Don't talk to the police - ever

An enlightening and engaging lecture on the importance of the 5th Amendment for the innocent - why you almost always put yourself at risk by providing answers to the police.

A more sensible drug policy

A tip of the hat to GMoney for the reference. This video is a nice tongue-in-cheek look at the "drug war" and the role of politics in overcoming research and common sense in drug policy.



The video is distributed by the Drug Policy Alliance, an organization focused on numerous non-incarceration strategies for fighting drug abuse and distribution.

On marijuana, they support legalization for prescription medicinal purposes and the decriminalization of "consumption-related offenses." In other words, make marijuana legal for cancer patients and only charge those who distribute the drug illegally. They have an extensive page on myths and facts about marijuana, and while they certainly have their biases, it seems fairly honest.

I find the issue of impaired cognitive ability interesting:

The cognitive process most clearly affected by marijuana is short-term memory. In laboratory studies, subjects under the influence of marijuana have no trouble remembering things they learned previously. However, they display diminished capacity to learn and recall new information. This diminishment only lasts for the duration of the intoxication. There is no convincing evidence that heavy long-term marijuana use permanently impairs memory or other cognitive functions.

Their conclusion is that marijuana is fairly harmless to cognitive ability. However, since youth in particular have a lot of learning to do (in school and outside of it), I'd say that using marijuana at any time is probably harmful to their cognitive development. To be fair, I have no studies to cite today.

The DPA has a page devoted to a drug-by-drug analysis of American drug policy. Their overview notes that the DPA would like drug policy to reflect the relative harm of a drug. In their view, a low harm drug such as marijuana should be regulated (and criminalized) much less than ecstasy or heroin.

At any rate, it's clear that a policy more reflective of science and common sense could do better than the politically-driven one we enjoy today and the DPA video is a clever way to point that out.

The man who would be king

After viewing the Jon Stewart - Bill Moyers discussion yesterday, I was left pondering Stewart's argument about the President: that his underlings take the fall when the President steps on the law. Today I came across several interesting tidbits on the administration's assertion that Bush is above the law.

One writer at Dailykos notes that Bush's decision to veto the war legislation differs from his previous use of a signing statement to essentially ignore certain portions of the law. Previously, Bush has asserted the power of the executive by simply ignoring directives of Congress or laws that he feels impede his role as Commander-in-Chief. In this,

Another post from a Kossack says that the academic underpinning to Bush's extralegal manuevers is essentially this: by being President, Bush is above the law. He quotes extensively from blogger Glenn Greenwald, who digs through the academic-speak to the point:

In that article, Mansfied claimed, among other things, that our "enemies, being extra-legal, need to be faced with extra-legal force"; that the "Office of President" is "larger than the law"; that "the rule of law is not enough to run a government"; that "ordinary power needs to be supplemented or corrected by the extraordinary power of a prince, using wise discretion"; that "with one person in charge we can have both secrecy and responsibility"; and most of all:

Much present-day thinking puts civil liberties and the rule of law to the fore and forgets to consider emergencies when liberties are dangerous and law does not apply.

"Law does not apply" -- that is Mansfield's belief, and the belief of the Bush movement. (emphasis from dKos)

And how do Americans respond to such actions? We could start by listing our grievances regarding President Bush:

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good...He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records...He has obstructed the Administration of Justice...He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people...He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

The last time we had these grievances, we took this action:

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Or we could help Congress re-assert the rule of law.

Running red lights - an off-duty police privilege?

From Slashdot, an interesting look at whether Dallas police officers should be able to run red lights even when not on emergency calls.

As with many other jurisdictions across the country, Dallas employs red light cameras to help reduce traffic accidents across the city. It's a decent idea, given than as many as 22 percent of all accidents are caused by drivers running red lights (see Howstuffworks article). Emergency vehicles are obviously exempt from both the cameras and from red light when on emergency calls, but what about when police officers are simply on patrol?

The Dallas Morning News reports that the Dallas Police Department will require officers to pay the $75 fee if they run red lights in non-emergency situations. Many of the officers have bridled at this policy change, arguing that citizens want them to be able to arrive at any site as rapidly as possible.

Should officers always be exempt from red lights when on duty? In marked or unmarked cars?

I've seen police officers in my city flick on the emergency lights to simply avoid long light cycles at a left turn signal. Perhaps I'm just bitter at being left behind at the light, but I feel like exemptions from traffic law are for on-the-job duties, not just a fringe benefit. Then again, maybe they were on a call. But then, why not keep the lights on? Thoughts?

Note: see some comments here - some thoughtful, others inane.

Europe goes lighting efficient

As I continue to catch up on news I missed while on vacation last week, I found a story on Europe's plan to effectively phase out incandescent light bulbs by 2009. By using an energy efficiency requirement for bulbs, the new laws will not a priori ban the incandescent, but it will quickly go the way of the Dodo without substantial energy improvements. The writer notes that the de facto replacement - the compact fluorescent - contains traces of mercury, a toxic metal.

Two thoughts:

1. It's great that the law focuses on energy efficiency instead of a particular bulb technology. The problem of "government picking winners" is thus avoided.
2. Compact fluorescents are a major improvement over the incandescent, but I think it's a little naive to dismiss the mercury problem. Over its lifetime, a CFL will displace more mercury than it contains, assuming that a significant portion of its electricity comes from coal. However, with a strong push toward renewable and environmentally-friendlier energy coming along, it's silly to assume that's always going to be true. Conclusion: don't hesitate to buy a CFL rather than an incandescent, but don't stop looking for something better.

Godwin's Law: the Nazis are coming!

During a discussion course my freshman year of college, called "Great Conversation," there would almost inevitably be a reference to Nazis at some point during the discussions or random debates. There was also general consensus that the use of such an analogy was almost always out of context or used hyperbole, rendering the original topic pretty well moot.

Today I learned (from the Wall Street Journal, of all places) that this phenomenon has been codified into a law, Godwin's Law, which states:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. (strikethrough mine)

I'm pleased to note that in a quick search of this blog, the terms "Nazi" and "Hitler" give zero hits, though admittedly this is often a "discussion" of one...