Skip to main content

View Diary: Befriending the Talmud, Pt. 4 (A Living God) (18 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It's still illegal under federal law (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mayim

    Federal law preempts conflicting state law.  When George I was president, Attorney General John Ashcroft went out of his way to prosecute medical marijuana store owners and medical marijuana suppliers in states that had legalized medical marijuana (I think one was yours?).

    There are no Native American tribal areas in Maryland.  All these casinos are owned by greedy businessmen and corporations.  They promised the tax receipts would go to schools.  I don't see where the education budget has increased, and I think it is immoral to support our children this way.  We can't pay tax money for our childrens' education?

    "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals, now we know that it is bad economics." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jan. 20, 1937

    by Navy Vet Terp on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 03:57:34 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  what does that mean (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Navy Vet Terp

      How common is it (other than in the case of marriage equality) for Federal laws to conflict with State laws and what are the practical ramifications - what does that really mean in terms of how the law is enforced? That exact reason was given by those who opposed legalization, but without an explanation of what it would mean in practical terms.

      In my opinion, the wealthiest people in the U.S. should be required to pay income tax at the rate they were doing in the 1950s or 1960s, which I believe was approximately 50%. Sounds like a lot, unless you've already got billions. We are in a situation analogous to a room full of kids, wherein one out of a thousand has a whole bowl of Cheerios, and the other 999 only have one Cheerio each. This is bullshit.

      Anyway, I agree, it is immoral to support public education with the profits from gambling casinos (in effect, harming adults and justifying it by claiming it will help children).

    •  as to the store owners (0+ / 0-)

      I sort of vaguely remember that medical marijuana suppliers were experiencing some problems, and residents were complaining about where to allow those establishments to operate and not wanting them to advertise (why couldn't they make marijuana available through any pharmacy?)... but the issue hasn't been high on my list of concerns, because I don't use it, don't enjoy being around people when they are using, and am not qualified to make medical decisions for anyone. Washington, Oregon, and California seem to have been the big three states where legalization comes up most frequently.

      The reasons in the "statement for" and "statement against" materials on this most recent vote were not convincing because nobody explained how it was really going to work. If you could be prosecuted, that's different from saying you would be prosecuted, or by whom, and who would care, and when would they care. I think it is still illegal to grow marijuana - this law may only address penalties for possession.

      Keeping marijuana illegal means we can't grow hemp in the U.S., which is a fast-growing "rapidly renewal resource" that could be used to make fabric and other materials useful in the construction industry. And, based on the anecdotal evidence, rampant illegal drug trafficking and related violence could be prevented if there were not so much money involved. There seems to be a kind of Orwellian fun-house mirror effect, where the anti-drug laws contribute to the perpetuation of violence, limited resources, poor public health outcomes, etc. If the law causes more problems than it solves, even if the intention behind it is good, how can it be a good law? Similar situation with the issue of prostitution.

      I'm not psychic and don't pretend to know what would happen, but I do think that what people fear would happen and what would actually happen if marijuana (and/or other drugs) were legalized may well be two very different things. Most decisions like this are made for emotional reasons (quite possibly legitimately grounded in direct personal experience) but it would be interesting to try to step back to a systems-theory level view and see where the stuff comes from and where it goes and who gets it there and where the money goes and what encourages drug abuse in the first place, and so on, not in terms of finding someone to prosecute but just to see why the drug problem is so big, and how it gets perpetuated...in that real solutions are probably best going to be found at that level.

      /ramble

      •  I was a deputy DA in the 80's (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bluebird of happiness

        And prosecuted plenty of DUI cases, most of which I lost because the judge excused everyone who said they didn't like people drunk or even just driving drunk, so I was left with the town drunks for my juries.  If the police see someone driving eratically, they have probable cause to stop the vehicle.  If the person is slurred of speech or smells like booze or otherwise appears intoxicated, the police have probable cause to require the driver to leave the vehicle and the police will then perform roadside tests -touching finger to the nose, and examining the pupils which act a certain way - I forget - when the person is intoxicated.  If the driver flunks the roadside tests, the police have probable cause to take the driver to the stationhouse for the driver's choice of a blood alcohol or breath test.  I have no idea how this would work on people high on marijuana.

        Maryland is known as the Free State.  I learned this in the first grade but the teacher never said why.  The reason why is that Governor Albert Ritchie announced when Prohibition went into effect that the state and local police would not enforce Prohibition, if the Feds wanted to do so OK but the state and local police would not cooperate.

        "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals, now we know that it is bad economics." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jan. 20, 1937

        by Navy Vet Terp on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 01:48:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  that's interesting (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Navy Vet Terp

          My husband once was "excused" from a drunk driving case because he expressed the opinion that how drunk someone was could be affected by their body weight and whether or not they'd eaten before drinking, not just the quantity of alcohol they'd consumed.

          I've been called over half a dozen times in my life and have been "excused" every single time, without even trying, and often just on sight. I'm quite certain that I will never be impaneled, no matter how many more times I am called in. It's not that I want to be on a jury - but I can't help wondering what it is about me that so freaks out the attorneys that they can't wait to get me out of the room. Is it the horns growing out of my head? The third eye?

          It's hard to trust the selection process (and hence the system) because there's no way of knowing what they are basing their decisions on.

          Washington still has capital punishment - people who don't believe in capital punishment are not allowed on cases with the death penalty. So maybe not letting anyone but town drunks on a jury would reflect a similar logic. Here, it seems more likely they'd only accept teetotalers.

          They always want yes or no answers to questions that don't have yes or no answers (unless you're a moron.)

          In any event, I read an interesting study that shows that people tend to make more accurate decisions on their own than they do in groups, so maybe the jury system itself could be improved upon - for example, by keeping all of the jurors separated and not letting them discuss the case with each other.

          •  Good idea... (0+ / 0-)

            Having once served on a jury, I think that your idea of a having jurors make independent decisions had a lot of merit!

            •  it's not my idea (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Old Iowa Liberal

              It's from a psychological study I read about in the book Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking:

              In 2005 an Emory University neuroscientist named Gregory Berns and his team recruited thirty-two volunteers, men and women between the ages of nineteen and forty-one. The volunteers played a game in which each group member was shown two three-dimensional objects on a computer screen and asked to decide whether the first object could be rotated to match the second. The experimenters used an fMRI scanner to take snapshots of the volunteers' brains as they conformed to or broke with group opinion....When the volunteers played the game on their own, they gave the wrong answer only 13.8 percent of the time. But when they played with a group whose members gave unanimously wrong answers, they agreed with the group 41 percent of the time....When the volunteers played alone, the brain scans shows activity in a network of brain regions including the occipital cortex and parietal cortex, which is associated with conscious decision-making. But when they went along with their group's wrong answer....the conformists showed less brain activity in the frontal, decision-making regions and more in the areas of the brain associated with perception....If the group thinks the answer is A, you're much more likely to believe that A is correct, too. It's not that you're saying consciously, "Hmm, I'm not sure, but they all think the answer's A, so I'll go with that." Nor are you saying, "I want them to like me, so I'll just pretend the answer's A."....Most of Bern's volunteers reported having gone along with the group because "they thought that they had arrived serendipitously at the same correct answer"....[the ones who didn't conform] sometimes picked the right answer despite their peers' influence....these moments...were linked to heightened activation in the amygdala, a small organ in the brain associated with upsetting emotions such as the fear of rejection....
              The point being that this is something the social brain is hard-wired to do, whether people intend for it to happen or not.

              Some years before reading about this study, I was on a mock jury, where I noticed that one opinionated, vocal person swayed the entire room. It is often the case that loquacious people are perceived of as having more credibility. And I know that if people say something often enough, more and more will believe it, even if it violates the laws of physics.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site