(no subject)
Dec. 23rd, 2006 12:47 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
strredwolfA news report a few months back said that coffee was good for you, in moderation, and if it was American drip instead of French press.
I just learned today on How It's Made on the Science Channel (alt Discovery Channel) that all those coffee vending machines are French press.
"Top Gear top tip: AVOID." -- Jeremy Clarkson, BBC Top Gear.
In other news... Randy Cassingham mailed out a Premium edition of This is True to us free subscribers, something he usually does around the holidays. Inside, he commented on one of the stories: A 92 year old in her old neihborhood that went down hill was invaded... by the police serving a warrant based on the lies of an informant. The elder died in a hail of bullets while defending her house. The informant lied that some other folk were selling drugs in the house.
The full story and commentary are on his blog. I'd read it now before continuing.
You probably got the gist of the editorial by now: We're against drugs, but we're going about it the wrong way.
We're regulating alcohol, and tightening down on tabacco/nicotine. The effects on banned substances are known, but out-and-out banning of them is producing the same effect as the prohibition. So, we should highly regulate them... and when someone under the influence commits a crime, make it part of the crime and add more time.
I just learned today on How It's Made on the Science Channel (alt Discovery Channel) that all those coffee vending machines are French press.
"Top Gear top tip: AVOID." -- Jeremy Clarkson, BBC Top Gear.
In other news... Randy Cassingham mailed out a Premium edition of This is True to us free subscribers, something he usually does around the holidays. Inside, he commented on one of the stories: A 92 year old in her old neihborhood that went down hill was invaded... by the police serving a warrant based on the lies of an informant. The elder died in a hail of bullets while defending her house. The informant lied that some other folk were selling drugs in the house.
The full story and commentary are on his blog. I'd read it now before continuing.
You probably got the gist of the editorial by now: We're against drugs, but we're going about it the wrong way.
We're regulating alcohol, and tightening down on tabacco/nicotine. The effects on banned substances are known, but out-and-out banning of them is producing the same effect as the prohibition. So, we should highly regulate them... and when someone under the influence commits a crime, make it part of the crime and add more time.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-12-23 08:37 pm (UTC)Decriminalization of all 'illicit' substances is the only solution - just hammer the CRAP out of anyone that commits a crime while under the influence. (In other words, having the stuff, using the stuff, and buying/selling the stuff has no controls. The laws are on behavior itself, not on substance)
no subject
Date: 2006-12-23 10:44 pm (UTC)The idea goes that if you are involved in illicit drugs, either using or dealing, you will eventually do something horrible and it's the duty of law-enforcement to prevent those crimes from taking place... nevermind they have absolutely no clue how to predict who will dip their toe into the druggie-pool and become a raving psychotic dope-fiend and who will simply become a harmless casual-user.