In reply to Trent Buck: 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. 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.

Quoting Jason White (jason(a)jasonjgw.net): 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.

Quoting Trent W. Buck (trentbuck(a)gmail.com): Yes. The term 'retroactive' is arguably overloaded in this context.

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 September 2013 16:33, Andrew McGlashan &lt;andrew.mcglashan(a)affinityvision.com.au&gt; wrote: <<...>> <...> 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.

On Wed, September 18, 2013 6:55 pm, Trent W. Buck wrote: 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

Quoting Trent W. Buck (trentbuck(a)gmail.com): 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 18 September 2013 23:49, Craig Sanders &lt;cas(a)taz.net.au&gt; wrote: 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: i'm not pro-smoking. i'm anti-wowser. 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) 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). 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 &lt;cas(a)taz.net.au&gt;

On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 02:51:25PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote: 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 &lt;cas(a)taz.net.au&gt;

On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 11:13:15PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote: 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. 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. 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. 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 &lt;cas(a)taz.net.au&gt;

Quoting Craig Sanders (cas(a)taz.net.au): 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

On 18 September 2013 14:20, Andrew McGlashan < andrew.mcglashan(a)affinityvision.com.au&gt; 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.

On 18 September 2013 17:07, Andrew McGlashan &lt;andrew.mcglashan(a)affinityvision.com.au&gt; wrote: 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.

Quoting Jason White (jason(a)jasonjgw.net): 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 19/09/2013 6:38 PM, "Russell Coker" &lt;russell(a)coker.com.au&gt; wrote: 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. 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 I've since realised Lev also included that reference in the original post.

Trent W. Buck &lt;trentbuck(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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.

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 "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 Wed, September 18, 2013 5:07 pm, Andrew McGlashan wrote: The evidence from Portugal's decriminalisation is that usage declined significantly. http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminali… -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GCertPM, MBA mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt

Andrew McGlashan wrote: Tell that to an anaesthetist.

Andrew McGlashan wrote: 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

Rick Moen wrote: .........snip Perhaps I should have said ' the problem is uniquely,. necessarily and urgently one's own' 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

Quoting Trent W. Buck (trentbuck(a)gmail.com): 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'). Last night, I had a nice glass of 10-year-old tawny port. Today, I drank coffee (very strong, black). 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, 18 Sep 2013, Andrew McGlashan &lt;andrew.mcglashan(a)affinityvision.com.au&gt; wrote: 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. 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. 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/

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 07:05:55AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote: 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 &lt;cas(a)taz.net.au&gt;

Rick Moen 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.)

On Fri, 20 Sep 2013, Craig Sanders &lt;cas(a)taz.net.au&gt; wrote: 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 &lt;rick(a)linuxmafia.com&gt; wrote: 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. 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/

Quoting Russell Coker (russell(a)coker.com.au): 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. 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. 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.

Quoting Trent W. Buck (trentbuck(a)gmail.com): 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.'

Rick Moen wrote: OK, OK, I withdraw the joke.

On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 12:17:54AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote: 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 &lt;cas(a)taz.net.au&gt; BOFH excuse #30: positron router malfunction