminate kangaroo courts. Try prisoners as either POWs or in our own criminal courts. End renditions. And for FSM's sake, end the discrimination against gay couples and soldiers.
  3. End Wiretapping. Stop spying on your citizens. Remove ex post facto legal protections from those who broke the law.
  4. Prosecute War Crimes. Either bring the war criminals and profiteers to justice, or get out of the way and let someone else do it. Stop obfuscating and obstructing.

I understand you wish to choose your fights, Mr. President, and you are saving your ammo for the Health Care battles ahead. But trust me, if you do the right things on the above issues, you will have an army of support on the progressive side that will overwhelm your opposition on Universal Health Care.

Yes we can! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28434185)

Remember that time when Obama said he would vote against the FISA bill, and then he changed his mind and voted in favor of it? Now THAT is change we can believe in (because it actually happened)!

I believe (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434233)

I'm one of those alien believer nutjobs.

Okay, I don't think of myself as a nutjob, but who does right?

I think however, when discussing an 'Open Government' and how to be an open goverment, it shouldn't really be suprising that people were asking for information that if it exists (If, just because I think 'they are out there' doesn't mean I think they've puttered around watching our dumb asses unless theres some form of intragalatic 'Simple Life' we're in) is probably classified to absolutely all hell and back or simply gets destroyed.

Do I think the goverment has UFO info? Yes, it does, but its probably something like 'Pilot reported seeing lights in the sky' or 'We haven't seen shit Mr President, there is nothing out there that we've found'.

I highly doubt they are hiding a bunch of stuff, its just too long and too hard to do it on a global scale without more 'proof' slipping out.

With all that said, isn't this kind of request more in tune with what the point of the website was than say all the legalize it posts or other random crap? I mean, requesting info on things that the goverment won't tell us about is kind of the point of the site right? So these 'nutjobs' really are using the site for what its for, which most of the people who posted things that would be considered intelligent on other topics utterly missed the point. It was a place to discuss gaining access to information about UFOs, JFK conspiracies as well as actual important things that matter in transparency.

You can make fun of the 'nutjobs', I will too, some of the theories you hear about fringe topics are just so insane you can't help but break out into uncontrollable laughter when you hear them.

I just feel its important to note that at least they were on topic to some extent. The should have been discussing how to add transparency and openness in general, not basically use it as a public submission for for FOIA requests.

Oh and for the record, just freaking legalize it and save everyone the time and effort, if nothing else maybe we'll stop being it brought up at the slightest excuse :)

Re:I believe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28434391)

I'll take a million slightest excuses any day. The talking points behind marijuana legalization and the audacity and lies of the opposition are by far under discussed.

If the site worked, it would be more useful (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434539)

The non-static pages on the site, which was outsourced to "mixedink.com", just produce an endless busy icon, with the word "thinking". OK, bad vendor choice.

Repudiation of the birth theories? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28434563)

I googled this out of interest.

Has the theory that the "Certificate of Live Birth" is a forgery been proved false anywhere?

Based on the images the immediate impression from the pictures is that something IS wrong with the certificate:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/07/19/image6.jpg
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/07/19/image10.jpg
http://i349.photobucket.com/albums/q393/colbstuff/image7.gif

(Disclaimer: "biased source" is not an argument, as any source positive or even neutral to Obama would obviously not carry this regardless, hence by definition the only possible source would be a biased source)

I am simply interested in hearing if there are views that justify these differences between Obama's certificate and any other certificate issued in the period based on image analysis. Links would be welcome.

Message from business owners. (1)

zymano (581466) | more than 5 years ago | (#28434589)

Don't tax us for your healthcare program or we will cut employees.

**Hell socialists would love that. More ditch digging jobs.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>