bascule

Yeah that's not exactly sound statistics there. I, for one, never intend to try crack ever. You really think 1 out of every 10 people has any interest in trying crack? I'd be surprised if 1 in 10 frequent marijuana smokers (for whom legality has little concern) has any interest in ever trying crack, let alone the US population as a whole. Cocaine? Maybe. Crack? No.

The scene where Mal kicks the guy into Serenity's thruster is perhaps the second most epic after when Indiana Jones confronts the swordmaster who puts on an impressive display until IJ pulls out his gun and shoots him. Unfortunately, no Star Trek captain was ever that epic.

Except marijuana is less addictive than alcohol, alcohol is legal, and society still operates. There are many surgeons, pilots, crane operators, etc. who are addicted to alcohol, but this addiction doesn't impair their day job, because they do their day job while sober and drink during their time off.

Something of note: Portugal completely abolished all laws against possession of any drug (including heroin, meth, coke, etc). Rather than spending money jailing drug abusers, the country invested in therapy programs to help drug abusers kick the habit. The program has been a success by all measures, and as a result of the new laws drug use actually dropped (contrary to the popular assumption that legalizing drugs will lead to massively increased usage). Would the same thing happen if we legalized drugs in America? It's hard to say...

I prefer Captain Malcolm Reynolds

Ignoring me, I guess? I find the supposedly-libertarian "healthcare argument" extremely odd. It would apply to any high-risk activity. What other high risk activities should be made illegal to keep healthcare costs down? Should we ban skydiving? White water rafting? Driving a scooter? Driving a car? Eating red meat? Smoking cigarettes? Drinking alcohol? As a real libertarian, I support all of these activities, and at the very least state-level control of what "substances" are deemed legal or illegal. Do you, in general, support states rights over stronger federal control, especially for things which aren't explicitly called out in the Constitution such as "controlled substances"? I would have said you're a faux libertarian of the Glenn Beck variety, but in the context of this thread, it would seem Glenn Beck's faux libertarianism is more real than yours.

I believe it's very much a realistic scenario, and one which may occur within our own lifetimes. Lots more planets than earth will be covered with intelligence

If we're talking about things that should be banned because we all have to pay for the healthcare costs, why don't we ban red meat, which leads to heart disease and colon cancer? What kinds of cancers are you suggesting are caused by marijuana? This study found no link between marijuana and lung cancer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_cannabis#UCLA_study On 23 May 2006, Donald Tashkin, M.D., Professor of Medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA in Los Angeles announced that the use of cannabis does not appear to increase the risk of developing lung cancer, or increase the risk of head and neck cancers, such as cancer of the tongue, mouth, throat, or esophagus.[219] The study involved 2252 participants, with some of the most chronic marijuana smokers having smoked over 22,000 marijuana cigarettes.[219][220][221][222] The finding of Donald Tashkin, M.D., and his team of researchers in 2006 refined their earlier studies published in a Dec. 17th 2000 edition of the peer-reviewed journal Cancer Epidemiology Biomarker and Prevention.[223] Many opponents of marijuana incorrectly cite the original finding of UCLA Medical Center from 2000 as "proof" that marijuana leaves the users at higher risk for cancer of the lung, and cancerous tumors,[215] even though the researchers at the UCLA Medical Center have revised their finding with a more in-depth study on the effects of the use of marijuana. This seemed to contradict assumptions made after some studies, like those from Dale Gieringer et al., which found that 118 carcinogens were produced when marijuana underwent combustion, and two carcinogens {2-Methyl-2, 4(2H-1-benzopyran-5-ol) & 5-[Acetyl benz[e]azulene-3,8-dione} formed when marijuana underwent vaporization with the Volcano Vaporizer.[224] To help explain this seemingly chemical proof of carcinogenity inherent in the process of combustion, Tashkin noted that "one possible explanation for the new findings, he said, is that THC, a chemical in marijuana smoke, may encourage aging cells to die earlier and therefore be less likely to undergo cancerous transformation."[219] Death? By marijuana? How? There's certainly one way to die from marijuana: getting killed in the course of marijuana trafficking. The simple solution to that is to legalize marijuana. Sounds to me like you want an authoritarian nanny state to tell people what substances they can and can't do because those people don't know better. That's pretty much the opposite of libertarianism. You do realize that you'll still have to pay those bills regardless of whether marijuana is illegal, right? What else should the nanny state ban to keep healthcare bills down? Alcohol? Cigarettes? Red meat? Sugar/HFCS?

I'm arguing that much like the prohibition of alcohol, the harm caused by the law greatly exceeds the harm caused by what the law is trying to ban. Regarding the comparison to embezzlement, the act of embezzlement directly causes material harm to others. Smoking marijuana does not. I thought you considered yourself a "classical liberal" (i.e. libertarian) jryan. Your attitude regarding marijuana is certainly not in line with this position. ParanoiA's attitude is (as is John Stossel's, for that matter)

BarackObama.com has launched a new t-shirt on April Fools Day: View the shirt here (it's huge) If you aren't aware of what BFD is, it's a reference to a speaking gaffe made by Joe Biden, when he accidentally said that "this is a big f*cking deal" on national television to president Obama when a mic could pick up what he was saying: 3TOcZRK6-ZU Rather than trying to gloss over the f-bomb, apparently BarackObama.com has embraced it, and is now selling t-shirts that let you express your belief that healthcare is a BFD. At least, they seem to be real...

I'm a bit iffy on the issue of "legalize everything". I think, at the very least, the Controlled Substances Act is unconstitutional and what is legal and what isn't should be decided at the state level. I think the prohibition of marijuana has ruined lives and families. I also think alcohol has ruined lives and families. And yet alcohol is legal...

I was reading off a graph... a table of figures is probably a more accurate way to go I'm having trouble interpreting that but the important numbers would seem to be: Clinton: First term: +3.0%, 2nd: -9.8% Bush: First term: +5.6%, 2nd: +6.3%

Yes, and the Republicans are made up of hypocritical ex-hippies who put deadhead stickers on their Cadillacs. (okay that reference is a bit dated at this point. How about Moe stickers on their Mercedes?)

Perhaps I have a higher standard for what I think the front page of a national organization of the Republican Party should look like, regardless of if it's a click-thru. And you're right, apparently they came to their senses and took down that hideous monstrosity of design.

It's too big and difficult to get from one place to the other. Transatlantic flights are annoying... transpacific flights are hell.

But they chose it to be the front page of GOP.com

I'd put our retinas on the right way around. I'd provide a mechanism for removing vitreous floaters. I'd make sure limb regeneration still worked like it does in other animals.

One thing's clear... the Democrats have a hell of a lot better taste in web design than the Republicans:

California is very much the acid tests for states rights issues on drug policy. If California's state laws say marijuana is legal, and the Controlled Substances Act says it's not, who wins? I sure hope it's California state law. Only SCOTUS will tell, I suppose...

While that's true and eliminating that is a noble cause, the war on drugs costs far more lives

LOL, yes there are many ways okcupid is something of an unrepresentative sample of the population as a whole. You might as well factor in "people who are smart enough to use the Internet"

Is this accurate?

Did you read the article? These plots were perhaps the most telling: People who tend liberal tend to fall into two very distinctive age groups (the very young and the very old), and the total area covered by the liberal plot is much larger than the area covered by the conservative plot.

If the programs are warranted and we can afford them, of course. "since Reagan"... as in after Reagan left office, I guess? It was ~35% when Reagan took office, and rose from 60% to 70% under GWB. The Reagan and GHWB years saw the most massive expansion of debt since World War II. Yeah, my bad on that... I'm just really confused about the rampant hypocrisy among many conservatives who only seem concerned about the national debt when liberals are in power. It's okay when Regan and Bush(es) spend us into oblivion, but the moment the Democrats take control of the country the national debt suddenly becomes a huge concern.

This makes him the second Fox News personality to advocate legalization of marijuana after John Stossel