Allspace in a Notshall

There’s a very interesting article in this week’s The Economist. It’s called “Virtually Legal” and focuses on the world-wide changes happening in the War on Drugs.  It covers places from California to the Baltics and shows that many places around the globe have taken a more liberal approach to the decriminalization and eventual legalization of currently illegal drugs.  I’ll post some highlights of the article and share a few of my comments on some things I’ve been thinking about.

From heroin “shooting galleries” in Vancouver to Mexico’s decriminalisation of personal possession of drugs, the Americas are suddenly looking more permissive. Meanwhile in Europe, where drugs policy is generally less stringent, seven countries have decriminalised drug possession, and the rest are increasingly ignoring their supposedly harsh regimes. Is the “war on drugs” becoming a fiction?

That world is still some way off. But a debate about regulation is increasingly drowning out the one about enforcement. Take America, where 13 states let people smoke marijuana for medical reasons. Most set somewhat stricter terms than California—where insomnia, migraines and post-traumatic stress can all be reasons for a spliff, if you see the right doctor. “There’s never been a person born who couldn’t qualify,” says Keith Stroup, the founder of the National Organisation for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, a lobby group that has been around since 1970. “In California, the system of medical use they have adopted is in fact a version of legalisation.”

One reason for the sudden popularity of cannabis is financial. Tom Ammiano, the California assemblyman who introduced the bill to legalise marijuana earlier this year, points out that were it taxed it could raise some $1.3 billion a year for state coffers, based on a $50 per ounce levy on sales. As an added benefit to the public purse, lots of police time and prison space would be freed up. California’s jails heave with 170,000 inmates, almost a fifth of them inside for drug-related crimes, albeit mostly worse than just possessing a spliff.

I think it’s about damn time that the overall mood and opinions towards drugs shifts to a more liberal, and sane, way of thinking. I am fully in support of legalization of all drugs and am in full support of the taxation on these drugs. I believe I should be able to walk into a marijuana store the same way I can for alcohol knowing that I will be paying a sales tax on my purchase. There is absolutely no reason, especially now, that drugs, marijuana and the majority of natural hallucinogens in particular, should be illegal. It simply falls into a personal freedom-personal choice way of thinking.

Legalize them, set up a tax system, set up a license to grow system, and halt the labeling of drug addicts as criminals when they should simply be receiving medical treatment and psychological assistance.

Is it really that much of a stretch to think this way?

Related articles by Zemanta

• More people selling pot as economy goes up in smoke (dailyfinance.com)
• Let’s Bail Out the Pot Dealers! (time.com)
• Mexico Leads The Way? (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)

There are 237 millionaires in Congress.  I don’t think this is what is meant by “for the people by the people.”   Interesting quotes below:

Even in tough times, it’s good to be a lawmaker: According to a report released this week by the Center for Responsive Politics, there are 237 millionaires serving in Congress, according to 2008 figures.

The least wealthy member of Congress, the report found, is Florida Democrat Alcee Hastings, whose net worth is calculated to be negative $4,732,002 (!). Other lawmakers to make the bottom 25 are Montana’s Max Baucus and Ohio’s Dennis Kucinich. Keep in mind, however, that these lawmakers likely have substantial unreported assets, including their residences.

“The top companies at which members of Congress are investing, many of them are TARP recipients that have received billions and billions of dollars from you and me,” he said.

Hope this brightens your day a bit!

Article originally found at Disinfo.com

Found this gorgeous photo essay on the harvesting of marijuana over on DoseNation.  Direct link to photographer’s Mathieu Young’s website here.

It’s really just some beautiful photography.  Make sure to checkout his other work, especially is Election ’08 pictures.

Here’s an interesting article I came across on the Wall Street Journal via Disinfo.com.  It’s about the effect of the internet and social networking has had on the current generation of youngsters.  I found it fascinating and therefore think it’s a must read.  I’ll quote some things below:

Because so many people in their teens and early 20s are in this constant whir of socializing—accessible to each other every minute of the day via cellphone, instant messaging and social-networking Web sites—there are a host of new questions that need to be addressed in schools, in the workplace and at home. Chief among them: How much work can “hyper-socializing” students or employees really accomplish if they are holding multiple conversations with friends via text-messaging, or are obsessively checking Facebook?

“The unspoken attitude is, ‘I don’t need you. I have the Internet,’” says P.M. Forni, the 58-year-old director of the Civility Initiative at Johns Hopkins University, which studies politeness and manners. “The Net provides an opportunity to play hide-and-seek, to say and not say, to be truthful and to pretend. There is a lot of communication going on that is futile and trivial.”

While their older colleagues waste time holding meetings or engaging in long phone conversations, young people have an ability to sum things up in one-sentence text messages, Mr. Bajarin says. “They know how to optimize and prioritize. They will call or set up a meeting if it’s needed. If not, they text.” And given their vast network of online acquaintances, they discover people who can become true friends or valued business colleagues—people they wouldn’t have been able to find in the pre-Internet era.

For instance, past generations accepted that corporations were hierarchical. There were supervisors, managers and senior managers, and you communicated your questions to your immediate superior. “Young people today want accessibility,” says Ms. Gallagher, 41. “If they have a problem or suggestion, they’ll email or text senior managers, or even the CEO. They don’t have the old-school notion that there are appropriate communication models. They’ve grown up in a freedom-of-information era.”

Straight link to the WSJ article here.

Here’s a few of my thoughts.  I think that this is obviously the future and agree with the wife of principle Steve Gallagher when it’s time to embrace this change.  What we really have on our hands now is the breakdown of the social hierarchy as we know it.   As soon as the current generation of leaders either accepts this or steps aside, then we can truly progress in all facets of life.  I also find it exhilarating that people are saving time and are spending it on activities they find entertaining.  I really don’t find a problem with all people be constantly connected to each other because, after all, the ability to turn off is still there!  It’s really just a choice to be constantly connected.

Let me know your thoughts.