Via Unreasonable Faith

Recently the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs published a report in The Lancet ranking twenty popular recreational drugs based on the harm caused to the both user and others around them. The drugs were judged individually on sixteen total harm criteria covering physical, psychological, and social harm. The categories were then weighted by importance (likelihood to cause death is worth more points than likelihood to cause family problems, harm to society is worse than harm to the individual, etc.) The results ended up ranking alcohol as the most harmful by far (72/100), followed by a close battle between heroin and crack cocaine (55 and 54/100, respectively), then methamphetamine at the #4 spot (32/100) and trailing off from there down to hallucinogenic mushrooms at #20 with 6/100.

These results should be unsurprising to anyone who has read any similar reports in the past. They also line up quite well with the arguments often made in favor of loosening or eliminating existing drug laws (the “alcohol is legal, why isn’t this?” argument). Unfortunately they have almost no association with the rankings used in modern drug laws almost anywhere in the world. In the majority of the world alcohol and tobacco are legal and often sold directly by or under the close watch of the government, yet in the name of “reducing harm” the majority if not all of the rest of the drugs on this list are not only illegal but also carry stiff penalties for mere possession.

Of course the logical thing to do when science indicates policy is wrong is to amend policy, right? After all, the UK has a scientific board involved with their drug policy, unlike the USA where the DEA is free to basically set policy as they see fit (fox watching the henhouse, anyone?). Nope, of course when a government is shown to be wrong by its scientists, the first thing they do is fire them, then change the law so they’re not needed, and finally go entirely in the opposite direction and not only remove the requirement that harm be demonstrated but instead assume any newly discovered recreational drugs should be restricted until they are determined to be OK by unspecified criteria.

It seems another country is following America’s lead of ignoring scientific evidence for political gain: When the scientists don’t come up with the answers you want, don’t change your ideas, just get rid of the scientists.

I don’t get it. Why is it so hard to get a government to admit that when compared to legal recreational drugs many illegal ones are less harmful, sometimes to a significant extent?

Here are my thoughts on how to structure sane drug laws:

• NEVER criminalize personal drug possession. All this does is give criminal records to those who are in most cases otherwise productive members of society and restrict those who may have real problems from getting help for fear of persecution and/or prosecution.
• Base ALL policy on science and science alone. Media and politician fueled fear rarely makes for accurate policy, so standards should be set and then followed without special treatment for any substances.
• Regulate the drugs you do allow, but only as necessary to ensure quality and safety
• Revisit all policies regularly. New studies bring new evidence to light all the time and sometimes changes will be needed.

On top of that, something I believe applies to all laws rather than just drug policy, is to have goals for the law based on testable criteria. If after a certain time the goals have not been met, maybe it’s time for another look. Is the goal still worthwhile? How close did this policy come to meeting the goal? If it came close, can it be tweaked? If it missed by a lot or made things worse, what’s a different approach?

Current policy is sold to us as reducing harm to society and cutting back on crime, when in reality it’s wasting billions in enforcement and correctional resources, ruining lives, and fueling an enormously profitable black market which funds almost all levels of crime. Science and policy are at odds and two of the most powerful countries in the world are working to keep it that way. We need to keep pressure on our politicians to resolve this.

To whom it may concern:

Over the past two days there has been a lot of talk about your new data plans, particularly the removal of the “unlimited” option. While I believe there should be a third tier for the heavier users, I can understand the reasons for moving to an entirely metered structure and do not have any problems with that part. Where I do have a problem is the additional $20 per month charge for users of internet tethering.

Before I make my points, let me quote one of your Senior Vice Presidents, Mark Collins, from his interview with GigaOm on the day the new plans were announced.

That capability is enabling something you can’t do today. You can use one device and get multiple connections so it’s more useful to you. You’re going to use more data so the price is based on the value that will be delivered.

This is in response to the question “What about the $20 tethering fee? It looks like a convenience charge.”

That capability is only enabling something you can’t do today because you locked it out in the first place. My AT&T-branded LG CU500 could not tether until I had a tethering plan, but my unlocked and unbranded Sony K850i could just fine without any special tethering plans. The Apple iPhone 3G and 3GS both have supported tethering officially since the release of the 3.0 firmware released nearly a year ago, but this was disabled on models sold in the US because you did not want to allow it. Tethering is not some special feature you are doing work to enable and deserve to be paid extra for, it’s a feature all of our data-capable phones have built in which you have actively engaged in defeating.

I won’t argue the statement that it makes my phone and data plan more useful, but again this is a feature that both have inherently had from the beginning and you have actively sought to remove. If I went to rent a four door sedan and found that the passenger side and rear seats had been removed unless I paid an extra fee to have them reinstalled, I and any other reasonable person would think that is outrageous. Unfortunately you are able to take advantage of the fact that 99% of your users are not technology-savvy and thus do not know how much they’re being screwed.

The last part of that response is the most illogical of them all. “You’re going to use more data,” so the price increases without the amount of data I’m allowed to use changing in the slightest? How is me using 2GB in one month on a smartphone different from using 2GB in one month tethering to even a dozen laptops? Data is data, one type doesn’t put any extra load on your network versus another.

Extra charges for tethering were acceptable when the alternative options were smartphone/dumbphone-only unlimited packages, since yes, a tethering user is likely to use more data overall. However, if I’m already buying a bucket of bits how does it matter at all if I choose to use those to feed my smartphone directly or download something to my laptop?

To close, I have been a customer of AT&T since porting in from T-Mobile’s then terrible coverage in 2005. In that time I have at peak carried two voice lines, one iPhone data, and one LaptopConnect at the same time. I know that does not make me anything special, but I’m sure it’s more than most of your single non-business or family customers. I have also defended AT&T as having the best network for geeks due to your use of open GSM technology and until recently highest mobile data speeds. As you might guess, I will not be doing this any longer and I will be emphasizing the problems I have with your change to anyone who may ask about your service. I had been eyeing the Sprint/HTC Evo 4G for a time while debating making the switch, I thank you for helping me make my decision. You can expect to see my number port out in the near future.

Sincerely,
Sean Harlow

Sent via e-mail to Randall Stephenson, CEO and Mark Collins, VP of Voice and Data

Apparently Wednesday night’s episode of South Park was censored by Comedy Central after it was delivered. Matt and Trey posted this on the South Park Studios news feed:

In the 14 years we’ve been doing South Park we have never done a show that we couldn’t stand behind. We delivered our version of the show to Comedy Central and they made a determination to alter the episode. It wasn’t some meta-joke on our part. Comedy Central added the bleeps. In fact, Kyle’s customary final speech was about intimidation and fear. It didn’t mention Muhammad at all but it got bleeped too. We’ll be back next week with a whole new show about something completely different and we’ll see what happens to it.

Comedy Central has failed by giving in to a group of idiots who only know how to get what they want through threats. By censoring this episode, they showed that those threats will get exactly the desired reaction.

Stolen from Something Awful

Saturday night I was driving home from a friend’s house around 11 PM. I get off I-71 at SR18 like usual and then cut in to a neighborhood that leads me around to Smith Road so I can bypass all the stoplights on 18. A few seconds later I see headlights gaining on me rapidly which are clearly a Crown Victoria, and as I come to a stop and the car behind comes up to me, I can see the 800-GRAB-DUI plate up front indicating it’s a police car. I turn on to Smith and the car continues to follow me at a very close distance down a fairly steep hill that I have to ride my brakes on to stay at 25 MPH. Obviously no one ever does 25 MPH down that hill unless they have a cop riding their ass waiting for them to speed. (by the way, if I was to have followed as closely behind that cop as he did behind me I’d have a ticket for tailgating. why does he get a free pass?)

At the bottom of the hill there’s a stop light, I continued on straight and the officer behind me turned off back towards route 18. About that time I get a call from a friend of mine who had seen the cop pull in behind me. Apparently he had flipped his lights on and cut across three lanes to follow me, so my friend thought I had been pulled over. I had made a bit of an aggressive turn in to the neighborhood and it was late on a Saturday night, so at the time I just figured they were out on DUI patrol and had left once it was clear I wasn’t weaving (or even buzzed, I hadn’t drank a drop that day).

I keep going down Smith, then turn down 57 towards my apartment. As I pull away from a four-way stop, I see the same Medina PD unit that had been following me (I made note of the number) pull up to the other side of the intersection and then pull in behind me again. Approaching my street, I see a Medina Township unit sitting in the street with his rear lights on. Coming around the corner, there are three other units including Brunswick PD, Montville PD, and another Medina PD car in the parking lot of one of the other apartment buildings on my street. The car that was once again following me pulled in behind the Township unit in the street and fired up his lights as well. There is also a mid-90s Cadillac in the middle of it all with some younger males standing around it.

At this point I’m of course interested. Rarely do you see five units on scene when nothing of interest has happened.

Today I fire up the Medina City PD Public Information Log and pull up the information for the weekend:

Incident #: 10-004590

Nature of Incident: Traffic Violation

Offense Reported: Traffic-Moving Violation

Time Reported: 23:20:10

Time Occurred Between: 23:20:10 02/20/10 - 23:20:10 02/20/10

Responsible Officer: Lynn S

Complainant:

Incident Address:
Springbrook; 300 Blk
Medina, OH 44256

Narrative:
No plate light

Five units from four agencies, two of which are out of their jurisdiction, for a license plate light? Really?

Yesterday Pat Robertson made another one of his trademark idiotic statements. In response to Maine providing homosexual couples the right to marry, Mr. Robertson went on CBN and opened his mouth to let this shit dribble out:

Here is a transcript, snagged from Think Progress:

HOST: Meanwhile, the New Hampshire legislature has also voted in favor of gay marriage, but Pat, the governor there still isn’t sure if he will approve that bill.

ROBERTSON: Lee, we haven’t taken this to its ultimate conclusion. You got polygamy out there. How can we rule that polygamy is illegal when you say that homosexual marriage is legal. What is it about polygamy that’s different? Well, polygamy was outlawed because it was considered immoral according to biblical standards. But if we take biblical standards away in homosexuality, what about the other? And what about bestiality and ultimately what about child molestation and pedophilia? How can we criminalize these things and at the same time have constitutional amendments allowing same-sex marriage among homosexuals. You mark my words, this is just the beginning in a long downward slide in relation to all the things that we consider to be abhorrent.

He starts off with what is actually a very good point. If polygamy was made illegal for religious reasons, then it most certainly should not be illegal. Of course my position is the reverse of his, so I see it as “so why is polygamy still illegal?” He then steps off the logic bus and boards the crazy train by claiming the next steps would then be bestiality and pedophilia. There’s this little detail he’s ignoring of course, and that is informed adult consent. Homosexual marriages are between two consenting adults. Polygamy would also be a number of marriages between consenting adults. Bestiality, pedophilia, and all the other things the Christian crazies claim necessarily follow gay marriage clearly don’t.

Can someone please tell me why people keep listening to this ignorant idiot?

Video courtesy Media Matters.
Transcript and inspiration to write courtesy Think Progress.

I honestly can barely believe what I’m reading when I go through this ad. The list of restrictions reads like a prison.

All the tenants I interview aren’t good enough via Friendly Atheist