Medical Marijuana in Mn

Minnesota currently is a "decriminalized" Marijuana state; possession of a small amount is subject to civil penalties - a fine. Small amounts of Marijuana will not send you to jail (unless you find a way to ramp it up, like failure to pay your ticket, which could result in arrest and some time in a holding pen). In 2009, Governor Tim Pawlenty vetoed a Medical MJ bill; since then, there have been no serious attempts to put Medical MJ legislation in place.
   Minnesota has spent a number of years creating a harsh legal fiction to combat Marijuana production. A series of court decisions have set the stage for railroading anyone caught growing pot straight into jail. In MN, legal precedent now in place considers the act of growing Marijuana the same as distributing Marijuana. So, any Chemtherapy patient caught growing their own medicine would be prosecuted the same way a Crystal Meth lab owner would be - with similar penalties attached. Sound to you lame?
   There a a number of compelling arguments backing up the legalization movement, and I will not bother going in to them here. The arguments against legalization are almost all flimsy, based on lies, misconceptions,  o plain old prejudice. The only argument I can give any weight to at all, is the "Gateway drug" aregument - that research shows that Marijuana can be many drug addicts first drug experience, and MAY lead to the use of stronger drugs.I mention this argument because it is difficult to refute - many people who eventually go on to become addicted to strong narcotics ARE exposed to Marijuana first. I respond to that issue by bringing up smoking cigarettes - they are THE ULTIMATE Gateway drug. Tobacco use is far more common as a Gateway drug than Marijuana - and it is legal and socially accepted (sort of).
   It is a massive injustice to criminalize marijuana use, production, posession and sales. Decades of law enforcement has been unable to make a dent in its use. It is in no danger of disappearing; why are we not taxing it? How can our government fail to follow the clear desires of its people? Who is benefitting from Marijuana Prohibition?
   As the economy slowly deflates, we will no doubt see an increase in local marijuana production. A cash crop could not be created to be easier to grow - its a tenacious weed! In the coming years, will we Minnesotans continue to allow our elected officials screw us over like this? Or, are we going to finally make this a priority in our elections? I for one intent to make this a key issue in my political decisions over the next decade. Getting involved, making appointments to speak with my elected officials, email campaigns, and social networking are all in the cards.

Protect IP Act highlights conflict at the core of our national values

   Are we a nation of individual creatures, or are we a nation of business interests? Clearly, we can look at our country from either perspective; and the perspective we take will influence our assessment of how well those interests are being championed and asserted. But just because we can look at this topic through the example of individual Vs business (or Collective), does that mean that there really are two "sides" ?
   We could look at this pair of national interests and be tempted to see two separate camps at war and in polar opposition to one another. And certainly, there are many examples of individuals who are completely in one camp or another; but these extreme examples are popularized in the media because they allow the bulk of us to maintain the fiction that we are in one of these two camps as well. I would suggest that we are all beneficiaries of this fiction; that we enjoy the benefits of both individual freedoms, and the fruits of large scale, managed cooperative enterprises. However, we insulate our conscience with this polarized fiction, so as to both create a Bug-a-boo to relieve us of blame, and create a target for this guilt.
   We have a long history of "piracy" in the sense used for online appropriation of intellectual property; many similar issues have cropped up over the long history of commerce. While it is irritating, the appropriation of "intellectual property" is a fact of life; it is endemic to the model. Fundamental; one could even refer to it as a basic principle, something formulated like "Successful products will be copied; production will occur outside of legitimate owners control in proportion to the demand for the item in question; measures taken to limit such appropriation will be unsuccessful.
   I base my conclusion on historic precedents like the copyright laws of the late middle ages protecting cloth patterns, and the chinese laws attempting to stem the tide of opium. Time and time again, draconian measures taken to stop some undesired activity fail in their stated aim. People will alter their approach when the risks change, but they will never simply pack it in and give up. People are evolved to game systems - we can't help ourselves. Open, legal market measures will never curb black market activities. In the best case, such measures drive the wheels of evolution, forcing the development of better, more efficient, or more refined black market product.
   So, we do not ever arrive at the cessation or significant curtailment of the undesired activity; do we enjoy any benefit from censorship? Well, a number of individuals will certainly get some measure of satisfaction from the legal penalties inflicted on a small number of consumers caught in the act; but again, these penalties will not effect the behavior of others to any significant extent. This is where I see the real intent of the Protect IP Act: the only real effect it can have is to allow the blacklisting of online sites without oversight or review by the public.
   We have been exposed to a constant stream of incidents in which members of our government have been caught using the system and its laws to hide a wide array of wrongs and crimes. The abuse of government authority is too great a risk - too realistic and likely a threat - to allow them to interfere with distribution of information on the internet. Time and time again, we have been shown that we cannot trust the government to rationally and honorably exercise powers such as the censorship 

All that they told us proved to be incorrect..

   So, I just watched a documentary called "Demographic Winter: the decline of the human family". Wow. What a mind blower. As a man raised in the last few decades of the 20th century, I grew up and have been an adult on a planet in which we are pretty regularly reminded that we live in a overcrowded world. Just last year, I read a national geographic magazine article about how our world is overpopulated, and on its way to overflowing with people.
   Imagine my surprise when I learn that the overpopulation problem is really a bugaboo - a ghost, straw man, whatever you want to call it. A mistake born of speculation, or worse - a deliberate lie. Whatever the reason for the misinformation, the point is that we are living in a world with a dangerously low population growth. Fewer and fewer children are being born; many countries have already fallen below "replacement levels" of reproduction. Some european and ex-soviet bloc countries are actually on the verge of failing, falling apart, due to the tremendous shortage of young people.
   The movie paints the picture of an "inverted population pyramid", where an aging population is propped up and supported by a smaller group of younger taxpayers; as the population rate drops, the pressure and incentive to have fewer children increases. It is a sobering thought, imagining a world in which the odds are stacked against the human race. Our behaviors have combined and congealed to edit and alter our reproductive behaviors, leading our human race into the trap of negative population growth.
   As the population shrinks, economic pressures produced by an aging population will accelerate the shrinkage trend, as people are forced to have fewer children for simple monetary reasons. Fewer children in a family typically results in more resources being available for the child; even in this scenario, these children will receive more attention, as they have fewer siblings. One of the results of devoting more resources and attention to children,  is the likelihood that such a child will be inclined to have fewer children herself. One of the proven contributors to a societies negative population growth is education - a rise in mothers education level is accompanied by a drop in her likely number of offspring. It is unclear just how far this process can go, but it has some frightening possibilities, both in potential long term effects on the human race, and as justification for sexist social devolution.
   The documentary does a good job of providing facts that can be checked. While I found some of the conclusions presented objectionable, the information they were based on was solid. The documentary identifies the groups that are maintaining replacement level or growing populations, and analyzes the factors that contribute to these groups bucking the shrinkage trend. It is here, in this thread of the movie, that irritated and angered me. Many of these contributing factors are ripe with potential political utility.
   The central offending theme was the assertion that families of faith - "traditional families" - are the growing segment of society. From the data they present, they paint a picture in which traditional, mom and pop and 2.5 kids are the only hope of humanity. these traditional families are the only demographic that show a positive population growth. The film handles the issue carefully, diplomatically refraining from scoring points or attacking other family modalities directly. While they do not point any fingers, they provide plenty of ammunition for attacking the idea of non traditional families - gay adoptions & marriages, divorce, single parenting are all indirectly exposed as damaging to children and the population growth rate.
   I felt that I got a lot of good, useful and surprising information out of this documentary. However, I also saw in it the potential for much of the information contained in it to be used to attack all nontraditional lifestyles. The documentary does not appear to have a political agenda; but it is clear that it can easily be used by those who do. In that, it is doubly dangerous, as it can be used to "educate the troops" or the already converted, and to effect the opinions of the general population. It does not appear to have a political agenda; but the information in it cannot help but support a conservative right wing agenda.

Online Piracy

   So, I got a reply to something I wrote elsewhere, arguing about whether I had used the appellation "Pirate" properly - or maybe accurately. It got me thinking about the issue in general - in particular, who is being hurt by electronic theft of intellectual property. It seems to me that the parties being damaged most by the theft of copyright-protected materials are the middle men - the vampires who do not produce anything, but rather enrich themselves by leeching off the creative efforts of their clients.
  While it is impossible to argue that there has been no economic effect from the widespread use of pirated materials, it is my opinion that the effected businesses needed to be killed off. Technology has made many of the music and print businesses redundant. But the effects of electronic piracy are far from limited to negative effects on businesses. While it is difficult to prove, I believe that copyright owners of items like books and music have benefited from piracy. By distributing books and music to persons who would otherwise not had possession of them, these materials are is essence advertised  to potential customers who would otherwise not be exposed.
    There are certain individuals who will not pay retail for items that can be purchased for less - or gotten for free. These persons are not likely to become retail customers whether or not pirated materials are available to them. Whether that person downloads his CD's illegally, or legally buys them used at a pawn shop, the music industry is not going to see a dime from him. But the industry can still benefit from the individuals use of that CD; the use and familiarity of the CD cannot help but trickle out into the community in which that person lives. Friends, co-workers and neighbors can all be indirectly or directly influenced by that persons posession and use of that music. The illegal download of a book can lead to the "addiction" to an author or series, resulting in sales.
   I am one of these "individuals who will not pay retail if there are other options". I started reading the Harry Potter series after my wife Beth was given the first two books. After reading them, we went out and bought the third book in the series at a used book shop. We were, however, not willing to wait for the rest of the books to show up at the used book shop. As the rest of the series was published, we purchased each one from a bookstore new. We pre-ordered the books, so we did save a little bit of money. But I would have never purchased this series - kids books! - on my own. I was exposed socially, and given the first few books. If the publisher and author can tolerate used book stores, which do not make them a cent- at least from the sale of used books - whats their problem with pirated ebooks?
   I think that we as a society need to begin moving beyond the folly of law. Laws chafe against the natural inclinations of man; the very best laws merely litigate and mitigate problems of the past. Human beings are Anarchists in their hearts, manipulated and muscled by society into accepting the rule of law as a safety measure. With the exception of violent crime, laws are largely unnecessary. Very much like the piracy issue, the law purports to protect society, when in application it protects and defends the rights, privileges, and continued power of a select few. If Laws were really useful, if they could assist an individual in experiencing a better life, then we would expect to see the proliferation of "Personal Laws"; however, we dont see such things very often - when we do, they are usually in a religious rather than social context.
   To get to the truth of something, you dont just accept the accompanying explanation - you can't, if you want to get to the heart of it. Social institutions are best judged by their effects and actions; as such, the Law is the vehicle of the rich and powerful - a complex charade, crafted to conceal the fact that there are different rules for different classes, and in particular, that there are far lesser penalties attached to the misbehavior of the powerful.
   When the U.S. government spends tax revenue to develop new military technology, the U.S. citizens might expect that our country would retain the rights to that technology that we paid to create. When that technology trickles down into dozens of commercial applications, we might expect that the potentially huge profits from such publicly bankrolled research would be used to offset future financial needs of the country. Instead, the rights to new, tax funded military research go to the private companies that originally secured that government contract.