Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member


RainDog's Journal
RainDog's Journal
March 2, 2012

DU: a guide for the perplexed

Four truths:

1. the "well-known sock puppet" is not necessarily well known.

2. the month-long feud with someone is not necessarily known or understood by others

3. "You know who you are" means the month long (or however long) feud continues.

4. Sarcasm or self-righteous anger is never a replacement for stating facts.

Four levels of being on DU:

1. newbie who may be a troll, or may not

2. know half the dirt, don't know how much of it is true

3. know the other half of the dirt, don't know how much of it is true

4. don't know but if you bring up the dirt I'm gonna ask about it

Principle of Adequateness

It is not adequate to create a post in which someone attempts to publicly shame someone else but then refuses to explain what in the hell is going on.

It is not adequate to blame others for responding to such a post with requests for explanations or to claim such a post is not calling out someone.

It IS adequate to consider if a post about a private matter should be posted in a public forum.

It IS adequate to understand that human nature is such that, if someone creates such a post, the creator recognizes he or she is no longer discussing a private matter.

In order to accurately perceive the world, one should recognize these principles.

Convergent vs. Divergent Problems

Problems discussed in H&M should be considered convergent problems, in that everyone on this board may read and reply.

Problems discussed in protected forums should be considered divergent problems, in that particular people with a specified interest will be more likely to read that post.

Word Problems

The use of words such as "shame," "how dare you," "no remorse," "you know who you are," "that's rich, coming from you," are NEVER words used to heal a group problem. EVER. This is basic psychology. You will rarely find people who are willing to be publicly shamed, ridiculed or taunted who are willing to find anything worthwhile in what you say - even if those people are not the objects of those problem words.

The Faulkner Factor

"Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself."

(heh, I bet you thought I was gonna say, in relation to DU, "The past is never dead. It's not even past." yeah, that too.)

February 19, 2012

The War on Drugs falsely inflates population numbers in conservative areas


hear about this issue at about 2:52 on the video link.

Prisons are located in rural areas and those populations are counted in political issues. iow, the war on drugs involves a huge transfer of population from urban to rural areas where people are locked up for a crime that is less dangerous than drinking a glass of wine.

Is it moral to create jobs for poor, rural white people by locking up and denying people of color their freedom?
February 19, 2012

Is the War on Drugs Worth Waging?


It's good that talking heads are discussing this on mainstream tv.

February 17, 2012

‘Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol’ claims enough signatures for Colo. ballot


The Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol said Friday morning that it had turned in more than enough valid petition signatures to get their initiative on the ballot later this year.

In order to secure a spot on the Colorado statewide ballot, initiatives must carry at least 86,105 valid signatures. Out of the 163,000 signatures initially turned in, only 83,696 were declared valid, forcing the campaigners to carry out an extended effort.

...the proposed initiative calls for the law to allow adults over 21 to possess up to one ounce of marijuana and grow up to six plants at home. It would also establish a regulatory framework for the sales of marijuana at storefronts, but gives local governments the opportunity to deny permits for commercial activity related to marijuana.

California voters turned down a similar initiative in 2010 by a margin of 57 percent to 43 percent. A Gallup poll published in Oct. 2011 found that, for the first time ever, more than half of Americans favor legalization, marking a dramatic turnaround from just15 years ago when more than 70 percent of Americans favored continuing prohibition.
February 15, 2012

Did Congress legalize cannabis in the U.S?


That would be a great way to find a "face-saving" -sort of - strategy out of this current mess. Anyone here have a take on this claim?

If one prominent attorney is right about the legal ramifications of the District of Columbia's marijuana law -- specifically, that it was approved by the U.S. Congress -- then it could be a game-changer nationwide.

D.C.'s medical marijuana law was the first time that the United States Congress had ever given its explicit assent to any state or local law that permits the medicinal use of marijuana -- and, according to a California attorney who specializes in health care compliance, that is enormously significant under the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

​In 2009, noting that it was "allowing" the voters of Washington, D.C., to vote on and implement that city's Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment law, Congress approved medicinal cannabis in the federal District of Columbia, over which it has all governmental power.

That moment is discussed here: http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2009/12/congress_ends_ban_on_medical_marijuana_in_dc.php

"States with medical marijuana programs should now be free from federal interference since Congress has allowed local control," attorney Matthew Pappas at Pappas Law Group, based in Long Beach, California, told Toke of the Town Monday afternoon. "Congress being the legislative branch of the federal sovereign and the only body that can change these laws has now done so by recognizing the voting rights of Washington, D.C., citizens."

via wiki- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

Equal Protection Clause

The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."[1] The Equal Protection Clause can be seen as an attempt to secure the promise of the United States' professed commitment to the proposition that "all men are created equal"[2] by empowering the judiciary to enforce that principle against the states.[3] The Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause applies only to state governments, but the requirement of equal protection has been read to apply to the federal government as a component of Fifth Amendment due process.

More concretely, the Equal Protection Clause, along with the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment, marked a great shift in American constitutionalism. Before the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Bill of Rights protected individual rights only from invasion by the federal government. After the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted, the Constitution also protected rights from abridgment by state leaders and governments, even including some rights that arguably were not protected from abridgment by the federal government. In the wake of the Fourteenth Amendment, the states could not, among other things, deprive people of the equal protection of the laws.
February 11, 2012

Ex-cop at CPAC: Cops Say Legalize. Ask Me Why


In the midst of the students and conservative stalwarts in business attire at CPAC, Howard Wooldridge stands out like a sore thumb — but not because of his cowboy hat and big belt buckle. It’s his T-shirt, which loudly proclaims “COPS SAY LEGALIZE POT ASK ME WHY.” And people do, one and two at a time, in the convention hall and the hotel lobby at the Marriott Wardman Park, and he’s always happy to oblige (even when in the middle of an interview).

“In short,” he says to one student, “the cops can either arrest Willy, or the pedophile who’s stalking your 14-year-old sister.” A self-identified conservative libertarian, Wooldridge hones his pitch from there, talking about devolving marijuana policy to the states or the budget cuts that have caused layoffs in police departments or the relative dangers of alcohol by comparison or even marijuana’s medicinal properties. But, even though he says only a “slight majority” of attendees at CPAC agree with him on legalization — “it was more like 70-30 when Ron Paul was big here” — he says “you gotta go where people disagree.”

Wooldridge, a former Lansing, Michigan police officer who helped found Citizens Opposing Prohibition after stints at Law Enforcement Against Prohibition and NORML, didn’t start off his law enforcement career opposed to marijuana prohibition — but it only took about three months for him to get there. “It took the first three months because I saw quickly that alcohol-related [crime] was generated by the use of alcohol,” including drunk driving, bar fights and domestic violence. “The marijuana represented a violation of law, but not a public safety problem.”

...Wooldridge noted that it isn’t only crime victims who get ripped off: taxpayers do, too. “We made about $13 billion chasing the green plant,” he said, referring the federal funds distributed to law enforcement to help with drug interdiction. “Police departments are losing officers all the time” because of budget cuts, and forfeiture laws create “a perverse incentive to go after the marijuana dealer” as well.

I wonder how he's being received there.
February 10, 2012

The state of marijuana reform, state by state


State legislatures have convened or are convening all around the country, and once again this year, marijuana decriminalization or legalization are hot topics at the statehouse. Legalization bills are pending in three states (as well as on the ballot as initiatives in Washington and almost certainly Colorado), decriminalization bills are alive in nine states, and bills that would improve existing decriminalization laws have been filed in two states.

And this is still early in the legislative season. Bills can still be introduced in many states, and bills that have already been introduced can advance or be killed. By around the beginning of May, a clearer picture should emerge, but 2012 is already looking to be even more active than last year when it comes to decriminalization and legalization bills.

"We're seeing more bills introduced, and they're having stronger and more sponsors," said Karen O'Keefe, state policy director for the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP). "We're also seeing more and more public support for decriminalization and legalization. We're approaching critical mass as more and more people see marijuana prohibition as a failed public policy, and in legislatures because of fiscal constraints and changing public sentiment."

...Getting a marijuana bill through a state legislature is a frustrating, time-consuming process, and there is a chance that none of these bills will pass this year. But there is also a chance some will, and some will pass eventually, if not this year, next year, or the year after.

A state-by-state guide at the link.
February 9, 2012

A heartfelt thanks post

for the sweet hearts here - and thanks for donating to PP!

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 28,784

Journal Entries

Latest Discussions»RainDog's Journal