That's why drug legalization is happening in a wholly different way. Over the last two decades, the FDA has become increasingly open to drugs designed for the treatment of depression, pain, and anxiety—drugs that are, by their nature, likely to mimic the banned Schedule I narcotics. Part of this is the product of a well-documented relaxation of FDA practice that began under Clinton and has increased under Bush. But another part is the widespread public acceptance of the idea that the effects drug users have always been seeking in their illicit drugs—calmness, lack of pain, and bliss—are now "treatments" as opposed to recreation. We have reached a point at which it's commonly understood that when people snort cocaine because they're depressed or want to function better at work, that's drug trafficking; but taking antidepressants for similar purposes is practicing medicine.
This guy really needs to read more Erowid if he thinks that pharmaceuticals are closely matching the effects of many drugs. As far as I know there are non-Schedule I opiates and stimulants, and basically all of the benzodiazepines are legal-but-controlled. But the pharmaceutical industry is not exactly stumbling over itself to create a legal version of LSD or prescription Salvia or one-a-day his-n-hers Ecstasy doses, and I don't know of any legal analogue to marijuana (much less any particular strain).
You know you're in trouble when the thugs are in the street waving their arms proclaiming vice is virtue, and a system of selective enforcement by a ruling class is a practical and acceptable solution.
The selective enforcement angle is very important however. I don't think the article gives it nearly enough coverage. I think we all know the Ayn Rand quote so I won't subject the thread to it yet again but the idea is important. A deep well of unenforced "submarine laws" is a valuable resource for anyone in power who needs to get control over an individual or group of dissidents.
what ayn rand quote? I really worship ayn rand and completely agree with her that we should be as selfish as possible and who gives a shit about poor people when u r rich and they r not and vote republican because democrats are exactly like the cartoon villains in her book. I only wish she wrote a relationship advice column.
But i dont know what quote u r saying. Maybe I need to read through all 1,600 pages of her two novels again?
> Every week, in various ways, you probably violate the copyright law. How? ... Or if you ... play DVDs at a house party.
Isn't that perfectly legal under the cape of Fair Use? In fact, the article doesn't even mention fair use, and seems to blatently ignore the fact that we as consumers have the right to "copyright infringement" for personal uses, like mix tapes/discs, or private, non-profit showings and sharing with friends.
> It features news on the Potter films and books, essays on the works of J.K. Rowling, and a large gallery of fan art. It is also, at least to a copyright lawyer, an orgy of copyright infringement—including massive unauthorized use of characters, images, and the creation of "derivative works," like fan art.
Once again, isn't most of this considering Fair Use, in the same way that parody of a copyrighted work is considered fair use?
Or am I completely off my rocker and misunderstanding the purpose and coverage of Fair Use?
I wonder if godel has any say here: it seems to me that it's impossible to actually create a perfect set of laws.
You can't legalize "it" (speed limit, drugs, copyright, whatever), but zero tolerance enforcement doesn't work. On the other hand if you set guidelines (we'll tolerate small amounts) people will go right to the line - so you don't.
This past Friday we had a game of Capture the Flag in my city's financial district. About 600 people came out... no warning given to the cops, no permission, nothing. Was a good time, our side won 2-0 (go blue!) thanks to some solid defense. We were warned at the start of the game to obey traffic laws (ie, don't jaywalk), because the police response to events like this isn't freaking out and cracking down like you'd expect, or saying "go have some fun" like others would expect. Rather, it's "Sweet, we'll make quota in one night!"
Afterward I went to a parkour jam in a nearby district park with some well placed ledges that lead to the potential for a lot of stunts. After 20 minutes, we noticed a cop car on the street, partially hidden by a wall -- looked like they were watching us, so, as an inquisitive sociologist, I went over to ask them what was up.
As it turns out, they were there for an unrelated reason -- to watch that road because of an illegal left turn onto it out of the entertainment district. Basically the way their trap works is that everyone is drinking in their vehicles, and the illegal turn gives the cops the opportunity to check the vehicle for alcohol, and let them off with a warning if they don't find any. Pretty clever, really.
I asked them about parkour, pointing to my friends in the park behind me climbing, jumping and rolling around. They told me that technically it's illegal under a bylaw that bans games in public areas -- the same law which renders ball-hockey in the street illegal. Then they went on to say that this gives them full authority to break it up and issue tickets if they wanted to, but police policy is to only ever enforce this law if they receive complaints.
Thus, in this one evening, I saw three approaches to laws and law enforcement:
1) Policy designed for monetary gain; if they really wanted to stop the jaywalking, they could've just told us all to go home, but handing out tickets for it helps them make quota, so they let us play.
2) Laws which exist as an excuse to investigate for other laws; by having apparently unreasonable traffic restrictions, they can crack down on drunk driving without invading people's privacy.
3) Laws which exist as an excuse to punish related but unlegislatable behaviour; in the case of both parkour and ballhockey, the issue is "creating a public nuisance," not the specific behaviour being done. However, a nuisance is hard to define objectively, so when it, in the mind of the cops, becomes subjectively a nuisance, they instead use another, easy to define but unreasonable, law.
In all three cases we have laws that aren't actually intended to prevent the behaviour they prohibit, but each does so in a different way... and that was just one evening and discussions I had with three police officers, I'm sure many more examples abound.
This guy really needs to read more Erowid if he thinks that pharmaceuticals are closely matching the effects of many drugs. As far as I know there are non-Schedule I opiates and stimulants, and basically all of the benzodiazepines are legal-but-controlled. But the pharmaceutical industry is not exactly stumbling over itself to create a legal version of LSD or prescription Salvia or one-a-day his-n-hers Ecstasy doses, and I don't know of any legal analogue to marijuana (much less any particular strain).