Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
So we should decriminalise dangerous driving? After all racist cops use said laws as an excuse to arrest black people for driving while black.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranWith drugs:
A lot of recreational drugs like cocaine are absolutely a blight. The issue with laws punishing users is that it discourages users from seeking the help they need to get off of them. Having said that I do think it's actually a valid strategy (drug users fund the creation of more drug users), though the ends don't justify the means in my opinion. Probably a better idea is to encourage drug tests for jobs and the like.
As for drug dealers, there's a few sides to the issue of course. I usually hear the argument that banning it will just push the dealers underground and make them violent. This is true, but I do have some counter-arguments:
-We don't have to end all infractions of a crime, just greatly reduce it.
-This is true of any crime. We've banned animal fighting rings, slavery, pedophilia, theft, and poaching, and they've fought back. The price of doing what's right is making enemies.
-We can't give up essential justice for a little security. Sometimes, you have to risk a decrease to safety in order to do what's right. Within reason, if your society is unsafe because it has chosen to do the right thing in the face of danger, that's a badge of honor.
Leviticus 19:34I find the fact the Russians have been using American police brutality as part of their campaign to divide the country very depressing.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.@Charles Phipps: While these problems are real, I'd argue the use of it in enemy propaganda is less a sign of how bad the US is, and more a deconstruction of Even Evil Has Standards.
Those nations often have the same exact problems as the US, and often have them even worse than we do. Even A Nazi by Any Other Name will complain about racism in the US (the actual Nazis did, in fact). They're falsely claiming Not So Different for very sinister purposes.
Yes, it's absolutely correct that racism, police brutality, etc, in the US is a big problem. However, when dictators use it as a talking point we should not get any wrong ideas about their motives: they are straw hypocrites, even when they're right.
Leviticus 19:34Putin, for example, uses problems in the US like police brutality to present an image to Russia that the US, and democratic governments in general, are Not So Different from his regime.
edited 13th May '18 3:04:38 PM by Raptorslash
Plus, certain over-the-counter medications would fail these drug tests.
In the UK, we have warnings about this. For example, women who use certain over-the-counter codeine-based painkillers for period pain could fail drug-drive tests and therefore be formally penalised for driving while under the influence of opiates.
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.
Well, there's a few ways around that. The simple ones are "make a better drug test, and if you can't then don't test for that specific drug" and "let the subject show what medications they're using to get an exemption for them". (To be fair the latter has some privacy concerns but in most cases wouldn't matter IMO, and if it does matter then see the first suggestion)
Well, the drug test doesn't flag 'codeine', it flags 'opiate'. And drug-driving tests are measuring a certain level in the blood/saliva. If it's over the legal limit, it's an offence.
The warning isn't because the drug-tests can't distinguish between over-the-counter codeine use versus illegal opioid-abuse. The warning is because the dose women require for period pain is over the designated legal limit for driving without impairment.
If drug testing was brought in for jobs, that would be the issue: whatever the legal threshold is set at, basic medication would be potentially affected, including everyday over-the-counter painkillers. And since some people can take a mild dose of codeine and feel loopy for a while, others can take a higher dose and seem unimpaired (especially if they're used to taking it a a certain dose).
It's the problem with designating what level defines impairment under the law.
edited 13th May '18 4:02:08 PM by Wyldchyld
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.If a person is in enough pain to need that level of painkillers shouldn’t they maybe not be driving? Or they should be getting such painkiller prescribed to them instead of handed to them over the counter.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranWe're talking about standard over-the-counter doses. There's a whole range of medication a woman can take for period pain, codeine-based ones tend to be among the most popular and effective ones. Nurofen (standard dose 200mg), for example, is a commonly used over-the-counter medication for period pain or headaches: people pop one or two and go about their day.
It's not exactly a horse pill. The horse pills are what you get the prescriptions for.
edited 13th May '18 4:14:21 PM by Wyldchyld
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.If that level isn’t causing impairment than isn’t the problem that the legal standard is to low? If it is causing impairment than we probably shouldn’t be handing such doses out over the counter.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranI mean, some drugs cause impairment in any meaningful dose, and that can't be changed (with current technology). For the lighter stuff, I'd agree that unless you are visibly impaired (or working in a particularly sensitive position) employees should be given the benefit of the doubt.
Another issue with drug impairment is that the level in your system does not always correlate to impairment levels, not all drugs are like alcohol. That goes double for anything with primarily cognitive effects. In some cases the drug remains in the system long after impairment is over, or even a relatively small amount has you high as a kite. Ergo, that means that employers in workplaces that have just cause to be doing drug testing either adopt zero tolerance (with possible exemptions or reassignment for those who are on proscribed medication), or impairment detection tests that, unlike alcohol tests, don't hold up in a lot of jurisdictions.
Its going to take time to build up case law and research on these subjects.
edited 13th May '18 5:14:42 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Today's Trump Tweets:
Although, I'm not sure if he actually wrote this one, it's kinda hilarious.
And here's the other two
So sad to see the Terror Attack in Paris. At some point countries will have to open their eyes & see what is really going on. This kind of sickness & hatred is not compatible with a loving, peaceful, & successful country! Changes to our thought process on terror must be made.
I've been thinking of something for a while now: to what degree is the "alt-right" still "alt?"
I mean, to my understanding, they mobilize most of the right and are the source of most of Trump's (at least domestic) policies. And it's not like their worldview is wholly divorced from either the neoconservatism of the GW Bush years or the "trickle down" of Reagan.
I thought may also be a media thing where "traditional" conservatives were and are framed as being "respectable and mainstream" while others were labeled as "alt-right."
edited 13th May '18 7:54:57 PM by Aleistar
They never were actully alt, they have always just been a modern and younger version of the same crap we’ve been dealing with for decades.
Hell I think the name alt-right may have actully been their own invention to try and make themselves more palatable to the public.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

When people talk about drug decriminalization (as opposed to legalization); they generally mean that its not longer a crime to be in possession of a relatively small amount. Making, selling and trafficking the substances in question is still illegal.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.