You are against the DMCA? You must be a pirate!

[bartl]

I have a personal reason to despise "If you support the right of people to perform a distasteful action, it must be because you want to do it yourself!" I am strongly against most anti-recreational drug laws, and believe they are unconstitutional. I do not use recreational drugs, with the possible exception of caffeine. However, I will admit that it's physical rather than moral reasons (I can't metabolize alcohol properly, I'm allergic to marijuana and cigarettes, although, in the case of the latter, I suspect it's something in the paper rather than the tobacco, because cigars and pipes don't make my eyes turn red and make me break out); as far as other drugs go, I had a habit of researching the heck out of anything before I tried it, which pretty much kept me away from most stuff except a few esoteric herbal concoctions which were mostly legal anyway (meaning that I could be arrested for using it, but probably not convicted).

Still, whenever I mention my support for legalization of drugs, what I get is, "You probably just want to get high!", when my support actually comes from more important principles (such as a belief in an inherent freedom of thought). Similarly, I followed the goings on at Waco during the Branch Davidians debacle very closely, not only because of freedom of religion issues, but because I was working in computer security at the time, and the government was trying to set precedents that could have had me thrown in jail, or at least confiscating all my property, without my committing any crimes or even intending to do so.

I am VERY, VERY worried about the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Essentially, it takes the idea of "Fair Use" out of the hands of the courts, and into the hands of the copyright owner. And it's being adjudicated by judges who have ruled things like it's legal to put information in a book, but if you put the same information on a disk, it becomes a gun and is subject to arms limitation laws (I WISH I were kidding about that). So they just buy whatever Hollywood and the big music publishers tell them, and assume that a bunch of college professors have no idea what they're talking about in matters of science and engineering. Sigh.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

I'm not as worried, although I'm not happy.

I see it as a worst case, all these horrible laws get passed.
Thing is though, they are so biased towards those pushing for them, that there will be back lash from the public if these start getting enforced - enough of one that the laws will get pushed aside either in courts or by government, who despite believing otherwise, are both subject to the will of the people.

[MartinRedmond]

This is off topic but since 2/3 of your introductory post is off topic too, maybe I'm biased coming from a family that's 25% drug dealers and addicts but drugs are wrong wrong wrong. People lose control over that shit. I've never seen someone use hard drugs that could keep it together in the long term.

I know it looks glamorous when you're 18 and all, but most people using this end up really damaged. And it's not just the drug use, when they need their fix, they need their fix. So you end up with violent people or thieves. And btw none of your drug friends care about their own once the shit hits the fan.

I don't like gambling either! Evil! Evil! Evil!

[bartl]

This is off topic but since 2/3 of your introductory post is off topic too, maybe I'm biased coming from a family that's 25% drug dealers and addicts but drugs are wrong wrong wrong. People lose control over that shit. I've never seen someone use hard drugs that could keep it together in the long term.

The drug laws have been discussed in Grant's columns in the past, if not in the current one.

In any case, I'm one of those strange people who believe that there are things that are none of the government's business, and find that past slippery slopes are strong evidence, albeit not proof, of future slippery slopes. Meaning that once the U.S. government decides that the government's ability to decide what's good or bad for the individual supersedes the Constitution, it's not going to stop at the obvious. Besides, the so-called "war on drugs" is more a war on civil rights, and drugs are just the excuse (to the point where the progress in Afghanistan has been largely wiped out because this fake "war on drugs" was considered to be more important than the war on radical jihadism).

But that gets back to the logical point I was trying to make: support of the right to a behavior is NOT the same thing as support of the behavior itself, and is CERTAINLY not the same as a desire to perform the behavior itself. I am against a lot of what's going on with big entertainment and enforcement of copyright laws, not because I'm in favor of piracy, but because I'm against big corporations writing their own regulations, especially when those regulations circumvent the Constitution.

[Charles RB]

to the point where the progress in Afghanistan has been largely wiped out because this fake "war on drugs" was considered to be more important than the war on radical jihadism

There's been overlap between the two for a while now, ever since the Taliban decided to get in on the drugs trade to bolster themselves (it's not a sin against Allah when they do it...).

[dancj]

I'd agree with Martin Redmond with regards to hard drugs - they are evil. That said I'm not at all convinced that making them illegal does anything to lessen their use.

I am however totally convinced that the anti-soft drugs laws damage the war against hard drugs.

[Lord Destiny]

DRUGS -- I'm on both sides. I would consider supporting the legalization of many "drugs" on the grounds that their prohibition has added a significant crime element due to the creation of a black market. By trying to limit one evil, law has created two. But I could very well reject legalization on the grounds that I live in a stupid society that thinks any act is acceptible so long as it's legal. "Ain't no law agin' it!" So I do believe the drug abuse problem would get worse. (Would it be better or worse than prohibition? I don't know.)

DMCA -- Putting the judgment in the hands of the corporations is a definite mistake. I will always trust the gov't more than corporations simply because the politicians are cowards and not nearly as isolated or insulated as CEOs and Board Members. (Not that I actually trust my gov't... I'm just sayin'.)

Do we really need to move further towards a corporatocracy?

Jefferson's America is in its death-throes. What he tried to build is a fantasy now. Instead, America has actually recreated medieval manoralism and nobility: the wealth of a society is back in the hands of a very few, and hereditary (passed down from one CEO to another). Except today, the people are tie to jobs (and debt) instead of the land... and wealth is owned not by people, but by pieces of paper.

[cfutino]

But that gets back to the logical point I was trying to make: support of the right to a behavior is NOT the same thing as support of the behavior itself, and is CERTAINLY not the same as a desire to perform the behavior itself. I am against a lot of what's going on with big entertainment and enforcement of copyright laws, not because I'm in favor of piracy, but because I'm against big corporations writing their own regulations, especially when those regulations circumvent the Constitution.

That's something I try to get trough to peolple all the time, but it sounds like it's impossible. I'm all for descriminalization of marijuana in my country (Brazil). I don't , an don't intend to, smoke it. I think it's kind of stupid to use drugs. I just think people have a right to be stupid if they want.

And don't you get me started on religious freedom...

[bartl]

I was thinking of reviving this thread anyway, due to the 5/14/08 column.

And, of course, the slippery slope is happening; publishers of works want to be the ones, rather than the courts, who define "fair use", and their definition is, "no use is fair use".

[section 8]

I was thinking of reviving this thread anyway, due to the 5/14/08 column.

And, of course, the slippery slope is happening; publishers of works want to be the ones, rather than the courts, who define "fair use", and their definition is, "no use is fair use".

Oh God. i've been on the wrong forum this whole time.
Finally someone else who can read the signs

yes if we are not careful such laws can easily lead to the existance of a police state.
It has happened before, and it always starts with "we need to save you from yourself"

[Lord Destiny]

Not to get too heady, but such things are also a sign that our society is in decline. It's just part of the cycle of civilizations.

In the decline, the people tire of all the checks and balances their predecessors worked so hard to install.

I am appalled by the lack of public outrage against right-wing thrust since Reagan to eliminate those pesky checks and balances in gov't, and between gov't and society itself (regulations). Ironically, while America tires of Habeas Corpus, it welcomes the very public creation of Orwell's Big Brother.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

I am appalled by the lack of public outrage against right-wing thrust since Reagan to eliminate those pesky checks and balances in gov't, and between gov't and society itself (regulations). Ironically, while America tires of Habeas Corpus, it welcomes the very public creation of Orwell's Big Brother.

What do you mean?
Bush making it sound like he has a choice when the Supreme Court ruled against him over Guantanamo prisoners?
"We'll abide by the court's decision," Mr Bush said during a news conference in Rome. "That doesn't mean I have to agree with it."

Or when he accuses the Supreme Court - which has people he put on there - of judicial activism, while at the same time saying the laws need to be changed so that he can get his way?
""This is precisely the kind of judicial activism that frustrates the American people and the best way to change it is to put Republicans in charge in the Senate and John McCain in the White House," said Bush, whose successor will be chosen in November elections."

I don't think anything like that is going on...

[bartl]

I am appalled by the lack of public outrage against right-wing thrust since Reagan to eliminate those pesky checks and balances in gov't, and between gov't and society itself (regulations). Ironically, while America tires of Habeas Corpus, it welcomes the very public creation of Orwell's Big Brother.

It seems to me that habeus corpus is expanding, not contracting.