This was a really interesting blog on the NY Times website: <a href="http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/..." target="_blank">http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/...

People in various fields commented on their views regarding the legalization of weed and I thought it was interesting that personal opinion and experience dominates people's stance on illegal drug use. For example, historian and author of "The Case for Legalizing Drugs," Richard Miller, writes:
" At the risk of being long-winded, I wanted to let you know why I’m not citing any studies here. Reformers know about studies, and opponents disregard them, so I see no benefit in mentioning any. If my previous documented writings fail to establish me as someone whose word is credible, reproducing two or three of my footnotes would hardly be sufficient either.

On these and other points, in my books on drug use I cite scientific studies aplenty. There is no debate, merely theater. Discussing drug policy is like discussing gun control or abortion: facts are irrelevant. "

When it comes down to it, people will not look at real scholars' findings on what benefits legalizing drugs could bring to society. The stance that making them illegal protects "the rest of us" from those pesky crack heads in "the city" (as if there weren't any people anywhere else doped up on X, Oxy-Contin etc. ) is based on prejudice, fear, etc.

The idea behind making something illegal is that it's an incentive for people NOT to do it...but clearly that isn't the case. Is the Mexican drug problem based on Mexico's lack of law, or the U.S.'s policies?

I don't know, just rambling here...
*

Once one delves into the real facts about marijuana it becomes more than evident that we've been lied to about the facts. But who cares what its effects are ultimately? Anti-depressants have driven people to commit suicide, and make them mindless zombies...how that "lifestyle" compared to a pot-smoker's "lifestyle." As you said Andrew, either we have the right to do what we wish with our own bodies and our own state of consciousness, or we don't...And can people stop saying that when it's legal everyone will drive while using it? People do that now, don't they...? Since when is it ever okay to endanger other people's lives while behind the wheel. You should post your perspective of DWI. Oops, rant over.

and it's ethan's birthday!!!! so someone should marry him aka create a life bond via legal/love contract.

Okay...so I don't know how I feel about those lines about private property, but I think the interpretation opens up so many doors to readings the songs of the 60s and 70s as different kinds of "texts."

I don't believe there is any way to know the true intent of the writer, unless you talk to her...but in that case, to argue intentionality is a null point. I don't think the author necessarily "dies" when something is written, but the text standing before us is open, more or less, for us to explore. Knowing the conditions under which this song was produced (i.e. free love, anti-establishment movement) we know some of the ideas that were swirling around in Slick's head. Context means so much...so does voice, tone, mood, the narrative of the song..etc.

I must say that when I read the bit about private property it makes me think something similar to the poster above (that it is sort of anti-private property message) but I see the anti-collectivism message in the "YOUR" and "WE." If that makes any sense. There's definitely an anti-every-group mentality. *&^* you, I'm going to hang out on my own.

I don't know...just attempting to add something. I can't wait to see more posts like this.

I'm kind of confused...I thought the 16th Amendment was like, "the U.S. shall levy taxes." We talked about this Saturday (andrew, ethan, and I...) but it doesn't make sense to me that we cook have defacto taxing with no real system set up for it...

I thought the reference to troops on the street was some kind of exaggeration but I recently started checking out the Army Times, and sure enough, there are articles about how helpful and great soldiers on American streets are.I read something recently about troops sent out to deal with a homicide. Weird.

Liberty Conspiracy is actually great to listen to. Goldsmith challenges you to think about each topic he presents. It's a nice change to hear someone on talk radio who is NOT fear mongering, sending hated-fill messages about various groups in the U.S. or playing off ridiculous politics. Coming from a little-left-of-center...this show has really challenged some of my beliefs.

I had mixed feelings about Wood's talk. On one hand, I think we do hear more bad than good about the Church. I really tried to open up to his claims and see the world from his viewpoint. It seems (and he even joked) that his whole interest in this topic comes from a shameless desire to promote the Church and raise pride among its members. I checked out some criticism of him and some of his other books (ie politically incorrect guide to american history) and it seems, though I respect endeavors to present alternative history, that he really enjoys making bold claims and backing them up with simplistic evidence.So..back to the talk--I do agree that the Church has impacted science in a positive way, but I'm not sure how I feel about his take on other non-Western societies.