Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

+ - 11-Year-Old Taken From Mother For Defending Her Need For Medicinal Cannabis->

Submitted by schwit1
schwit1 writes: This is the story of an 11-year-old boy who bravely defended his mom's use of cannabis oil during an anti-drug program at his school. His mother suffers from Crohn's disease and uses cannabis oil to treat her symptoms. If she lived here in Colorado, or any of the other 23 states enlightened enough to permit adults to use a plant for medical purposes, her son (who obviously loves his mom enough to defend her in class) would still be with her.

This is just the latest example of bureaucrats who think they know best doing untold damage for no good reason. They are the ones who should be charged with abuse and neglect. Absolutely horrifying. From Reason :

Yesterday Shona Banda, the Kansas medical marijuana activist whose home was searched after her 11-year-old son challenged anti-pot propaganda at school, failed to regain custody of the boy, who is now under the control of Child Protective Services (CPS). "I am not giving up," Banda said after yesterday's family court hearing. "I will get him, and I am not going to stop until I do."



The Garden City Police Department, which conducted the search of Banda's home, insists that the state-sanctioned kidnapping is in the boy's best interest. "The most important thing here is the child's well-being," said Capt. Randy Ralston. "That is why it is a priority for us, just because of the danger to the child."

Yes, snatching away a young child from his mother because she uses a plant to treat a disease is clearly in the boy's best interest. What a monumental moron this guy is.

Banda uses cannabis oil to treat the symptoms of Crohn's disease, a fact that she openly discusses. But Kansas is not one of the 23 states that recognize marijuana as a medicine, so all use of cannabis is equally illegal there. Ralston emphasizes that "the items taken from the residence were within easy reach of the child," although he cites no evidence that the boy was actually endangered by his mother's medicine.



Banda has not been formally accused of any crimes yet. Ralston says the charges could include possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, misdemeanor or felony possession of drug paraphernalia, and child endangerment. Making cannabis oil also seems to qualify as manufacturing a controlled substance, a "drug severity level 1 felony" punishable by a prison sentence as long as 17 years.

The fact that it is even conceivable for her to be locked up for 17 years for this tells you all you need to know about American "justice," but if you need more evidence:

Radley Balko over at the Washington Post also covered this despicable situation. Here's an excerpt:

He also said the initial anti-drug program was put on entirely by the school â" the police had no involvement. At that event Banda's son apparently contradicted some of the claims made about marijuana. The school then contacted the child protection agency, which then contacted the police.

The absurdity here of course is that a woman could lose her custody of her child for therapeutically using a drug that's legal for recreational use an hour to the west. It seems safe to say that the amount of the drug she had in her home was an amount consistent with personal use. (If she had been distributing, she'd almost certainly have been charged by now.)

Of course, this doesn't stop the CPS for continuing to hold the child.

This boy was defending his mother's use of a drug that helps her deal with an awful condition. Because he stuck up for his mother, the state arrested her and ripped him away from her. Even if he is eventually returned to his mother (as he ought to be), the school, the town, and the state of Kansas have already done a lot more damage to this kid than Banda's use of pot to treat her Crohn's disease ever could.

Exactly, and that's the key point.

Banda's supporters have now set up a legal defense fund page for her at Go Fund Me.

Link to Original Source

+ - Russia ends effort to build a nuclear-powered rocket engine

Submitted by schwit1
schwit1 writes: The Russian government has decided to shut down its research project to build a nuclear rocket engine for interplanetary travel in space.

The idea of using nuclear power for propulsion in space has been around since the 1960s, and has shown great promise. It would provide far more power for less fuel than any existing engine. The U.S. unfortunately abandoned this research in the 1960s, partly because of the cut-backs after winning the space race and partly because of environmental protests that fear anything to do with nuclear. If the Russians had followed through, it would have given them an advantageous position in any competition to colonize the planets.

+ - Climate models are wrong according to Duke study-> 1

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes: A Duke University study looked at 1,000 years of temperature records and compared it to the most severe emissions scenarios by the IPCC. It found that natural variability can slow or speed the rate of warming and these 'climate wiggles' were not properly accounted for in IPCC report.
Link to Original Source

Comment: Non Sequitor (Score 5, Insightful) 326

by eldavojohn (#49539223) Attached to: Drone Killed Hostages From U.S. and Italy, Drawing Obama Apology

I'm not disappointed at all. Drones are so much better than actually invading Pakistan, and reduces the number of kids that get killed in war.

I never got the hate for drones in the first place. Why would you want to launch a ground invasion instead, which means MORE kids getting killed?

Sure, if you want to kill someone, you're right. I think the argument against drones is that if you push a button and someone dies on the other side of the Earth and you didn't have to go to war to do that ... well, fast forward two years and you're just sitting there hitting that button all day long. "The quarter solution" or whatever you want to call it is still resulting in deaths and, as we can see here, we're not 100% sure whose deaths that button is causing. Even if we study the targets really really hard.

And since Pakistan refuses to own their Al Queda problem, we have to take care of it for them.

No, no we don't. You might say "Al Queda hit us now we must hunt them to the ends of the Earth" but it doesn't mean that diplomacy and sovereignty just get flushed down the toilet. Those country borders will still persist despite all your shiny new self-appointed world police officer badges. Let me see if I can explain this to you: If David Koresh had set off bombs in a Beijing subway and then drones lit up Waco like the fourth of July and most of the deaths were Branch Davidians, how would you personally feel about that? Likewise, if Al Queda is our problem and we do that, we start to get more problems. Now, that said, it's completely true that Pakistan's leadership has privately condoned these strikes while publicly lambasting the US but that's a whole different problem.

Also, we must always assume that war = killing kids. The fact that people think kids shouldn't be killed in war basically gives people more of an incentive to go to war in the first place. When Bush invaded Iraq, the public should have asked "OK, how many kids are we expected to kill?" Because all war means killing kids. There has never been a war without killing kids.

The worst people are the ones that romanticize war, by saying war is clean and happy and everyone shakes hands at the end. War is the worst, most horrible thing, and we need to make sure people understand that, or they'll continue to promote war.

Yep, think of the children -- that's why we should use drone strikes, right? Look, war means death. Death doesn't discriminate and neither does war. If you're hung up on it being okay to take a life the second that male turns 18, you're pretty much morally helpless anyway. War is bad. Drone strikes are bad. There's enough bad in there for them both to be bad. This isn't some false dichotomy where it's one or the other. It's only one or the other if you're hellbent on killing people.

News flash: you can argue against drone strikes and also be opposed to war at the same time. It does not logically follow that since you're against drone strikes, you're pro war and pro killing children. That's the most unsound and absurd flow of logic I've seen in quite some time.

Comment: No, This Is Important for People to See (Score 5, Insightful) 252

by eldavojohn (#49536145) Attached to: Wellness App Author Lied About Cancer Diagnosis

Wait. A person who made dubious claims that had no scientific backing to them was actually lying? What next? Water is wet?!!

I think pretty much everyone but the nutjob, true believers in psuedo-science knew all along that this woman was lying.

So you're saying everyone knew she was lying about her charity donations as well? Or was it only the charities that knew that? From the article:

The 26-year-old's popular recipe app, which costs $3.79, has been downloaded 300,000 times and is being developed as one of the first apps for the soon-to-be-released Apple Watch. Her debut cook book The Whole Pantry, published by Penguin in Australia last year, will soon hit shelves in the United States and Britain.

So you're saying the 300,000 downloads are by people that knew they were downloading the app architected by a liar? And they were paying $3.79 to Apple and this liar for a recipe app that contain recipes that someone lied about helping her cure cancer? And you're saying that everyone at Apple that featured her app on the Apple Watch knew they were showing a snake oil app on their brand new shiny device? And that the people at Penguin did all their fact checking on any additional information this cookbook might contain about Belle Gibson's alleged cancer survival? And that everybody involved in these events know society's been parading around a fucking liar and rewarding her with cash money while she basically capitalizes on a horrendous disease that afflicts millions of people worldwide ... that she never had?

No, this is not the same as "water is wet" and it needs to be shown that holistic medicine is temporarily propped up on a bed of anecdotal lies ... anybody who accepts it as the sole cure for their ailment is putting their health in the hands of such charlatans and quacks.

+ - Hubble finds something astronomers can't explain

Submitted by schwit1
schwit1 writes: The Hubble Space Telescope has spotted the explosion of a star that does not fit into any theory for stellar evolution.

The exploding star, which was seen in the constellation Eridanus, faded over two weeks — much too rapidly to qualify as a supernova. The outburst was also about ten times fainter than most supernovae, explosions that destroy some or all of a star. But it was about 100 times brighter than an ordinary nova, which is a type of surface explosion that leaves a star intact. "The combination of properties is puzzling," says Mario Livio, an astrophysicist at the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, Maryland. "I thought about a number of possibilities, but each of them fails" to account for all characteristics of the outburst, he adds.

We can put this discovery on the bottom of a very long list of similar discoveries by Hubble, which this week is celebrating the 25th anniversary of its launch.

Comment: Re:Raise Them To Infinity! (Score 1) 297

What rational argument is there that makes it right to strip ownership from the copyright holder after a few decades? Does real estate become public domain after 100 years of ownership?

You have confused ideas with property. The only rational argument for using state force to punish people or make them pay for making a copy of a work is that doing so promotes the creation of more works. That excuse falls off rather rapidly once the author is dead.

A song is not real estate -- if I go into Bob Dylan's house it affects his life, if I sing one of his songs it doesn't -- and so your comparison makes no sense.

Comment: Re:Benjamin Franklin got it right (Score 2) 228

by Mr. Slippery (#49527637) Attached to: UK Police Chief: Some Tech Companies Are 'Friendly To Terrorists'

We trade "freedom" for "security" every day; it's called civilization

If you're trading freedom for security, you're doing it wrong. They are mutually dependent. You have both or neither, not one or the other.

What does it mean to not be free? It means you can't live your life as you want because someone -- the state, the group with a "monopoly on violence", where one exists -- will use violence to stop you. You don't have security when you are subject to state violence that restricts freedom.

And what is the reason we desire security? Because we can only live as we choose -- we can only live freely -- when others do not violently impose their will upon us. You don't have freedom when you are subject to violence that threatens your security.

The question then becomes, how do we organize to defend ourselves against violence, while at the same time not creating an organization that commits violence? The modern police state fails this challenge.

You can't take damsel here now.

Working...