Phi for All

I don't see how that's a qualitative measure. It's "Have you ever (yes or no)", and "How often do you take them now?". The ones who take them once or more a month are considered regular users. Strictly quantitative; no mention of addiction, can you quit, do you love them more than your kids. If Mr. President smokes 4 cigarettes a day and the measure you're using for regular smokers is 5, then he isn't a regular smoker.

It fails for either end, but is a complete success for those who have positioned themselves in the middle. If you build/maintain prisons, if you need a boogeyman to scare bucks out of the taxpayers, if you're near the top of the supply chain and practically immune to prosecution, if you need a never-ending supply of power and money and fear, then the current war on drugs is just perfect for you.

People here at SFN, thus the title? You can't unless you somehow know where they live. Unless you mean "hurt their feelings until they leave the forum". Then you wouldn't really be foodchain anymore, and I'd have no problem banning you. People in your off-screen life? If you do, you'll possibly face more than banishment.

Sisko couldn't have gotten away with starting an episode sitting stark naked on a rock in the desert with the line, "Yeah. That went well." Shiny.

I thought they based it off "Have you ever tried X?" vs "How often do you use X now?" The ones who still did the drug one or more times a month were considered regular users. AFAICT, they didn't ask anything about addiction, just use. It's also in line with personal experience and reason. I know lots of people who've tried various drugs but never became regular users. And the fact that our society still operates despite these "highly addictive drugs" being commonly available tells me our overall character is capable of handling them. Alcohol is legal though, and I'll bet there are a lot more than 4% of the population who use it once a month or more. I'm sure marketing and encouragement would make the numbers for drugs quite different. From bascule's article about Portugal, I gather they don't jail people for small amounts of drugs, and offer counseling instead, but trafficking and manufacturing is still illegal. This is quite different from legalizing drugs and letting the market make them readily available. On the other hand, while the Portugal approach keeps more people out of prison, it doesn't seem to address the black market criminal exploitation problem.

In a "let's-see-who-gets-frozen-in-carbonite" race, maybe. "See, this is a sign of your tragic space dementia. All paranoid and crotchety, it breaks the heart." -- Malcolm Reynolds Ooooh, so you're going for the ultimate Star Trek crew. The best at each station.

Complete for what? Star Trek captains? You've got all the ones that really matter. Space ship captains? Malcolm Reynolds captained a space ship but wasn't on Star Trek. I just loved Firefly. Please don't open the parameters wide enough to include Han Solo. I have no idea who "Bob" is. I assumed from the title, the poll and the OP that we were picking our favorite Star Trek captains. What are we now trying to "complete"?

Well, with the access they have now and a hideous lack of education, the government statistics show that only about 4% of the people who've tried crack become regular users (per the Jacob Sullum article ParanoiA linked to in post #58). Only 2% for meth users and similar numbers for heroin. This tells me that our nation's character is pretty good in this regard. Legalize drugs and use the prison money saved and new taxes earned on real education and I'll bet the statistics will remain about the same. I can live with numbers like that for "highly addictive drugs".

"Seasons" were never mentioned. And it was a trick question anyway. Picard is the quintessential Star Trek captain. But like bascule, I prefer Mal.

Imagine taking a class where you could elect to sample various drugs after learning their chemistry and discussing the scientific studies on their effects. Those who chose not to take a particular drug would be encouraged to observe those who did. All done in a controlled environment where any dangers were mitigated. How would that kind of education affect drug use?

Doing drugs responsibly, abusing drugs, doing them and then deciding you don't need them, never doing them at all, it's all a test of your character like most anything life throws at you. We hear about the small percentage of abusers because they end up doing something stupid that makes them a statistic. Most people who do drugs don't steal, or wreck their cars, or assault someone, the same way most people who drink alcohol behave themselves. This tells us that it's not the drugs, or some magical gateway, that leads people to abuse. Some people need to test their character to a greater degree than others before they figure out who they are in relationship to society. Many never do and a lot of them have never done drugs. The federal government shouldn't be trying to legislate away our right to take chances with our bodies that don't directly involve the safety of others. We already have intoxication laws that will protect us from drug users. I think we should start by legalizing marijuana and see how that goes. Eventually we should realize that even the hardcore drugs used regularly by such a small percentage of the population are not worth the heavy cost of keeping them illegal.

Which Captain James T. Kirk, v1 or v2?

That would make *me* Pangloss. (shrugs) Whatever, just remember that two wrongs don't make a right, Cap'n.

Ultimately, you have to stop thinking subjectively about drugs and alcohol. Everyone knows abusers and they will always exist. We need to focus on objective evidence, what has worked in the past and what hasn't. We've seen what the war on alcohol did in the 20s and 30s. We've seen what the war on drugs has done. Repealing prohibition has been a positive action on the whole. We can always make alcohol illegal again when it becomes too much of a problem. We need to legalize drugs with the same evidence and the same concerns in mind. I was once a member of a macaroni and cheese gang. It was a struggle to get out of that life and I hope no one else ever has to learn the kraft.

The funny part is, he rigged it so each staff member only sees his own name and avatar change. Everyone else looks OK. Clever rascal.

A larger percentage than the guys who are in there for crimes that had victims. Is that other parent going to instill that alcohol is bad for everyone? How many other rash generalizations is this other parent going to instill? Most everyone I know who smokes pot is never in trouble with the law, and all have productive jobs which contribute to society. You have made a Hasty Generalization. Strawman. Those crimes have direct victims in every single case. Smoking pot does not. I think your experience as a social worker has shown you the worst case scenarios only. There have to be far more productive people who smoke pot than the "burn-outs" you mention, simply going by national averages.

This brings up an interesting point. If all drugs were legalized, would all of them be created and exploited or would some be deemed too dangerous for normal sales? Would the danger heighten sales or would the availability of less dangerous drugs temper the market? Imagine today an alcohol that left 10% of its users blind if they drank a certain amount. Would the market sort out the danger because there are plenty of other alcohols out there to drink that are far safer? If all drugs were legal, would people stay away from the more addictive or degenerative or outright destructive because there was now plenty of far safer drugs on the market? If normal amphetamines could be gotten legally and used somewhat safely, would people still want methamphetamine?

I think Beck may see the laws changing in California later this year and wants to be able to point to this clip of his supporting it as a conservative movement against a burgeoning federal government. I suppose it doesn't matter whether it's liberal or conservative as long as people stop going to jail for it and feeding criminal elements.

Only 60 miles of lithosphere between my feet and a hot molten core. That's less than an hour away by car.

This is my point, you can't skip those steps or your whole idea is questionable. You need to ask a question, do some background research, formulate your hypothesis, test your hypothesis with experimentation and analyze your data before drawing your conclusions and sharing them with us in Speculations. Most people come here with their conclusions drawn and then get angry when asked for evidence or experimental results. And they still want it to be called a theory. If they could come here with a speculatory idea, or even get it to the hypothesis stage, everyone would be happy to offer suggestions on how to test it. But they don't, they've got conclusions (usually overthrowing mainstream theory that has tons of experimental data and evidence) and a Galileo complex. This isn't about opinion, though. This is science and should follow methodology that minimizes subjectivity. And if it isn't challenged, the average readers sees these false conclusions that are drawn and walks away telling people about this new theory they saw at SFN. We don't want that. That's one of the reasons it's important to criticize constructively. I think we've heard some good next steps that don't make things more complicated. Speculations is NOT the trash can.

It's only a barrier if someone refuses to take the quiz, or is offended by the necessity. We really can't help it if someone criticizes science while being unwilling to learn it properly. We can only educate if we're allowed. I agree. Sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. We have a responsibility to the majority who embrace science. We do this, pretty well imo. Thank you.

Please explain how what we're doing is different from what you call filtering.

You can use your briefcase, I just thought the tree would rather use his purse. If you read a good sampling of the threads in Speculations, you'd find that we discuss new ideas just fine until we hit a snag. We then ask for clarification, or supporting evidence, to clear things up and stay within the scientific methodology. That's generally where people fall down in their hypotheses; they want to skip a step or two and jump to conclusions, then call us hidebound when we insist they are on very shaky ground. It's almost never the evidence that's in question, it's almost always lazy methodology. The dangerous thing about power is lack of control. What you see as barriers, I see as a conduit, something that channels the power in the right direction, and controls the amount of error. That's what science on the web can do, it can spread *real* knowledge globally. If not properly channeled though, you spread junk science and ideas with no real foundation, nothing you can trust with any degree of certainty. We want to hear from people with speculations. But if these ideas aren't challenged, they produce weak conclusions. If they aren't challenged they gain a tacit acceptance from people who read about them.

That would be like getting on the bus, being driven to your destination, then hitting the bus driver with your purse as you get off the bus. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged A remedial suspension. What a great idea!

And it's a very short bus.