>> ^blankfist:
This should kick up some cognitive dissonance in my Democrat friends: 1. they're against State's rights because their party told them so, yet 2. their monolithic Federal government is threatening to lock up anyone who follows the democratically created State law (provided it passes). Oh the poetic justice.
quality Sift.


Democrat, Republican, Noonian, none of that is what matters. Either legalise weed or criminalise alcohol, either way I'll be happy.

Watching from far, far away, I will be very sad if it doesn't pass. This kind of change happens so rarely, and can teach people that the sky doesn't fall with a bit of progressive change. Given that the undecideds tend to fall to the negative, it looks unlikely with the kind of negative media it seems to be getting.

And what kind of argument is it that California would be seen as not serious if they legalise pot? How could an argument like that get any traction?

/I wonder what kind of effect drug legalisation in America would have on Mexico's overground economy?

Good video, bad title, can you change it to decriminalise rather than legalise please? There's a big diference.

>> ^RedSky:

As it is now, I think in the vast majority of regions he is right, businesses who if given the chance would exclude black people, would be shooting themselves in the foot. Not to mention, ultimately given that most people today aren't racist, as a minority would you want to inadvertently end up working under someone who is racist?
Much of the campaigning against gay rights tries to tap into this same fear and misunderstanding. Think of that vague 'a storm is gathering' ad campaign, or the notion that legalising gay marriage will encourage homosexuality or even lead directly to bestiality or polygamy: fear mongering or patently ridiculous for anyone grounded in reality but potentially highly plausible for someone who has grown up in a very religiously fundamentalist region.


I think that's the real problem with what Rand's saying. What racism remains has been largely been driven underground by the law, and broadly speaking by public opinion, though without the law I'm sure you'd find white/black segregation creeping back in certain localized areas.

The more modern bigotry against gays, Muslims, Arabs, and Latinos would love to come out into the light of day if we got rid of the prohibition on discrimination in privately owned business.

Yes, it's a stupid thing to do, economically speaking, but that certainly doesn't mean a lot of small businesses wouldn't do it. Hell, they may even attract more business in some areas as the bigots come out of the woodwork to support the racist policy (see the "buycott" efforts from some quarters to counter the boycott of Arizona over its immigration policy for an example).

I was surprised that he didn't even manage to clearly articulate the libertarian view on this kind of thing. Did he not think it would come up?

I find it difficult to disagree or agree with him, not on the historical context he gives which I don't know much about but on the principle. I would presume in the vast majority of regions in the US, institutional racism simply doesn't exist any more. Sure, there's the crackpot here and there who's openly racist, there's the few here and there that harbor racist thoughts but on the whole it's simply not there.

I think the Civil Rights Act as it was, applying to both public and private entities served a purpose. It made people come together and realize that much of the animosity was more fear of the unknown and a lack of intercommunication between two cultures that had simply grown apart. Heck, there's a whole litany of (terrible) black/white buddy cop movies that symbolize bridging this gap. So I don't think that it was really the legislation that changed the state of society but the effect that forcing two cultures to become accustomed to each other had on perceptions. As it is now, I think in the vast majority of regions he is right, businesses who if given the chance would exclude black people, would be shooting themselves in the foot. Not to mention, ultimately given that most people today aren't racist, as a minority would you want to inadvertently end up working under someone who is racist?

Much of the campaigning against gay rights tries to tap into this same fear and misunderstanding. Think of that vague 'a storm is gathering' ad campaign, or the notion that legalising gay marriage will encourage homosexuality or even lead directly to bestiality or polygamy: fear mongering or patently ridiculous for anyone grounded in reality but potentially highly plausible for someone who has grown up in a very religiously fundamentalist region.

>> ^blankfist:

Sure wish we'd focus on that same-sex marriage thing in California before jumping into new territory. I suppose it's to be expected from Dems seeing how they seemed to forget about the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act since HCR became all the rage.


I don't see what in the hell you are talking about.

Richard Lee has been pushing for legalisation since 1992. Is he supposed to give up his personal decade-long fight because of Prop 8? Or because we're not out of Iraq or Afghanistan?

And where in this video or anywhere online does it say he's a Democrat?

You're off into la-la land with this one Blanky. Mr.Lee has absolutely fuckall to do with national politics. He's a dude trying to destroy the Orwellian prohibition that currently incarcerates tens of thousands of people, and laws that destroy lives and piss away our states budget on a daily basis. I thought libertarians would feel good about that.

I've heard a lot about lobbyists in the USA and i'm starting to think it's an understated and covered up problem over here, or at least a growing one. Over here voting levels are very low, not many turn out to vote, and i think it's because of the lack of belief in the system - we always get lied to, but who are the liars in power this time?

As for weed legalisation, it's just the unpopular drug. Tobacco, alcohol - these are more harmful, but weed is just unpopular. This also ties into politics - last time i checked a 'democracy', if weed was popular and people wanted it, it would become legal yet we are forced to see people fined huge amounts and jailed depending on how much you have. We also have a case of Britain's TOP drug advisor saying "Weed and extacy are less harmful than drinking and smoking." -- this man was asked to be a drug advisor, he was asked his expert opinion and when he GAVE them his expert opinion they fired him! Get a new expert who will lie but say what we want him to say i guess.

Finally; that's the problem i guess. Prisoners should not be left idle, and it's good for them to stay active and also pay their own way + give them what's left over. But the people in charge are not trustworthy. So they get us to agree in principle, and then change the details when they implement.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
i agree and thats what my response was aiming at.
that so many who tacitly accept the fact and dehumanize "prisoners" without even looking into what a "prisoner" actually is.i was attempting to clarify that while we need prisons for those who are violent and are a detriment to society there is a vast population of non-violent offenders where jail does little more than fill the cell.corporate prisons are for-profit and has little to do with "rehabilitation" or "punishment" but everything to do with profits.these are the prisoners i was talking about,not the rapist or the armed bank robber but johnny slacker who dealt a little bit of weed.

the prison system has quietly become the 9th largest lobbyist in washington.they own and control 70% of americas prisons.it is not in their best interest to legalize weed or change the sentencing structure towards leniency.they actively pursue agressive laws and sentencing because it serves their interests.the public has little to do with their objectives.

as for the forced labor.i agree that idle minds can be a bad thing and keeping busy is a good thing.i dont agree that prisoners should be forced to participate in labor that benefits not only the corporate prisons but defense contractors as well.there are a few federal prisons that offer work and training for prisoners to learn a trade that pays a living wage but they are few and availability is limited.

2.3 million for a prison population is a city.the societal ramifications will not be felt for quite a few years but i would be willing to bet the outcome will not be positive.
in any case...thanks for clarifying and responding.
till next time.
namaste.

I am a Swiss citizen living in Switzerland, and while I voted against this ridiculous ban, I think I can understand why it passed (after the initial shock of course... I had put more stock in Swiss citizens than this).

All the polls predicted that the ban would be massively rejected and yet it passed; it seems to be an awkward attempt by the people to express their distrust of islam and their fear of its rapid progression in Europe, something that is quite impossible to do in public or in the media without being belittled as a “xenophobe” and “islamophobe” (the latter of which should not be considered insulting). The government, largely left-wing, continually undermine or disregard certain real problems regarding immigration/integration of muslims – most of which come from Turkey and ex-Yugoslavia – in order to retain their politically correct image, even when it is at the expense of the people. One example: the fact that individuals of the above-mentioned population, along with African immigrants, are responsible for over 70% of all criminality in Switzerland, was systematically downplayed and the statistics criticised by the media and the government left, without proposing any constructive solutions. One mustn’t forget that one of the UDC’s main beefs is with immigration, not religion (not that that makes them any better, mind).

@rychan: the ban, like every law project, had to pass the parliament first, where they decide if it is constitutional or not. This is where the UDC, the far right party, sneakily got away with what is in effect a straw-man ban: a mosque is still a mosque without a minaret, and banning them cannot be considered against religious freedom because they can still worship in a minaret-free mosque.

The UDC’s argument was that the minaret, whose purpose is to call for prayer 5 times a day (not allowed in CH), is also a symbol of conquest. Dumb, I know, but it fed into the fears of a country already fed up of being toyed with (Khadafi, the EU, the US and the “secret bancaire”, etc.) and represented by a bunch of pussies who will bow and scrape< /a> to the worst of tyrants just to be liked.

Of course, there is the “religious war” side to it as well, even if all the religious authorities here, christian and other, vehemently rejected the ban, possibly fearing that such legislation could eventually turn on them.

The real test will come when the people vote on an initiative by the “jeunnesse socialiste” which aims at secularising the state. They wish to completely separate church and state, removing catechism, theology and crucifixes from public schools, replacing religious education lessons (which should only be a part of history class) with ethics/civism, cease the funding of “state” churches (protestant or catholic depending on the canton) with tax-payer money, etc.

Somehow, I am not so optimist as to how this will fare... Ignorance is a tough opponent.


@Krupo: your knowledge of CH seems a tad outdated. Not only does CH have one of the smallest and most under-financed armies of western Europe, but it is planning on making it even smaller. As for the sexism, it is the same small group of idiots who proposed the minaret-ban who want traditional christian families with mommy at home and daddy at work, but they're the only ones. An educational reform is working on changing the long lunch break, but most kids eat at school already because, well, mommy's at work too.

As for old-school... how many countries have legalised assisted suicide?

Thing is, every town has its dodgy areas - legalised drugs or no. So is it a question of whether these areas are smaller or less dangerous than when the legalisation was introduced?

I'm just back from a few days there. This video is utterly one sided as well and pretty pictures do nothing to dispel the claim that the drug and sex trades are run by criminals. In the seedier areas, I've wondered where my money ends up.

Still, I love Amsterdam. This so-called experiment has worked, but naturally, it needs policed. Let's face it, buying the same stuff - be it sex or drugs - here in the UK (and they're not much harder to buy), I'd be asking myself the same question. I think the answer would be that significantly more ends up in exploiters' hands in the UK. As I see it, the UK and the rest of the world sweep under the carpet what the Netherlands attempts to address.

Governments can't beat drug dealers, but Capitalism can. If Tesco's sold Fair Trade Cannabis, drug dealers would be utterly screwed in no time. Plus, farmers in Columbia/Afghanistan/etc would have a legitimate market, which would erode the illegal market, in turn decimating FARC/Taliban/etc's income and ability to operate.

Is legalising drugs the answer to peace on earth?!

Lyrics via Google:
Yao! Rasta, unu hear sey some blackman say im waan turn American president?
Im think sey, dem a go skin up dem teeth and watch im?

Chorus
Mama mama
Com mek wi talk o
Com mek wi talk about Barack Obama
Papa! Papa!
Com make wi talk o
Com make wi talk about Barack Obama
Barack Barack, Barack Obama (2x)

Stanza (verse) 1
Originally steping out-a Kenya Africa
Adopted into the cold woodlands of America
Trust me Iyah,
Dem youth defy every order an' turn senator
Rat-Rat-Rat-Rat!
De gunshot of hate continue fi echo in-a every corner
How com blackman become president in a money-mecca?
Barack beware! Barack beware! Barack beware!
before dem turn ya name into Barack Osama
In a dis ya time,judgement a com without waata
For legalising abortion in a america,a-fyah! fyah!

Repeat Chorus

Stanza (verse) 2 lyrics from museke.com
9-11 was de beginning of satan endtime
Baptising black americans in a bitter juice of lime
Making sure no black man in a america will see his prime
In a dis ya time a black american president a great sign
Too long dem disrespect blacks and africans combined
pon black peoples flesh and blood,de kuklax clan love fi dine
Watch out Barack Obama and intensify ya power turbine
Or else breddren Obama,your dark days will never sublime

Chorus

Singing verse
Precious sheep grazing in their territory
(brother Barack watch out)
Some don't love you
They only faking it
(brother Barack watch out)
Many righteous ones been sacrificed by this very same system
As you keep the fire burning,black president

Stanza (verse) 3 lyrics from museke.com
Yahman! yahman! yahman!
"God bless america" the idiot bwoy always say
When de bombs and weapons fly over innocent people head
Oh Obama,me neva hear you talk 'bout africa yet
Or is it a nice way of swerving dem in a ya capaign?
Mr Obama,bring dis poly-tricks money to africa andkeep de poverty at bay
Too long black people keep nyaming up horse hay
Wake up Obama and don't join de band wagon of de gay
Beware Obama!Watch out Obama!Look around you
the people dem show you nuff smile
but dis smile dem a fake! fake! fake! fake smile dem!
Watch out Obama,a-fake!

Or don't tax it at all and you still save money on pigs and prisons. But this isn't the damn point - prohibition is a human rights issue, any other discussion is an insulting diversion. "Hey, stop murdering Tutsis! Their tax-francs could really contribute to Rwanda's public services!"

Begging and bribing your masters to give you a little freedom back demeans the dignity of the human race. I'd like to see a commercial more along the lines of: "Fuck you pig. Legalise today or we'll burn your eyes out, rape your wife and kill your children. Isn't it time?"

Zeus (if you really ARE the king of the gods and lightning bolts), do you not see the problem with quoting material from the Corby's own site?

My views on marijuana legalisation and the horrid manner in which Schapelle is being detained aside... it's pretty hard to overlook the fairly convincing evidence that she was knowingly attempting to traffik an illegal substance.

Ofcourse, I don't have all the facts and would happily consider any new information. But looking at your personal queue, I somehow get the feeling that you might not be one open to unbiased consideration of the facts.

>> ^dag:
I fear for what the legalisation of marijuanua in California will do to the management of Videosift content.


Medical prescriptions have been extremely easy to obtain for 12 years. I've had one forever. That's why my sifts are so good. (duh)