People will possibly know that I have a life outside of work and LUV. Part of this is being a general stirrer in a variety of political causes, one of which goes by the name of Isocracy ("equal rule"). Said organisation is hosting a meeting after the Software Freedom Day event om Saturday, 21st September, 2013, at the United Voice union offices, 117-131 Capel St North Melbourne. The (short) formal meeting starts at 18:00, but at 18:30 there will be a guest speaker, Greg Denham, the Melbourne representative of LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition), and Law Enforcement and Harm Reduction Training and Advocacy Consultant. The mission of LEAP Australia is to bring an end to drug prohibition and the "war on drugs" approach to drug law enforcement and promote a supportive legal and policy environment for regulated and controlled access to all drugs. LEAP Australia will also advocate for evidence-informed and cost-effective policies and practices that seek to reduce the risks and harms from drug use. If you are interested in this subject, or would like more information, you may wish to come along. A few links on the subject that are worthy of consideration: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/calls-to-legalise-cannabis-... http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/ne... http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/07/how_portugal_trea... http://libertycrier.com/government/top-10-cannabis-studies-the-government-wi... And, in cartoon form, an interesting scientific experiment on the subject http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/comics_en/rat-park/ -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GCertPM, MBA mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
Interesting.... a couple of things. Cigarettes are legal for those of the /right/ age, but I don't understand why anyone would seriously take up smoking today with what is known health wise and the cost of the habit financially. I've witnessed people buying food at supermarkets, they have a decline on their account -- they opt for Coke and cigarettes over the good food they had in their shop... Coke is relatively very expensive as a drink, even as a soft drink, so too are cigarettes as a /legal/ vice; neither option should have been purchased in such a situation -- but obviously addiction and habit come into play :( My view on drugs is that there should be a prohibition, but only to lessen the mantra that already exists about /recreational/ drugs and their acceptance. IMHO, no drugs like that should be acceptable, at all. Although ending prohibition /may/ improve safety for those that *must* use ... hoping that it won't lead to more users as a consequence though. Cheers A.
Andrew McGlashan wrote:
Cigarettes are legal for those of the /right/ age, but I don't understand why anyone would seriously take up smoking today with what is known health wise and the cost of the habit financially.
Duh, because it's, like, mega cool.
I've witnessed people buying food at supermarkets, they have a decline on their account -- they opt for Coke and cigarettes over the good food they had in their shop... Coke is relatively very expensive as a drink, even as a soft drink
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_v._Cigarettes Sadly not on gutenberg.net.au anymore, because the US/AU FTA moved it out of the public domain :-/ Looks like the Russians are hosting it (bottom of article), yay.
In reply to Trent Buck:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_v._Cigarettes
Sadly not on gutenberg.net.au anymore, because the US/AU FTA moved it out of the public domain :-/
Not true. You just have to bore a bit deeper. It's actually in a collection, "Fifty Orwell's Essays". See http://gutenberg.net.au/pages/orwell.html Even if it wasn't there, the FTA would be unlikely to be the immediate reason. While the FTA shifted us from death of author plus 50 years to death plus 70 years, John Howard (bless his heart) didn't make it retroactive (as happened in some other countries, like Ireland -- possibly the U.S. too, but I'm not so sure about the retroactivity of their change). So, in Australia at least, George Orwell's works came into the public domain in the year 2000, and have stayed there since. But in Ireland, weirdly, James Joyce's works came out of copyright under the death+50 rule, but went back into copyright when the Irish government shifted to death+70 and made it retro-active. (And I guess by now Joyce has gone out of copyright again, even under death+70.) To make it clear, it depends on the country where the copying happens (not on where the author is from). So, James Joyce also when out of copyright in Australia and stayed in the public domain. But in Ireland (and in other countries that changed retroactively), George Orwell went out of copyright and then back in. That, I think, was behind that notorious Amazon Kindle "re-call". The reason I mention James Joyce is a radio program I listened to last decade. An Australian playwright had written (wrought?) a play about James Joyce, which made great use of actual quotations from Joyce's work, which was OK under Australian law because Joyce was in the public domain. But when she took it to be performed at the Joyce Festival in Dublin, she couldn't do it, because Joyce was still under copyright, and the Joyce Estate wouldn't give permission. It wasn't so much a matter of money as that the Joyce Estate thought the play was too critical of their revered ancestor. The copyright monopoly gives absolute power to copyright holders. If they're evil corporations, at least they can usually be bought off by money (as much as they think they can get away with). But if they're devoted family members, they may have emotional reasons for blocking use.
Looks like the Russians are hosting it (bottom of article), yay.
Most likely it's just because they have it conveniently as a stand-alone essay file, not packaged in a big collection. Actually, before I bored into Gutenberg AU, I did worry that perhaps Orwell had been taken down from their website. When I saw other Orwell works listed, I figured that was unlikely to be the case, so I looked deeper and found "Books versus Cigarettes" in that collection as I said above. But I had been worried, for the following reason: In Australia, Orwell is in the public domain (well really "Orwell's written works"). So you can freely download Orwell's texts from gutenberg.net.au to a computer in Australia. (This assuming that gutenberg.net.au is physically hosted in Australia, which I'm pretty sure is the case.) But if you download from gutenberg.net.au to a machine in another country where Orwell is still under copyright, then you're violating copyright. I was worried that some zealous copyright holder might have claimed that Gutenberg AU was enabling that overseas copyright violation, and ordered a take-down on that account. While that I think is a theoretical risk, it's probably not likely, merely because Gutenberg AU is too small a target for them to bother with. It all goes to show how weird and unworkable are our current copyright laws. -- Smiles, Les.
Les Kitchen <ljk@csse.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
Even if it wasn't there, the FTA would be unlikely to be the immediate reason. While the FTA shifted us from death of author plus 50 years to death plus 70 years, John Howard (bless his heart) didn't make it retroactive (as happened in some other countries, like Ireland -- possibly the U.S. too, but I'm not so sure about the retroactivity of their change).
Thank you for the excellent and helpful analysis. I don't know how the U.S. copyright system works in this respect, except that it is retroactive, allegedly for the purpose of protecting what critics used to call "the mouse that ate the public domain".
Quoting Jason White (jason@jasonjgw.net):
Les Kitchen <ljk@csse.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
Even if it wasn't there, the FTA would be unlikely to be the immediate reason. While the FTA shifted us from death of author plus 50 years to death plus 70 years, John Howard (bless his heart) didn't make it retroactive (as happened in some other countries, like Ireland -- possibly the U.S. too, but I'm not so sure about the retroactivity of their change).
Thank you for the excellent and helpful analysis.
I don't know how the U.S. copyright system works in this respect, except that it is retroactive, allegedly for the purpose of protecting what critics used to call "the mouse that ate the public domain".
Succinctly put. Yes, you've put your figurative thumb on the force behind copyright extension in the USA: that damned mouse. Every time 'Steamboat Willie' (1928, the first public appearance of Mickey Mouse[1]) was about to pass into the public domain (the first time in 1956), the US Congress mysteriously got motivated to extend copyright terms. The latest extension was via 1998's Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act aka the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, which extends the term to life of the author + 70 years, or 120 years since creation or 96 years since publication (whichever endpoint is earlier) for works of corporate authorship. Copyright coverage for works published prior to 1978 was increased by 20 years to a total of 96 years since publication. US copyright extensions have _not_ had retroactive effect: The Sonny Bono act did not remove any works from the public domain. The edge case of works created before 1978 but not published until recently is addressed in a special section of the Sonny Bono Act that gives them copyright through 2047. [1] The unofficial cartoon mascot of 1984's World Science Convention in Anaheim, less than a klick from Disneyland, was one 'Ricky Rat'. The people over at Mauschwitz were unhappy but couldn't actually do anything about it.
Rick Moen wrote:
I don't know how the U.S. copyright system works in this respect, except that it is retroactive, allegedly for the purpose of protecting what critics used to call "the mouse that ate the public domain".
US copyright extensions have _not_ had retroactive effect: The Sonny Bono act did not remove any works from the public domain.
They're retroactive in the sense that they extend the copyright lifetime of works already published, though.
Quoting Trent W. Buck (trentbuck@gmail.com):
Rick Moen wrote:
US copyright extensions have _not_ had retroactive effect: The Sonny Bono act did not remove any works from the public domain.
They're retroactive in the sense that they extend the copyright lifetime of works already published, though.
Yes. The term 'retroactive' is arguably overloaded in this context.
Les Kitchen wrote:
In reply to Trent Buck:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_v._Cigarettes
Sadly not on gutenberg.net.au anymore, because the US/AU FTA moved it out of the public domain :-/
Not true. You just have to bore a bit deeper. It's actually in a collection, "Fifty Orwell's Essays". See
http://gutenberg.net.au/pages/orwell.html
Even if it wasn't there, the FTA would be unlikely to be the immediate reason. While the FTA shifted us from death of author plus 50 years to death plus 70 years, John Howard (bless his heart) didn't make it retroactive (as happened in some other countries, like Ireland -- possibly the U.S. too, but I'm not so sure about the retroactivity of their change).
Cool, thanks for the correction.
If you ask why someone would do something unhealthy like smoking then perhaps you should also ask why people do unhealthy things like playing computer games which are very common in our community. Obviously people consider that the short term pleasure of such activities outweighs the health costs. For some of us the costs of such things aren't relevant. On any sort of IT industry pay the price of Coke doesn't matter and as a stimulant if it allows slightly more work then it will give a good return on investment. In terms of regulating tobacco I don't think that adults choosing pure tobacco products such as cigars has ever involved a significant portion of the population. It's cigarettes that have chemicals to make them more addictive that are advertised to children that are the biggest problem. If prohibition is ended by having government run medical centers administering heroin then it wouldn't encourage people to take up the habit. What encourages people to take it up is pressure from other addicts who want to make money dealing. Also to reduce drug use we could work on policies to make people's lives not suck. If things are going well for someone then heroin just won't appeal to them. -- Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 2 with K-9 Mail.
On 18/09/2013 4:18 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
If you ask why someone would do something unhealthy like smoking then perhaps you should also ask why people do unhealthy things like playing computer games which are very common in our community. Obviously people consider that the short term pleasure of such activities outweighs the health costs.
Yes, that is true to a point. But smoking effects more third parties in bad ways than gaming (on the whole). Walking down the street with cigarette smoke wafting into my face and beard isn't pleasant at all. Even in the gaming arena, I have strong views .... I heard an interesting comment on a podcast -- let's say your emails are being monitored and you mention doing things that are part of a violent game, but the context in that single email makes it look like you are talking real life stuff. Ignore the fact that you just bought the game hours earlier and maybe sent an email about that earlier. Replace email with tweet or instant message ... SMS or any other medium. Context counts, but if the game wasn't so horrifically violent in nature, then their would be cause for concern about the latter communication. If games require you to rape, murder, attack -- in no particular order, then why should such a game even exist?
For some of us the costs of such things aren't relevant. On any sort of IT industry pay the price of Coke doesn't matter and as a stimulant if it allows slightly more work then it will give a good return on investment.
Principle is far more important than dollars. Marketing says if you can get away with over charging, then you do so -- more easily with a duopoly or monopoly [coles / woolworths].
In terms of regulating tobacco I don't think that adults choosing pure tobacco products such as cigars has ever involved a significant portion of the population. It's cigarettes that have chemicals to make them more addictive that are advertised to children that are the biggest problem.
Yes, but even though cigarettes have so many chemicals, that doesn't make cigars the answer, there are other alternatives.
If prohibition is ended by having government run medical centers administering heroin then it wouldn't encourage people to take up the habit. What encourages people to take it up is pressure from other addicts who want to make money dealing.
Yes, I agree, if it must happen, then it must be done in a controlled manner that really does help.
Also to reduce drug use we could work on policies to make people's lives not suck. If things are going well for someone then heroin just won't appeal to them.
There are 3rd world problems and 1st world problems -- many 1st world problems have people saying their life sucks ... it doesn't, they just need to improve their perception of what really matters in the world. Cheers A.
On 18 September 2013 16:33, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
On 18/09/2013 4:18 PM, Russell Coker wrote: <<...>>
Also to reduce drug use we could work on policies to make people's lives not suck. If things are going well for someone then heroin just won't appeal to them.
<...>
...have people saying their life sucks ... it doesn't, they just need to improve their perception of what really matters in the world.
Agreed. "What if the difference between not being addicted, and being addicted... was the difference between seeing your world as a park... and seeing the world as your cage" – http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/comics_en/rat-park/ I'd rather descriptive laws than overly prescriptive laws; those that protect my rights to an informed decision, not those that arbitrarily restrict them.
Andrew McGlashan wrote:
Even in the gaming arena, I have strong views .... I heard an interesting comment on a podcast -- let's say your emails are being monitored and you mention doing things that are part of a violent game, but the context in that single email makes it look like you are talking real life stuff. Ignore the fact that you just bought the game hours earlier and maybe sent an email about that earlier. Replace email with tweet or instant message ... SMS or any other medium. Context counts, but if the game wasn't so horrifically violent in nature, then their would be cause for concern about the latter communication.
Wrong. The famous case below invoved computer crime, which IME is not very violent. Since all the computers were seized (for YEARS), it was a pretty serious blow to the business. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jackson_Games,_Inc._v._United_States_Secr...
If games require you to rape, murder, attack -- in no particular order, then why should such a game even exist?
Because raping and murdering is fun. Not that ACMA think that, which is why AFAIK you can't get rape games here. Perhaps you should check your hyperbole. (With the new R rating, sex is OK and violence is OK, but both in the same game will still be RC.)
For some of us the costs of such things aren't relevant. On any sort of IT industry pay the price of Coke doesn't matter and as a stimulant if it allows slightly more work then it will give a good return on investment.
Principle is far more important than dollars. Marketing says if you can get away with over charging, then you do so -- more easily with a duopoly or monopoly [coles / woolworths].
Caffeinated cola is not a monopoly. If you don't want to pay for the Coca-Cola branding, make your own -- there's an Open Cola recipe floating around somewhere.
There are 3rd world problems and 1st world problems -- many 1st world problems have people saying their life sucks ... it doesn't, they just need to improve their perception of what really matters in the world.
I have never had parasitic worms burrowing through my skin. Yay!
On Wed, September 18, 2013 6:55 pm, Trent W. Buck wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jackson_Games,_Inc._v._United_States_Secr...
Heh. I was a playtester for that book. True fact. -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GCertPM, MBA mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
On 18/09/2013 6:55 PM, Trent W. Buck wrote:
Andrew McGlashan wrote:
Even in the gaming arena, I have strong views .... I heard an interesting comment on a podcast -- let's say your emails are being monitored and you mention doing things that are part of a violent game, but the context in that single email makes it look like you are talking real life stuff. Ignore the fact that you just bought the game hours earlier and maybe sent an email about that earlier. Replace email with tweet or instant message ... SMS or any other medium. Context counts, but if the game wasn't so horrifically violent in nature, then their would be cause for concern about the latter communication.
Wrong. The famous case below invoved computer crime, which IME is not very violent. Since all the computers were seized (for YEARS), it was a pretty serious blow to the business.
It wasn't the same source, never mind the source, I wasn't wrong in expressing what I had heard with my own two ears.
If games require you to rape, murder, attack -- in no particular order, then why should such a game even exist?
Because raping and murdering is fun. Not that ACMA think that, which is why AFAIK you can't get rape games here. Perhaps you should check your hyperbole.
It's irrelevant to my argument. That is ACMA, regulation or whatever, totally irrelevant.
For some of us the costs of such things aren't relevant. On any sort of IT industry pay the price of Coke doesn't matter and as a stimulant if it allows slightly more work then it will give a good return on investment.
Principle is far more important than dollars. Marketing says if you can get away with over charging, then you do so -- more easily with a duopoly or monopoly [coles / woolworths].
Caffeinated cola is not a monopoly. If you don't want to pay for the Coca-Cola branding, make your own -- there's an Open Cola recipe floating around somewhere.
That's not the point either, ask many people which beverage they prefer and it can be quite distinctive for those people. No-one is easily going to get the Coca-Cola formula, which generally is considered the most wanted. Cheaper supermarket variants don't suit some tastes, besides on the duopoly / monopoly front, I wasn't referring to soft drinks alone (let alone cola drinks). I don't know whom is responsible for the pricing similarities, nor whom is benefiting the most from the excessively high cost of the cola products in question, in any case, the consumer isn't the benefactor. In fact, such cola company tried to bring in a "new flavor (Americanism intended)" of Coke and there was a backlash; the end result was that the old flavour returned as the "classic" version and thus reversed the trend towards the other major /competitive/ product option. That's an interesting story in itself.
There are 3rd world problems and 1st world problems -- many 1st world problems have people saying their life sucks ... it doesn't, they just need to improve their perception of what really matters in the world.
I have never had parasitic worms burrowing through my skin. Yay!
Sure, likewise. Cheers A.
Quoting Trent W. Buck (trentbuck@gmail.com):
Wrong. The famous case below invoved computer crime, which IME is not very violent. Since all the computers were seized (for YEARS), it was a pretty serious blow to the business.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jackson_Games,_Inc._v._United_States_Secr...
Minor historicla trivia: I was the fellow who published the court's decision to the global Internet. (Many years later, I found myself sitting at a dinner table with Steve Jackson and we reminisced.) Highly recommended reading: Bruce Sterling's -The Hacker Crackdown_, full text of which book the author makes available for free electronically.
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 04:33:12PM +1000, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
Yes, that is true to a point. But smoking effects more third parties in bad ways than gaming (on the whole). Walking down the street with cigarette smoke wafting into my face and beard isn't pleasant at all.
you might seem credible if you didn't equate 'unpleasant' with 'causes harm'. you'll get thousands of times more toxic crap in your lungs while walking down the street from car and truck exhaust than from a passerby smoking. the only evidence that smoking has any effect on third-parties is when smoking is allowed in enclosed spaces without ventilation or extraction fans, where people (i.e. workers) are required to spend many hours. this has, quite rightly, been banned for several years. many other businesses with even worse air-pollution problems - e.g. electronics manufacturing - have excellent ventilation and fume extraction hoods to remove, e.g. soldering fumes. unfortunately, banning and ameliorating the risk of potentially harmful practises isn't good enough for the quit-wowsers. harm reduction/elimination is not the point. they want to impose their moral certainty, their preferences, their rules on everyone else. worse, they think they have a right not to be offended or ever exposed to anything that might tempt them to have a whinge.
If games require you to rape, murder, attack -- in no particular order, then why should such a game even exist?
you're absolutely right. we need thought-crime legislation right now! there's no difference at all between virtual crimes in a game and actual crimes in the real world. (btw, any game depicting rape in anything even remotely like a positive fashion is unlikely to get past the ratings board. they seem even stricter on such things now that we have an actual adult category for games)
For some of us the costs of such things aren't relevant. On any sort of IT industry pay the price of Coke doesn't matter and as a stimulant if it allows slightly more work then it will give a good return on investment.
Principle is far more important than dollars. Marketing says if you can get away with over charging, then you do so -- more easily with a duopoly or monopoly [coles / woolworths].
yep, but whose principles? i prefer mine - if it harms none, do what you will. and i mean real harm, not psychobabble, excuse-for-a-whinge, i-am-too-a-real-victim pseudo-"harm".
Yes, but even though cigarettes have so many chemicals, that doesn't make cigars the answer, there are other alternatives.
the quit-wowsers have banned other alternatives, like nicotine liquid for e-cigarettes.
There are 3rd world problems and 1st world problems -- many 1st world problems have people saying their life sucks ... it doesn't, they just need to improve their perception of what really matters in the world.
you really ought to quit your day job and become a social worker or health worker. your expertise is sorely needed. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
On 18 September 2013 23:49, Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 04:33:12PM +1000, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
Yes, that is true to a point. But smoking effects more third parties in bad ways than gaming (on the whole). Walking down the street with cigarette smoke wafting into my face and beard isn't pleasant at all.
you might seem credible if you didn't equate 'unpleasant' with 'causes harm'.
you'll get thousands of times more toxic crap in your lungs while walking down the street from car and truck exhaust than from a passerby smoking.
the only evidence that smoking has any effect on third-parties is when smoking is allowed in enclosed spaces without ventilation or extraction fans, where people (i.e. workers) are required to spend many hours. this has, quite rightly, been banned for several years.
many other businesses with even worse air-pollution problems - e.g. electronics manufacturing - have excellent ventilation and fume extraction hoods to remove, e.g. soldering fumes.
unfortunately, banning and ameliorating the risk of potentially harmful practises isn't good enough for the quit-wowsers. harm reduction/elimination is not the point. they want to impose their moral certainty, their preferences, their rules on everyone else.
worse, they think they have a right not to be offended or ever exposed to anything that might tempt them to have a whinge.
If games require you to rape, murder, attack -- in no particular order, then why should such a game even exist?
you're absolutely right. we need thought-crime legislation right now!
there's no difference at all between virtual crimes in a game and actual crimes in the real world.
(btw, any game depicting rape in anything even remotely like a positive fashion is unlikely to get past the ratings board. they seem even stricter on such things now that we have an actual adult category for games)
For some of us the costs of such things aren't relevant. On any sort of IT industry pay the price of Coke doesn't matter and as a stimulant if it allows slightly more work then it will give a good return on investment.
Principle is far more important than dollars. Marketing says if you can get away with over charging, then you do so -- more easily with a duopoly or monopoly [coles / woolworths].
yep, but whose principles? i prefer mine - if it harms none, do what you will.
and i mean real harm, not psychobabble, excuse-for-a-whinge, i-am-too-a-real-victim pseudo-"harm".
Yes, but even though cigarettes have so many chemicals, that doesn't make cigars the answer, there are other alternatives.
the quit-wowsers have banned other alternatives, like nicotine liquid for e-cigarettes.
There are 3rd world problems and 1st world problems -- many 1st world problems have people saying their life sucks ... it doesn't, they just need to improve their perception of what really matters in the world.
you really ought to quit your day job and become a social worker or health worker. your expertise is sorely needed.
craig
-- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
As you seem pro-smoking (correct me if I am wrong), can you enlighten me to the positive benefits of smoking? A costs/benefits analysis as part of a harm reduction strategy doesn't just look at the costs involved in an activity. If it did driving would be banned considering the number of Australian's that die on roads.
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 02:33:25AM +1000, Lauchlin Wilkinson wrote:
As you seem pro-smoking (correct me if I am wrong),
i'm not pro-smoking. i'm anti-wowser.
can you enlighten me to the positive benefits of smoking?
i don't think it's necessary for me to do so, any more than it's necessary for me out enlighten you as to the positive benefits of sky-diving. but since you asked, here's one benefit: nicotine is a fairly strong central nervous stimulant, it aids in concentration and focus. it's a lot less effective than than methamphetamine for these purpose, but also a lot less harmful. nicotine also aids in fixing short-term memory (which is why cramming students often smoke)
A costs/benefits analysis as part of a harm reduction strategy doesn't just look at the costs involved in an activity.
people make decisions for all sorts of reasons, most of which aren't in the least bit rational (which doesn't necessarily mean that they're bad decisions, just that humans are far more complex than the idiot economic rationalists pretend we are).
If it did driving would be banned considering the number of Australian's that die on roads.
as would most activities, including jogging and running, riding bicycles, roller-skates, mountain climbing, scuba diving, parachuting and more. pretty nearly anything you do involves some risk, and many offer no tangible reward (just a feeling of accomplishment, which you can't take to the bank or buy food with or do anything practical with). BTW, football and other sports are *huge* sources of hospitalisation injuries to children, but most people find that acceptable and nobody would ever seriously proposing banning sport for children. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
On 18/09/2013 4:18 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
If you ask why someone would do something unhealthy like smoking then perhaps you should also ask why people do unhealthy things like playing computer games which are very common in our community. Obviously people consider that the short term pleasure of such activities outweighs the health costs.
Yes, that is true to a point. But smoking effects more third parties in bad ways than gaming (on the whole). Walking down the street with cigarette smoke wafting into my face and beard isn't pleasant at all.
To deal with that they could start by enforcing current laws regarding smoking. For example smoking is banned at all covered areas at stations and bus and tram stops but you never see anyone getting booked for it. They should make the fines for such actions large enough to cover the cost of enforcement and hire lots of people to book such criminals.
Even in the gaming arena, I have strong views .... I heard an interesting comment on a podcast -- let's say your emails are being monitored and you mention doing things that are part of a violent game, but the context in that single email makes it look like you are talking real life stuff. Ignore the fact that you just bought the game hours earlier and maybe sent an email about that earlier. Replace email with tweet or instant message ... SMS or any other medium. Context counts, but if the game wasn't so horrifically violent in nature, then their would be cause for concern about the latter communication.
If games require you to rape, murder, attack -- in no particular order, then why should such a game even exist?
So you are arguing that the cowardly policies of the government in regard to "terrorism" are a reason for censoring games? I think that the issue of game censorship should be solely based on whether it encourages criminal activity.
For some of us the costs of such things aren't relevant. On any sort of IT industry pay the price of Coke doesn't matter and as a stimulant if it allows slightly more work then it will give a good return on investment.
Principle is far more important than dollars. Marketing says if you can get away with over charging, then you do so -- more easily with a duopoly or monopoly [coles / woolworths].
Coke and Pepsi are very profitable businesses. But their products are still cheap enough that you could drink a couple every day while doing computer work and not have it make much of an income on your bank balance at the end of the week.
In terms of regulating tobacco I don't think that adults choosing pure tobacco products such as cigars has ever involved a significant portion of the population. It's cigarettes that have chemicals to make them more addictive that are advertised to children that are the biggest problem.
Yes, but even though cigarettes have so many chemicals, that doesn't make cigars the answer, there are other alternatives.
I'm not suggesting that cigars are a solution, merely that the usage patterns of cigars suggest what cigarette usage might be like if it wasn't for unethical production and marketting.
Also to reduce drug use we could work on policies to make people's lives not suck. If things are going well for someone then heroin just won't appeal to them.
There are 3rd world problems and 1st world problems -- many 1st world problems have people saying their life sucks ... it doesn't, they just need to improve their perception of what really matters in the world.
If you think that everyone who's not in the first world should be happy for that and nothing else then you really don't understand people. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 02:51:25PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
Yes, that is true to a point. But smoking effects more third parties in bad ways than gaming (on the whole). Walking down the street with cigarette smoke wafting into my face and beard isn't pleasant at all.
To deal with that they could start by enforcing current laws regarding smoking. For example smoking is banned at all covered areas at stations and bus and tram stops but you never see anyone getting booked for it.
They should make the fines for such actions large enough to cover the cost of enforcement and hire lots of people to book such criminals.
seems a bit excessive when you consider that, at least for bus and tram stops, everyone there is already breathing in all the fumes from passing cars and trucks and buses. why not fine everyone driving past a tram stop instead? or if it's merely offensive smells rather than harmful pollutants, why not fine people for BO? or the stench of cheap or alcohol-based perfume? we need the arm-pit police!!! or maybe you could learn not to be so intolerant. you're in a public place and have no right to inflict your own personal prejudices and likes and dislikes on everyone else. It's not actually harming you, you just find it distasteful. OTOH, i'd love to see the McDonalds near one of the tram stops (near the corner of Albion & Nicholson Sts, Brunswick) I use fined for the vile stink emanating from the place - it's truly repulsive, makes me want to puke. i gag at it even driving past it with the windows down. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013, Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> wrote:
To deal with that they could start by enforcing current laws regarding smoking. For example smoking is banned at all covered areas at stations and bus and tram stops but you never see anyone getting booked for it.
They should make the fines for such actions large enough to cover the cost of enforcement and hire lots of people to book such criminals.
seems a bit excessive when you consider that, at least for bus and tram stops, everyone there is already breathing in all the fumes from passing cars and trucks and buses.
There are many reasons for dealing with the fumes from vehicles, not the least of which is the fact that there is a finite supply of oil which is rapidly running out.
or maybe you could learn not to be so intolerant. you're in a public place and have no right to inflict your own personal prejudices and likes and dislikes on everyone else. It's not actually harming you, you just find it distasteful.
Why can't people just obey the law? It's a democracy, you can vote for a party that will change the law. When the popular opinion in favor of a law is so strong that no party advocates change, none of the vested interests want to pay for it, and there's not even a fringe party advocating change it's a sign that it's got wide popular support. Why should a small number of anti-social people be allowed to get away with it? Why do smokers who are decent people even oppose such laws? It's not as if there's a shortage of places to smoke other than bus stops.
OTOH, i'd love to see the McDonalds near one of the tram stops (near the corner of Albion & Nicholson Sts, Brunswick) I use fined for the vile stink emanating from the place - it's truly repulsive, makes me want to puke. i gag at it even driving past it with the windows down.
There's currently ongoing legal action to prevent McDonalds from opening in Tecoma, you can sign one of the petitions if you wish. It seems that in most other places people are reasonably happy to have a McDonalds. On Thu, 19 Sep 2013, Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> wrote:
nicotine is a fairly strong central nervous stimulant, it aids in concentration and focus.
it's a lot less effective than than methamphetamine for these purpose, but also a lot less harmful.
Wouldn't something like Codrol do some good in that regard? -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 11:13:15PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
or maybe you could learn not to be so intolerant. you're in a public place and have no right to inflict your own personal prejudices and likes and dislikes on everyone else. It's not actually harming you, you just find it distasteful.
Why can't people just obey the law?
0. for the same reason that YOU - and everyone else - selectively choose which laws are worth obeying and which are not. 1. because some laws are just plain stupid. 2. because the people who whinge about it will still whinge about it if you're 2', 5', 10' or even 15' away from the bus shelter. 2a. because being 2' outside the shelter is legally OK but effectively exactly the same as being just under it, except you get a little more wet or sun-burnt depening on the whether. 3. because it's raining. or 35+ degrees. and even sub-human smokers deserve shelter from the elements. 4. because it's discriminatory - non-smokers are capable of offensive or distasteful smells too. and many of them are more than capable of loud and offensive whingy sounds.
Why do smokers who are decent people even oppose such laws? It's not as if there's a shortage of places to smoke other than bus stops.
i have no objection to anti-smoking laws that serve a useful purpose - banning smoking indoors, in restaurants, in workplaces, and the like. in fact, i support them 100%. in fact, i used to go outside to smoke years before it was legally required - it's just being polite. quit-wowsers and the sane non-smokers won that fight because it makes sense. unfortunately, they didn't and have no intention of stopping there, because they're moral crusaders - pretty much the worst kind of human plague on any civilisation. pushing for even more laws banning smoking outdoors in public places just because you don't like the smell or find it distasteful does not serve any useful purpose, it's just wowserism.
OTOH, i'd love to see the McDonalds near one of the tram stops (near the corner of Albion & Nicholson Sts, Brunswick) I use fined for the vile stink emanating from the place - it's truly repulsive, makes me want to puke. i gag at it even driving past it with the windows down.
There's currently ongoing legal action to prevent McDonalds from opening in Tecoma, you can sign one of the petitions if you wish. It seems that in most other places people are reasonably happy to have a McDonalds.
been there, done that (in pascoe vale). it went the same way as almost every other time community groups oppose mcdonalds - local council blocks development, mcdonalds appeals to VCAT or State planning minister, council ruling gets overturned. hooray for democracy.
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013, Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> wrote:
nicotine is a fairly strong central nervous stimulant, it aids in concentration and focus.
it's a lot less effective than than methamphetamine for these purpose, but also a lot less harmful.
Wouldn't something like Codrol do some good in that regard?
ephedrine or pseudo-ephedrine? only if you like taking such a huge dose you get the shakes with your stimulant. it's a very different effect, anyway. so, nope. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 11:13:15PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
It's a democracy, you can vote for a party that will change the law. When the popular opinion in favor of a law is so strong that no party advocates change, none of the vested interests want to pay for it, and there's not even a fringe party advocating change it's a sign that it's got wide popular support. Why should a small number of anti-social people be allowed to get away with it?
actually, what you're talking about is NOT democracy. it's tyranny of the majority. or *a* majority. which is pretty much the same thing as tyranny by those who can manipulate a majority - politicians, celebrities, newspaper owners, etc. what you're saying is that because a majority don't like something, it's OK to ban it - without regard to the rights of those who are banned from the activity. so, if a majority don't like homosexuality, it's OK to ban same-sex couples kissing or holding hands in public. and if a majority of whites don't want to work with non-whites, it's OK to exclude them from being hired. and, of course, if you take it to a grassroots-level of localised democracy if a majority of people in a restaurant wanted to smoke, then a minority who didn't would just have to put up with it or leave. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
Quoting Craig Sanders (cas@taz.net.au):
actually, what you're talking about is NOT democracy. it's tyranny of the majority. or *a* majority.
Quite. Illustration of the fact that worse than wowzerdom can emerge from the War on Drugs Without Major Corporate Sponsorship: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/18/dea-agents-raid_n_3942731.html
...... but if the game wasn't so horrifically violent in nature, then their would be cause for concern about the latter communication. correction ... .... then there wouldn't be cause for concern ... sorry.
On 18 September 2013 14:20, Andrew McGlashan < andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
My view on drugs is that there should be a prohibition, but only to lessen the mantra that already exists about /recreational/ drugs and their acceptance. IMHO, no drugs like that should be acceptable, at all. Although ending prohibition /may/ improve safety for those that *must* use ... hoping that it won't lead to more users as a consequence though.
Cheers A.
Did you mean "...there should *not* be a prohibition...", as the rest of the paragraph reads like that is what you meant to write? I'm interested to hear why you think no recreational drugs should be acceptable at all.
On 18/09/2013 4:55 PM, Lauchlin Wilkinson wrote:
On 18 September 2013 14:20, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au <mailto:andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au>> wrote:
My view on drugs is that there should be a prohibition, but only to lessen the mantra that already exists about /recreational/ drugs and their acceptance. IMHO, no drugs like that should be acceptable, at all. Although ending prohibition /may/ improve safety for those that *must* use ... hoping that it won't lead to more users as a consequence though.
Cheers A. Did you mean "...there should *not* be a prohibition...", as the rest of the paragraph reads like that is what you meant to write? I'm interested to hear why you think no recreational drugs should be acceptable at all.
As soon as you say it is okay, I think you increase the problem; it's legal, so it can't be that bad.... Recreational drugs .... well, perhaps that is too broad, some /may/ or may not be better than others; the narcotic kind, well I don't agree there is a need for them at all ... under the guise of /recreational/ particularly. Of those whom have been through drug issues of their own, many will admit that drugs did more damage to their lives than too many current users will ever admit. The first part to handling a drug problem [for users themselves] is admitting that a problem even exists; some drug users will agree [to having a problem], but most users will justify the use instead (my life sucks for instance) and others will believe that it isn't a problem at all, period [deniable or not]. Cheers A.
On 18 September 2013 17:07, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
As soon as you say it is okay, I think you increase the problem; it's legal, so it can't be that bad....
Other spectators hold the opposite view: that the illegality causes more problems than it solves. This is why trials have been conducted, to see what actually occurs as opposed to what people "think" will occur. After the trials, open-minded intelligent people will replace their opinions with evidence, and make decisions on that basis.
David <bouncingcats@gmail.com> wrote:
Other spectators hold the opposite view: that the illegality causes more problems than it solves.
Indeed they do. The question is whether the reduction in usage resulting from criminalization has sufficient benefits to outweigh the harm caused by treating the distribution and use of certain drugs as a criminal activity.
This is why trials have been conducted, to see what actually occurs as opposed to what people "think" will occur.
After the trials, open-minded intelligent people will replace their opinions with evidence, and make decisions on that basis.
Unfortunately, this is one subject that tends to attract opinions from people who are not open-minded in this respect. There is of course a wide spectrum of policy options available, all with different consequences. For example, it would be possible to treat the distribution of the drugs as an offence while permitting their use (the distributors, but not the users, would then be criminally liable). Equally, one could permit both distribution and use, while prohibiting advertising, or imposing high taxes for example. Different policies can be applied to different drugs, of course, as is in fact already the case (alcohol and tobacco are treated very differently from cannabis currently). This is an area in which no outcome can be good for everyone affected and in which it is necessary to make trade-offs to arrive at an appropriate policy. The drugs concerned are (usually) addictive and harmful to health, but shifting the problem into the realm of criminal activity incurs substantial costs also. I doubt there are many on this list who would be qualified to make policy recommendations related to drug laws. I know I'm not so qualified
Quoting Jason White (jason@jasonjgw.net):
Different policies can be applied to different drugs, of course, as is in fact already the case (alcohol and tobacco are treated very differently from cannabis currently).
Which is why, when I hear the expression 'War on Drugs', I mildly demur and suggest more-accurate nomenclature such as 'War on Some Drugs' -- or, alternatively, 'War on Drugs Without Major Corporate Sponsorship'.
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013, Jason White <jason@jasonjgw.net> wrote:
David <bouncingcats@gmail.com> wrote:
Other spectators hold the opposite view: that the illegality causes more problems than it solves.
Indeed they do. The question is whether the reduction in usage resulting from criminalization has sufficient benefits to outweigh the harm caused by treating the distribution and use of certain drugs as a criminal activity.
You are assuming that decriminilising drugs will increase use. While it may increase casual use of soft drugs I really don't think that there will be many people who say "now that heroin is legal I'll go shoot up". There are however many people who are tricked or coerced into using hard drugs by people who want to make money from them.
substantial costs also. I doubt there are many on this list who would be qualified to make policy recommendations related to drug laws. I know I'm not so qualified
http://greens.org.au/policy-platform?field_policy_category_tid=13 http://greens.org.au/policies/drugs-substance-abuse-addiction That's a cop-out. Most people here are voters and are deemed to be qualified to make "policy recommendations" at election time. Above are links to the Greens policies about health-care and the policy about drugs. I believe that the Greens don't go far enough, but their policies are generally good. At the last election I made a "policy recommendation" in favor of the Greens as well as a "policy recommendation" that put the Liberal party about last on the list. On Wed, 18 Sep 2013, Joel W Shea <jwshea@gmail.com> wrote:
...have people saying their life sucks ... it doesn't, they just need to improve their perception of what really matters in the world.
Agreed.
"What if the difference between not being addicted, and being addicted... was the difference between seeing your world as a park... and seeing the world as your cage" – http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/comics_en/rat-park/
Joel, why do you agree when you cite a web comic that disagrees? The end of the web comic shows two people who didn't have a choice in their situation. It seems to me that people who experience the world as a cage either have objective problems (such as being unable to find work) or mental health problems and in either case they can't just change their perception. That comic is excellent, thanks for the reference. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On 19/09/2013 6:38 PM, "Russell Coker" <russell@coker.com.au> wrote:
Joel, why do you agree when you cite a web comic that disagrees? The end of the web comic shows two people who didn't have a choice in their situation.
I was agreeing with your point about creating policy to improve people's situation (rather than enforcing the criminalisation of drugs). Although I may not agree with Andrew's position, I agree with his point that perception of one's own situation plays an influential role.
It seems to me that people who experience the world as a cage either have objective problems (such as being unable to find work) or mental health problems and in either case they can't just change their perception.
This is where I will disagree, people may choose how they perceive their own situation, despite how they ended up in that situation. See; Man's Search for Meaning – Viktor Frankl
That comic is excellent, thanks for the reference.
I've since realised Lev also included that reference in the original post.
Trent W. Buck <trentbuck@gmail.com> wrote:
David wrote:
[...] open-minded intelligent people will replace their opinions with evidence, and make decisions on that basis. ^[citation needed] ;-)
It's true a priori. Those who do not "replace their opinions with evidence, and make decisions on that basis" cannot be both intelligent and open-minded as required.
On 18 September 2013 18:16, David <bouncingcats@gmail.com> wrote:
On 18 September 2013 17:07, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
As soon as you say it is okay, I think you increase the problem; it's legal, so it can't be that bad....
Other spectators hold the opposite view: that the illegality causes more problems than it solves.
<...> This seems to have been the approach in the Netherlands with non-enforcement of "soft drug" legislation.
I'd rather have full decriminalisation than have a legal grey area whereas legislation can be enforced selectively. Besides, there's no point in having laws that won't matter. Regards Slav
-----Original Message----- This seems to have been the approach in the Netherlands with non- enforcement of "soft drug" legislation.
"This e-mail and any attachments to it (the "Communication") is, unless otherwise stated, confidential, may contain copyright material and is for the use only of the intended recipient. If you receive the Communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete the Communication and the return e-mail, and do not read, copy, retransmit or otherwise deal with it. Any views expressed in the Communication are those of the individual sender only, unless expressly stated to be those of Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited ABN 11 005 357 522, or any of its related entities including ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited (together "ANZ"). ANZ does not accept liability in connection with the integrity of or errors in the Communication, computer virus, data corruption, interference or delay arising from or in respect of the Communication."
On 18 September 2013 19:11, Pidgorny, Slav (GEUS) <slav.pidgorny@anz.com> wrote:
I'd rather have full decriminalisation than have a legal grey area whereas legislation can be enforced selectively. Besides, there's no point in having laws that won't matter.
Aside from the fact non-enforcement has created de facto decriminalisation; the "United Nations treaties currently impede decriminalisation on the sale, trade and cultivation of cannabis." – http://www.volkskrant.nl/den_haag/article164670.ece
On Wed, September 18, 2013 5:07 pm, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
As soon as you say it is okay, I think you increase the problem; it's legal, so it can't be that bad....
The evidence from Portugal's decriminalisation is that usage declined significantly. http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminaliz... -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GCertPM, MBA mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
On 18/09/2013 8:53 PM, Lev Lafayette wrote:
On Wed, September 18, 2013 5:07 pm, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
As soon as you say it is okay, I think you increase the problem; it's legal, so it can't be that bad....
The evidence from Portugal's decriminalisation is that usage declined significantly.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminaliz...
And I would hope that would be true for all populations, but I fear that wouldn't be the case. The rat-pack vs park comic was fun and quite interesting too. There are loads of debatable topics, euthanasia is another, some may view unfettered access to drugs as an /easy/ way to provide euthanasia options. Look, I'm going to try to bow out of this conversation; but before I do, let me say that I would fully support the decriminalization of drugs if I believed it might be the best outcome; right now I'm leaning towards fully accepting that premise despite my view that narcotic drugs are bad and they shouldn't exist. Cheers A.
On 18/09/2013 10:03 PM, Trent W. Buck wrote:
Andrew McGlashan wrote:
[...] despite my view that narcotic drugs are bad and they shouldn't exist.
Tell that to an anaesthetist.
There are drug free ways to keep the nerves busy .... not that I've tried them, but I have never in my life hung out for laughing gas. A.
Andrew McGlashan wrote:
On 18/09/2013 10:03 PM, Trent W. Buck wrote:
Andrew McGlashan wrote:
[...] despite my view that narcotic drugs are bad and they shouldn't exist. Tell that to an anaesthetist. There are drug free ways to keep the nerves busy .... not that I've tried them, but I have never in my life hung out for laughing gas.
Gall-stones are caused when a malfunctioning gall bladder accumulates and concentrates , a liver by-product 'bile'; till the calcium salts precipitate out off solution resulting first in 'sand' then stones.When a stone get stuck in the' neck' of the gall-bladder a fairly severe pain results, currently standard treatment, prior to excision of the gall-bladder is injection of morphine-hydrochloride. The purpose of which is to relax the' neck', to allow the stone to drop back into the gall-bladder . My point being that constructive uses probably exist for all these substances which we describe as drugs: caffeine,, ethyl alcohol, opiates, amphetamines, psychedelics...... Life is a dangerous business, various ethical ends and consistent ethical injunctions are proposed; the one Sartre proposes is that we accept full responsibility for our choices, or we will be found guilty of bad-faith !. .Somewhat academic I would argue since regardless of whether one's current situation, is the consequence of one's choices or not; the problem is uniquely one's own. . This sort of debate is fairly common at the Existentialist Society; regards Rohan McLeod
Quoting Rohan McLeod (rhn@jeack.com.au):
My point being that constructive uses probably exist for all these substances which we describe as drugs: caffeine,, ethyl alcohol, opiates, amphetamines, psychedelics......
Here's an interesting example of an opiate: loperamide (4-[4-(4-chlorophenyl)-4-hydroxypiperidin-1-yl]-N,N-dimethyl-2,2- diphenylbutanamide). Taken orally, it slows down action of muscles controlling the large intestine, essentially relieving lower-digestive distress. _However_, the substance cannot accumulate in the central nervous system (permeability glycoprotein in the blood pumps it back out), with the result that it has -no neurological effect-. It doesn't make you sleepy or high: It pretty much cannot. In many countries, it's sold at chemists, under brands like Imodium, as an over the counter anti-diarrhoeal. But I am careful about which countries I visit with it in my luggage, as so many are rabid about punishing possession of 'opiates'.
Life is a dangerous business, various ethical ends and consistent ethical injunctions are proposed; the one Sartre proposes is that we accept full responsibility for our choices, or we will be found guilty of bad-faith !. Somewhat academic I would argue since regardless of whether one's current situation, is the consequence of one's choices or not; the problem is uniquely one's own.
Ah, a pleasure to meet another unfashionable existentialist.
Rick Moen wrote: .........snip
Life is a dangerous business, various ethical ends and consistent ethical injunctions are proposed; the one Sartre proposes is that we accept full responsibility for our choices, or we will be found guilty of bad-faith !. Somewhat academic I would argue since regardless of whether one's current situation, is the consequence of one's choices or not; the problem is uniquely one's own. Perhaps I should have said ' the problem is uniquely,. necessarily and urgently one's own' Ah, a pleasure to meet another unfashionable existentialist.
Formally Existentialism is a category of Continental philosophy and certainly most of the speakers at the Existentialist Society;( which should really be called a forum since it has no membership); come from that tradition.The frequent attendee's probably tend more to that persuasion; but they are extremely diverse; self described as : Llibertarian anarchists, defrocked Christian fundamentalists, Buddhists, Progressive Atheists, Humanists, Rationalists, proponents of Islam , Judaism ... As someone from the scientific/ technological tradition with an interest in ontology, and the epistemology of science; I would have to say the scholasticism and semantic obscurity of Continental philosophy make it far from a natural 'fit'. So my existentialism is mostly to do with 'non-contingent choice'; of late I am starting to see a place for phenomenology but the significance of 'existence over essence' utterly eludes me ! I suppose my position relative to Analytical and Continental Philosophy; could be described as ' the former is language without content and the latter content without language'; as for the currently fashionable Post-modernism /begin rant/ 1/ Not post to anything, but in both it's aesthetic and intellectual aspects, a reactionary conservatism masquerading as a conceptual innovation 2/ It's defining notion of modernity, the self-serving construct, of a group of intellectuals unhappy with various aspects of the 20th century 3/ It's attendant notions of truth, critique,'deconstruction' and 'subversion' ; puerile sophistries because:. -Truth in the form of falsifiable-statements not only exists; but exists in a variety of ontologically different forms eg. objective, subjective, hypothetical and mathematical; perhaps even metaphysical -Critique is unnecessary when it is totally transcended (included and gone beyond) by 'enquiry'. -Deconstruction is unnecessary when it is totally transcended (included and gone beyond) by 'analysis'. -Subversion in the context of the process of science is simply false; science proceeds by transcendence (inclusion and going beyond); it is a tautological necessity that subsequent theories include previous as special cases 4/ It's notion of differing narratives implying different realities; seeming to confuse a single reality, described from different standpoints and values 5/ and finally language so obscure as to suggest little interest in communicating it's standpoint and theories beyond a small group of specialist converts /end rant/ regards Rohan McLeod
Andrew McGlashan wrote:
On 18/09/2013 10:03 PM, Trent W. Buck wrote:
Andrew McGlashan wrote:
[...] despite my view that narcotic drugs are bad and they shouldn't exist.
Tell that to an anaesthetist.
There are drug free ways to keep the nerves busy .... not that I've tried them, but I have never in my life hung out for laughing gas.
anaesthetic, n. 1. A substance that causes reversible loss of sensation or loss of consciousness; used to perform surgery without pain. narcotic, n. 1. Any class of substances or drugs, that reduces pain, induces sleep and may alter mood or behaviour. drug, n. 1. (pharmacology) A substance used to treat an illness, relieve a symptom, or modify a chemical process in the body for a specific purpose. 2. A psychoactive substance, especially one which is illegal and addictive, ingested for recreational use, such as cocaine. Laughing gas *is* an anaesthetic. Laughing gas *is* a narcotic. Laughing gas *is* a drug, by the first definition. Therefore I presume you're using the second definition -- or more likely, using a definition of "anything I don't like" -- such that your argument devolves to "things I don't like are bad and should be banned". I see no point in continuing this discussion.
Quoting Trent W. Buck (trentbuck@gmail.com):
anaesthetic, n. 1. A substance that causes reversible loss of sensation or loss of consciousness; used to perform surgery without pain.
Yesterday, I took an ibuprofen (on account of almost all my muscle groups saying 'Hullo, you did a great deal of garden work this weekend, and we thought we'd let you know we noticed').
narcotic, n. 1. Any class of substances or drugs, that reduces pain, induces sleep and may alter mood or behaviour.
Last night, I had a nice glass of 10-year-old tawny port.
drug, n. 1. (pharmacology) A substance used to treat an illness, relieve a symptom, or modify a chemical process in the body for a specific purpose.
Today, I drank coffee (very strong, black).
2. A psychoactive substance, especially one which is illegal and addictive, ingested for recreational use, such as cocaine.
I believe I inhaled some second-hand cigarette smoke. I'm just an incorrigible drugs user, aren't I? Back to the Scary Devil Monastery go I. Actually, I believe I'll be summoning up all of my depravity as a drugs user and ingesting a big dose of 8-Methyl-N-vanillyl-trans-6-nonenamide aka capsaicin, via several ripe jalapeno, anaheim, serrano, and hot portugal peppers I just harvested from my garden and will be including in tonight's fresh salsa. The hot portugal peppers are new this year and sensational. I'll be saving seed. http://www.smartgardener.com/plants/2370-peppers-hot-portugal-hot-pepper-og/...
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 09:03:08PM +1000, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
Look, I'm going to try to bow out of this conversation; but before I do, let me say that I would fully support the decriminalization of drugs if I believed it might be the best outcome; right now I'm leaning towards fully accepting that premise despite my view that narcotic drugs are bad and they shouldn't exist.
there are many reasons why currently-illegal drugs should be decriminalised or legalised but, for me, the single most compelling reason (and sufficient unto itself) is that it would take hundreds of billions of dollars out of the world's black markets. that's money no longer going to criminal scumbags, or funding terrorist organisations. and no longer corrupting police and politicians. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
Did you mean "...there should *not* be a prohibition...", as the rest of the paragraph reads like that is what you meant to write? I'm interested to hear why you think no recreational drugs should be acceptable at all.
As soon as you say it is okay, I think you increase the problem; it's legal, so it can't be that bad....
Except that drug use doesn't increase when drugs are decriminalised. The criminalisation of drug use gives users a criminal record which makes it much more difficult for them to have a productive life and isolates them from people who don't do drugs.
Recreational drugs .... well, perhaps that is too broad, some /may/ or may not be better than others; the narcotic kind, well I don't agree there is a need for them at all ... under the guise of /recreational/ particularly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcotic It seems that the word "narcotic" either means drugs that are illegal or drugs that induces sleep. In the former case you would be claiming that illegal drugs should be illegal and the latter seems to include alcohol.
Of those whom have been through drug issues of their own, many will admit that drugs did more damage to their lives than too many current users will ever admit. The first part to handling a drug problem [for users themselves] is admitting that a problem even exists; some drug users will agree [to having a problem], but most users will justify the use instead (my life sucks for instance) and others will believe that it isn't a problem at all, period [deniable or not].
Alcohol clearly does more damage than any other drug no matter how you measure it and by most measures does more damage than all the illegal drugs. Prohibiting alcohol has been attempted and proven to be ineffective and generally a bad idea which is why alcohol is legal in the US. The various efforts at criminalising the other drugs have shown that to be a bad idea too and there is a lot of evidence from a number of European countries to show that decriminalising them is better for everyone - including drug users. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Quoting Andrew McGlashan (andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au):
Cigarettes are legal for those of the /right/ age, but I don't understand why anyone would seriously take up smoking today with what is known health wise and the cost of the habit financially.
That's always been a puzzler for me, too. A number of my co-workers smoke tobacco, and it's always been at least slightly tempting to abduct a few of them, strap them into chairs Clockwork Orange-style, and coerce them into revealing what in tarnation possessed them to start doing such a fool thing. Strictly in the name of science, of course. Used to be, I would absolve tobacco smokers of the assumption of idiocy if they were old enough that they might have started before the Surgeon General's Report[1] in 1964, but few now qualify for that exemption. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_and_Health:_Report_of_the_Advisory_Comm...
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 07:05:55AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
Used to be, I would absolve tobacco smokers of the assumption of idiocy if they were old enough that they might have started before the Surgeon General's Report[1] in 1964, but few now qualify for that exemption.
i certainly hadn't read, and possibly hadn't even heard of, the US Surgeon General's Report when i started smoking at the age of ~11 in ~1978. i was aware that "smoking was bad" but only because it was something that kids weren't allowed to do. which, of course, made it desirable ... like sneaking a beer at a bbq or party. and buying cigarettes was trivially easy - back then it wasn't even illegal to sell to kids and it wasn't at all uncommon for parents to send their kids to the local milkbar for "bread and milk and get me some smokes. get whatever you want for yourself with the change". certainly much easier to buy smokes than alcohol. these days, it's illegal and heavily fined. and i don't think most parents even let their kids go outside, let alone send them to the shop (or make them do any chores). craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
Quoting Craig Sanders (cas@taz.net.au):
i was aware that "smoking was bad" but only because it was something that kids weren't allowed to do. which, of course, made it desirable ... like sneaking a beer at a bbq or party.
Yeah, I gather that this is the case with many folks. My one-time fiancee Iris was an army reservist when she started smoking, and she said the rest breaks were just long enough to confortably smoke a cigarette and that it was a nice little pick-me-up (on account of the stimulant effect of nicotine).
these days, it's illegal and heavily fined. and i don't think most parents even let their kids go outside, let alone send them to the shop (or make them do any chores).
It was great to be allowed to run wild, wasn't it?
Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Craig Sanders (cas@taz.net.au):
i was aware that "smoking was bad" but only because it was something that kids weren't allowed to do. which, of course, made it desirable ... like sneaking a beer at a bbq or party.
Yeah, I gather that this is the case with many folks.
My one-time fiancee Iris was an army reservist when she started smoking, and she said the rest breaks were just long enough to confortably smoke a cigarette and that it was a nice little pick-me-up (on account of the stimulant effect of nicotine).
That reminds me of a story from the hospitality sector: smokers were allowed regular smoking breaks, whereas non-smokers had to stay on their feet and working continuously for an umpteen-hour shift. The result of which was they all started smoking. (I forget who told me this story, so it my be from another country.)
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:16:35AM +1000, Trent W. Buck wrote:
That reminds me of a story from the hospitality sector: smokers were allowed regular smoking breaks, whereas non-smokers had to stay on their feet and working continuously for an umpteen-hour shift. The result of which was they all started smoking.
(I forget who told me this story, so it my be from another country.)
sounds like the non-smoker's version of "damn refugees get free cars from the government" to me. i.e. the terrible, awful fear that someone might be getting something you're not, whether that fear has any actual basis in reality or not. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
On Fri, 20 Sep 2013, Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:16:35AM +1000, Trent W. Buck wrote:
That reminds me of a story from the hospitality sector: smokers were allowed regular smoking breaks, whereas non-smokers had to stay on their feet and working continuously for an umpteen-hour shift. The result of which was they all started smoking.
(I forget who told me this story, so it my be from another country.)
sounds like the non-smoker's version of "damn refugees get free cars from the government" to me.
i.e. the terrible, awful fear that someone might be getting something you're not, whether that fear has any actual basis in reality or not.
I think that everyone who has any significant experience working in Australia (IE for long enough to pre-date the more recent smoking restrictions) knows that there's some truth to this. Smokers have traditionally had lots of breaks throughout the day when non- smokers didn't. For example on one occasion some smokers were outside the door of the small office where I worked telling jokes, they seemed to be having fun so all the non-smokers joined them. Then the manager went out and told everyone to get back to work. Smokers having some time off was apparently OK but when the non-smokers do so too it's an issue of lost productivity. On Fri, 20 Sep 2013, Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
Quoting Craig Sanders (cas@taz.net.au):
actually, what you're talking about is NOT democracy. it's tyranny of the majority. or *a* majority.
Actually I'm surprised that the Libertarians never weigh in on such issues. Surely the right to have others not violate your air space is something that Libertarians should approve of. It's not as if smokers are being prevented from smoking, they are merely prevented from smoking too close to other people.
Quite.
Illustration of the fact that worse than wowzerdom can emerge from the War on Drugs Without Major Corporate Sponsorship: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/18/dea-agents-raid_n_3942731.html
That's not really a drug issue. Such militarised police raids have been well documented for "crimes" that don't concern drugs at all. The strange thing is that the police want to do that. There is legal precedent in the US that you are permitted to shoot someone who bursts through your door with a gun even if they happen to be later identified as a cop. People in the US have got away with shooting police and ATF agents in self- defence. Lots of NRA types cite killing bad cops as a reason for owning a gun. It seems a bad strategy for the police to provide evidence in support of such claims. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 02:43:27PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
Smokers have traditionally had lots of breaks throughout the day when non- smokers didn't.
No, smokers have *not* traditionally had more breaks. Smokers, like non-smokers, occasionally take small breaks that they are not technically entitled to (e.g. to chat, to smoke, to buy a chocolate or snack from a vendine machine, to go visit someone down the hall, etc) and some managers feel that harassing people over trivial offences causes more harm than good so let it slide.
For example on one occasion some smokers were outside the door of the small office where I worked telling jokes, they seemed to be having fun so all the non-smokers joined them. Then the manager went out and told everyone to get back to work. Smokers having some time off was apparently OK but when the non-smokers do so too it's an issue of lost productivity.
and the same thing happens whenever the number of slackers in any activity exceeds the manager's tolerance threshold. a small number of people crapping on about football or telling a joke or quoting last night's TV at each other will probably be tolerated for a short while but if half the office joins in, it will be shut down quickly.
On Fri, 20 Sep 2013, Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
Quoting Craig Sanders (cas@taz.net.au):
actually, what you're talking about is NOT democracy. it's tyranny of the majority. or *a* majority.
Actually I'm surprised that the Libertarians never weigh in on such issues. Surely the right to have others not violate your air space is something that Libertarians should approve of.
WTF knows or cares what loony libertarians think? most of them would probably think "if it harms none, then do what you will". more likely, they'd think "if no-one's being coerced with a gun pointed at their head because that's the only kind of coercion that counts, then do what you like". more importantly, it's not the black and white issue you think it is.
It's not as if smokers are being prevented from smoking, they are merely prevented from smoking too close to other people.
yeah, it's not as if gays are prevented from being gay, they're merely being prevented from being gay too close to other people. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
Quoting Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au):
Illustration of the fact that worse than wowzerdom can emerge from the War on Drugs Without Major Corporate Sponsorship: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/18/dea-agents-raid_n_3942731.html
That's not really a drug issue. Such militarised police raids have been well documented for "crimes" that don't concern drugs at all.
Drugs are the centre of that problem, as it turns out. That's where the big money and major weapons entered the picture on both the illegal and law-enforcement sides, and gave rise to the civil forfeiture statutes, and the prospect of money and (seized) property accelerated the process of corruption of the police and prosecutors, and the militarisation of law enforcement. So, none of that, and none of the spillover onto '"crimes" that don't concern drugs at all' would have occurred but for the War on Some Drugs.
There is legal precedent in the US that you are permitted to shoot someone who bursts through your door with a gun even if they happen to be later identified as a cop.
More or less, yes. Let's look at some specifics. Statute and caselaw on 'castle doctrine' matters differs somewhat between USA states. In California, weapons (not just firearms) may be used in self-defence only when a person has a reasonable belief he/she is in imminent danger of his/her life or grave injury, the amount of force that can be used must be proportionate to the threat, and deadly force may be used only while the imminent danger to one's life or of grave injury is ongoing and cannot persist after that threat ends. Persons have no duty to retreat from their residences (as _is_ true in some other US states) if attacker by intruders. Excusable homicide is, in context of attacks against one's residence, governed in California by CA Penal Code section 198.5. Quoting verbatim: 198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred. As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant or substantial physical injury. So, _if_ someone 'unlawfully and forcibly' enters a residence (and fails to identify himself/herself as a peace officer and show a search warrant or cites certain exigent circumstances that eliminate the need for a warrant), then resident who kills such an intruder may, if charged with manslaughter, raise the affirmative defence CPC section 198.5. (An 'affirmative defence' means you still are going to go through a murder trial, but have a good defence you can raise in court to prove the homicide 'excusable'.) However, please note that such a resident _must_ have a reasonable belief that the intruder used forcible and unlawful entry. So, if the facts and circumstances suggest that the resident should have suspected a lawful police entrance, e.g., because they're wearing uniforms and yelling 'police!', then a judge is unlikely to accept that defence.
People in the US have got away with shooting police and ATF agents in self-defence.
Well, consider: Police or ATF agents who battered down the door and were _not_ wearing police uniforms, nor showing badges, nor producing a warrant, would be in practice difficult to distinguish from violent criminals. Calling shooting them 'getting away with' anything ignores the real threat of an apparent home invasion a resident might legitimately perceive.
Rick Moen wrote:
In California, weapons (not just firearms) may be used in self-defence only when a person has a reasonable belief he/she is in imminent danger of his/her life or grave injury, the amount of force that can be used must be proportionate to the threat, and deadly force may be used only while the imminent danger to one's life or of grave injury is ongoing and cannot persist after that threat ends.
With hilarious results (FL, not CA): http://loweringthebar.net/2013/09/lousy-war-on-terror-arguments.html (Thanks to JWZ, from whom I found that blog.)
Quoting Trent W. Buck (trentbuck@gmail.com):
With hilarious results (FL, not CA): http://loweringthebar.net/2013/09/lousy-war-on-terror-arguments.html (Thanks to JWZ, from whom I found that blog.)
Florida has for many decades been the idiot child of US states -- too systemically incompetent to achieve the corruption it aspires to. The north and rural parts of the state (including the Florida panhandle) are dominated by 'good old boy' traditional Southern redneck hicks. That's the original wellspring of the incompetence and corruption strain in Florida public life. The south and urban part is dominated by anti-Castro Cuban refugees (adding a special Latino brand of corruption, violence, and assorted craziness) and by hordes of snowbird retirees from elsewhere in the country. It's nearly traditional to say 'It's dumb and Floridian - but I repeat myself.'
I wrote:
Quoting Trent W. Buck (trentbuck@gmail.com):
With hilarious results (FL, not CA): http://loweringthebar.net/2013/09/lousy-war-on-terror-arguments.html (Thanks to JWZ, from whom I found that blog.)
Florida has for many decades been the idiot child of US states -- too systemically incompetent to achieve the corruption it aspires to.
However, after following links from the blog to the underlying news item (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/04/florida-man-cites-bush-doctrine-after-...) , it turns out that this non-story amounts to 'barrister for the accused in a murder case filed a cheekily outrageous dismissal motion based on a ludicrous theory of law'. That is what defence counsel in murder cases -do-. They are paid to invent and lodge creative and unlikely arguments, because they are obliged to do anything and everything that _might work_. (The dumbassedness and desperation of this argument is only highlighted by the motion's reported citation of 'The Bush Doctrine', which has no conceivable relevance to this or any other trial.) So, no that is not a 'result', Trent. You can talk about results after a judge gets found, even in Florida, who's gullible enough to buy that theory of what 'imminent' means and grant such a motion.
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 12:17:54AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
However, please note that such a resident _must_ have a reasonable belief that the intruder used forcible and unlawful entry. So, if the facts and circumstances suggest that the resident should have suspected a lawful police entrance, e.g., because they're wearing uniforms and yelling 'police!', then a judge is unlikely to accept that defence.
also worth noting is that said resident is likely to be dead very shortly and in no position to assert their rights or argue their case in court. they'll be killed in the ensuing gun battle or revenge-murdered later by other cops. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au> BOFH excuse #30: positron router malfunction
On 20 September 2013 10:16, Trent W. Buck <trentbuck@gmail.com> wrote:
That reminds me of a story from the hospitality sector: smokers were allowed regular smoking breaks, whereas non-smokers had to stay on their feet and working continuously for an umpteen-hour shift. The result of which was they all started smoking.
The reduced life expectancy that comes with smoking breaks still makes that a poor trade-off.
On 17 September 2013 19:07, Lev Lafayette <lev@levlafayette.com> wrote:
A few links on the subject that are worthy of consideration:
[...] Here's another: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-29/call-for-trial-of-ecstasy-in-ptsd-trea...
participants (13)
-
Andrew McGlashan -
Craig Sanders -
David -
Jason White -
Joel W Shea -
Lauchlin Wilkinson -
Les Kitchen -
Lev Lafayette -
Pidgorny, Slav (GEUS) -
Rick Moen -
Rohan McLeod -
Russell Coker -
Trent W. Buck