any tactic that depends upon your enemy being stupid is doomed to backfire

yup

the lack of transparency is a catastrophe for the future of this country

in history books they will write that the post-9/11 mandate of the nsa was the end of the usa, for it truly betrays the country's principles in stunningly vile fashion

next comes the corruption and the manipulation on a controlling level, it's already started at an ad hoc level

the origins of the 4th amendment are these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_assistance

a writ of assistance is just as much of an abuse as what the NSA does

disgust with the writs of assistance was a genuine grievance and a genuine motivating factor in the founding of this country

so conceptually, the mandate of the NSA is a direct contradiction to a foundational concept of the usa

the difference?

a writ of assistance involves some rude assholes barging into your life and your business and messing up your stuff

meanwhile, what the NSA does is secret, quiet, and unseen

the difference between something invisible and in your face is all the difference in the world, even if it is the same abuse

but eventually, the negative effects will accumulate

extremely vile and unpleasant abuses will occur as the power of the NSA grows. selling information about a candidate or government official for blackmail purposes for example. that judge making that important decision on that coal power plant? blackmail him. that candidate that might spring the balance of power democratic or republican? blackmail him

with 100% certainty this abuse will happen, if it is not happening already. power and corruption and secret dealings: can't be helped, it's inevitable. only transparency prevents corruption, and the NSA is opaque by design, so corruption is a certainty

only then will the outcry reverse these growing NSA tentacles

the problem is, at that point, since they will know everything, will any resistance be effective enough?

Mr Fusion was based on the 1980s era kitchen appliance brand Mr Coffee

This is 2013 so we would have to call it the Keurig Fusion

#27,315 of the collusional and oligarchic things that happen in real life that libertarians won't admit to when they enthuse about their ideology

apparently the free market regulates itself, and consumer choice takes care of problems like this. seriously?

why do people believe this free market fundamentalism nonsense?

simple fact: a market needs to be heavily regulated by a strong central govt, or small competitors get crushed and consumers get abused

wake up fanboys

that's just how it goes if you want to store an assload of ANY KIND of energy in a small enough space

it's on fire, so it's a hot item

you have a right to fight for your passions

but if your passion is to defund badly needed healthcare reform, you're wrong

and you will lose

"private road operator"?!

It's up to the owners (and their customers) to determine what level of risk they're willing to accept on their own property.

you are insane if you do not understand that society's rules trumps that

yes, consider alcohol, and consider that the costs of prohibition are greater than the costs of the drug itself

then consider meth, and consider that the costs of the drug itself are greater than the costs of prohibition

each drug is different. each drug deserves its own legal status quo

to think the same drug policy can apply to all drugs is ignorant of the subject matter

the costs of the drug war is less than the costs of hard drugs themselves, on individuals and society

consider a drug like meth

consider the costs, of the drug itself

weigh that against the costs you mention

because some people don't get the difference between decriminalization and illegality

portugal is very much invested in the war on hard drugs, but with far better tactics than the usa: treat it as a healthcare problem, not a jail problem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal

In July 2001 a new law maintained the status of illegality for using or possessing any drug for personal use without authorization. The offense was changed from a criminal one, with prison a possible punishment, to an administrative one if the amount possessed was no more than ten days' supply of that substance.[1] This was in line with the de facto Portuguese drug policy before the reform. Drug addicts were then to be aggressively targeted with therapy or community service rather than fines or waivers.[7] Even if there are no criminal penalties, these changes did not legalize drug use in Portugal. Possession has remained prohibited by Portuguese law, and criminal penalties are still applied to drug growers, dealers and traffickers.[8][9]

hard drug addicts represent a cost on society and civilization will always be at war with hard drug abuse, forever, in an attempt to minimize this cost

it is merely a maintenance function of society, this war. you need to take the trash out ever thursday: this is your "war on trash." because "the war on trash" never ends, is that an argument to let trash accumulate in your apartment?

no, taking out the trash is merely a maintenance function of your apartment. just like minimizing drug addicts is a maintenance function of society

portugal is still at war with hard drugs, as is every functional society on earth. forever

portugal just has much better tactics in this maintenance function

that's also the moral to the movie "zero dark thirty":

all the torture yielded nothing

classic gumshoe following the leads caught bin laden

i am for better tactics in the war/ maintenance function: healthcare, not prisons, for example

however, we can't even control oxycodone distribution and abuse, and that's a completely artificial substance for healthcare

and you really think the market for meth will be controlled if we regulate it and tax it?

nevermind that this is a substance that does grave medical harm to people. you want us to freely sell such a substance?

no

we treat people for addiction rather than throwing them in prison, yes

but we also still crack down on the supply and demand. we don't regulate and tax a highly addictive and medically harmful substance: more people will simply be addicted and damaged, and society is not going to subsidize and tolerate this tragedy

we're going to do our best to make sure you don't get meth. and if you still get it, we'll treat you

we're not going to make it easier to get meth. that simply means easier medical harm and addiction

you say it is already easy to get meth? so this means we should make it even more easy?

i'm attacking the notion that because the "war" goes on forever it is invalid. you also need to take the trash out every thursday. is that an argument to end "the war on trash"? no, some functions of society are just maintenance functions that never end

i'm not defending us drug policy, it's poor tactics. and some substances need to be legal. but i'm attacking the notion that just because there's demand and supply for something, therefore it needs to be accepted

example: something like meth has a lot of supply and demand. meth also creates horrible costs to individuals and society. such that attacking the meth supply and demand chain has direct costs, and secondary costs. but if meth use is minimized to some extent because of the "war", that pays dividends in the form of less overall costs for individuals and society in regards to the harm that meth does. such that fighting meth is worth it

it's a case-by-case basis. just because marijuana is legalized (and should be legalized) doesn't mean all drugs should be. each substance has to be evaluated individually