2/23    I just finished reading Reefer Madness by Eric Schlosser, the
        author of Fast Food Nation.  I highly recommend it.  Especially since
        the big issue of 2004 is jobs and outsourcing.  Market forces have
        no value or soul.  That's why we pay $2 for a pack of strawberries
        while the illegal immigrants pick the berries during the day and
        sleep underneath a bridge at night.  It's a very well researched
        book (75 pages of notes and references).
        \_ Stalin had a soul and Hitler had strong values.
           \_ Pathetic attempt at Godwining a thread - foiled!
              \_ Intentional invocation of Godwin's law will not work.
              \_ Mocking the op is different from godwin trigger.  get a brain.
        \_ Strong centralized government has no soul either.  -- ilyas
           \_ the book doesn't talk about needing a big govt to fix the
              problem.  I think he wants the public to be aware of the
              issue.  For myself, I try to shop at Whole Foods as much
              as possible.  Their stuff is more expensive, but that's because
              they pay their employees higher wages and their suppliers also
              pay a living wage.
              \_ Making the public aware of the issue will not do anything.
                 People are naturally selfish, and economics are naturally
                 market driven.  So to stop any sort of perceived nastiness
                 you need to stop natural behavior, which can only happen
                 with strong government. -- ilyas
           \_ It is not an either/or proposition. -ausman
        \_ The chapter on marijuana got me thinking - I can't think of a single
           sane person I know, liberal or conservative, that thinks the War On
           Drugs is a good idea or should continue.  So why does our drug
           policy remain insane?  Schlosser's argument is interesting - since
           liberals are perceived as being "soft on crime," the drug issue
           was a perfect way for them to appear tough - hence Bill Clinton
           had the highest rate of drug incarceration of any president in
           history.
           \_ Ronald Reagan once remarked that the surest road to immortality
              is to be born a government program.  This is why the War on Drugs
              is still with us.  I am not even sure moderate conservatives
              support it anymore.  Almost no liberal does.  -- ilyas
              \_ Ronald Reagan also escalated the War on Drugs, especially
                 marijuana, more than any other president before him.  Hell,
                 he's the one that _created_ the "Drug Czar."  Before Reagan
                 the country was on a slow course towards decriminalization
                 of marijuana, and in fact 10 states already had.  That said
                 I appreciate the quote.  As for who does and does not support
                 it, it seems that no thinking conservative or liberal does
                 yet not a single actual elected official will dare to come
                 out against it.
           \_ How many liberals do you know?  How many conservatives do you
              know?  How many others?  Have you considered that when you
              express your deep felt emotions on a hot button topic most
              people who disagree with you yet value your friendship find
              it easier to just agree and move on rather than get into a
              heated debate and damage or destroy your friendship?
              \_ Well, I think that my friends tend to be open-minded and
                 don't allow things like politics or discussion thereof to
                 ever "damage" a friendship.  Arguments are fun!  That said,
                 I think you'll find a huge spectrum of thinking people are
                 in firm agreement on this issue, from the Economist to
                 the Libertarian party to the Green Party to the Cato Institute
                 and etc. ad infinitum.  That's extremely rare, nay unheard of,
                 yet politicians from both parties just mutter about "the
                 children" and then hand out more life sentences to nonviolent
                 drug offenders (who, as Schlosser points out, are merely
                 engaging in Adam Smith's capitalism at its purest).
           \_ exactly what does the president have to do with drug
              incarceration?
              \_ Are you this stupid?  Are you aware of what "federal prison"
                 is?  A "mandatory minimum sentence?"  How about the "Drug
                 Czar?"  No, never mind, you're just another clueless motd
                 nerd.
                 \_ I could have sworn that laws were drafted by Congress.
                    \_ And the president signs and executes them.  DERR!
                       And for our next Civics lesson...
                       \_ The number of drug cases in federal prison is
                          actually a pretty small percentage.  The reason for
                          the large increase in drug incarcerations is
                          programs like "three strikes", adopted by many
                          states in the early 90s, which put such cases in
                          state prison, and which the President has nothing
                          to do with.
           \_ "Why should marijuana be illegal?"
              "Because it's bad."
              "Well why is it bad?"
              "It's illegal."
              \_ second hand Highs
              \_ no, because mj makes people stupid and destroys their
                 initiative which is bad for society.
                 \_ I know plenty of people who have tons of initiative when
                    they are mildly high.  Anyway, when did stupidmaking mean
                    illegal?  I mean are we going to make Everyone Loves
                    Raymond contrabrand next?
                 \_ But why is alcohol legal then while marijuana is banned?
                    "We tried banning alcohol but prohibition didn't work."
                    or "Alcohol is a traditional part of our culture, so it's
                        OK."
                    \_ Neither.  I think it should be.
                 \_ As does alcohol and TV.  Next.  -John
                    \_ Added no value to discussion.  Next.
                        \_ Allow me to explain John's point, since you seem too
                           stupid to get it yourself:  Many things make (some)
                           people (who overuse them) apathetic and/or tend to
                           be "bad for society".  That, in itself, is not
                           enough cause to ban them.  (Or else we would be
                           banning many other things as well).  Clearly there
                           is some other reason to ban it, and there are plenty
                           just none that are reasonable.  If you can come up
                           with some (one?) to demonstrate otherwise, we would
                           be glad to hear it.  -phuqm
                           \_ How about providing welfare at taxpayer expense
                              for the tycoons of the prison-industrial complex?
                              Easy re-election for petty government officials
                              who claim to be tough on crime but do little
                              of real use?  Oh, wait...you said "reasonable."
                              Never mind.
                 \_ I think that's not the reason. Isn't there still a question
                    as to the health effects of mj? It seems like mj has the
                    potential to do more lasting harm to ones mental faculties.
                    \_ No, there's no question; pot has long-term health
                       effects, different than alcohol but certainly not
                       any worse.
                       \_ and not much worse than smoking regular cigarettes.
                    \_ I know MJ has caused lasting harm to my mental
                       faculties.  Oh, wait, you're not talking about Michael
                       Jackson.  Nevermind.
                        \_ I'm so sorry.  Did Michael Jackson rape you when
                           you were a child?
           \_ right...
        \_ [deleted for irrelevance]
           \_ Oh my god!  Not a discussion!