Predicting Election Results With Google 205
destinyland writes "Google announced they've searched for clues about the upcoming US election using their internal tools (as well as its 'Insights for Search' tool, which compares search volume patterns for different regions and timeframes.) 'Looking at the most popular searches on Google News in October, the issues that stand out are the economy,' their official blog reported, adding, 'we continue to see many searches for terms like unemployment and foreclosures, as well as immigration and health care.' But one technology reporter also notes almost perfect correspondence between some candidate's predicted vote totals from FiveThirtyEight and their current search volume on Google, with only a small margin of error for other candidates. 'Oddly enough, the race with a clear link between web interest and expected voting is the unusual three-way contest [in Florida], where the breakdown between candidates should if anything be less clear-cut and predictable.' And Google adds that also they're seeing national interest in one California proposition — which would legalize marijuana."
Prop 19 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What is "prop 19" - it is nowhere on my state's ballot. I suppose this is a micro version of all the non-USA people complaining Slashdot is too USA centric talks. You are too whatever-state-you're-in centric.
Re:Prop 19 (Score:4, Informative)
It's explained in the summary...
If California maintains their legalization of marijuana, it likely will extend to other states in subsequent years.
It's not that I care from a personal standpoint. I don't smoke marijuana. I have no intention of smoking marijuana. From life experience, I see no reason that it shouldn't be legal. I also don't drink tequila. I have no intention to drink tequila. It's legal though. Would I suggest outlawing tequila because I won't drink it? No.
I did find it interesting that some alcohols [wikipedia.org] are illegal in California, that are available in a variety of other states. But unlike some other states, strong alcohols are sold in regular stores right along with beer and wine.
Re: (Score:2)
If it passes, my next vacation will be to Cali!
Re: (Score:2)
Some drinks are illegal. I think it's weird to talk of beer and wine etc. as "different alcohols".
Re:Prop 19 (Score:5, Insightful)
I will personally beat to death the first Stoner that injures one of my family members because they were driving while stoned.
If they were simply drunk, talking on their phone, or otherwise distracted you would let them off with a mild beating?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If they do it while drunk, will you respond by stern frowning and finger-wagging?
Re:Prop 19 (Score:5, Insightful)
I will personally beat to death the first Stoner that injures one of my family members because they were driving while stoned.
Yeah, good thing that would never happen unless someone legalizes marijuana!
It's statements like this that make me really shake my head. It's like assuming there aren't any gays in the military because of DADT. Worries about unit cohesion? They're already there! The people already know who is and isn't gay in most cases. There IS no unit cohesion problem.
Marijuana and gays are harmless, already here, and are actually useful in many ways. There are actually things that ARE harmful and already legal that people should be worried about.
Re: (Score:2)
It's easier to wax moralistic about cannabis and gays.
Plus people are already making money on those things that are harmful and already legal.
Re: (Score:2)
I will personally beat to death the first Stoner that injures one of my family members because they were driving while stoned.
You seem to be implying that no one drives while stoned right now because marijuana is illegal, and that if it is legalized people will suddenly start driving while stoned (which is illegal right now and would remain so). If you've taken a class in logic I'd ask for a refund. See this. [wikipedia.org] Unless you were trying for this [wikipedia.org], in which case I missed it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
...Stoner that injures one of my family members because they were driving while stoned.
Obviously, the only reason this hasn't happened yet is because laws have kept stoned drivers off the roads for years. Once it's legal than that means driving while intoxicated will become legal, right? Laws stop crime, right?
I am not some Randian Tea-bagger, but it is safe to say that legality of one's actions rarely factors into the decision making process of a criminal. I doubt legalization of marijuana would suddenly change the laws regarding proper and lawful operation of a moving vehicle in any way. H
Re: (Score:2)
No but it may show a marked increase in munchies purchases, and in-home theft of said munchies. :)
Re: (Score:2)
What is "prop 19" - it is nowhere on my state's ballot. I suppose this is a micro version of all the non-USA people complaining Slashdot is too USA centric talks. You are too whatever-state-you're-in centric.
I know this is getting off topic but after having lived in the US for several years I feel that **in general** Americans think of themselves on order of as being members of their local community (and that political affiliation sits around this level), followed by being a resident of their state, followed by being citizens of their country, and finally members of the world community. So that local "issues" take precedence over more encompassing issues, even if those more encompassing issues are more impor
Re: (Score:2)
But it also has to do with the fact that we have states rather than provinces like pretty much all the other nations. They were originally completely autonomous being under a single confederation from becoming independent to about the time that George Washington took office, and a considerable number of issues are still handled at
Re: (Score:2)
But it also has to do with the fact that we have states rather than provinces like pretty much all the other nations
And I think that is the key thing - Americans don't believe in their country. To me the squabbles over interstate commerce and the collection of sales tax vs self reporting of use tax are one indication of that.
Re:Prop 19 (Score:5, Interesting)
Prop 19 is a dumb one because pot is primarily criminal under federal law, and so this isn't going to make much difference.
I'm going to loose my moderation here but I want to point out something interesting.
There is specific wording in the US constitution that prohibits the US Federal government from interfering with the collection of state taxes.
In so much so that the US gov cannot collect income taxes from income received from interest on state municipal bonds (great way to avoid taxes btw).
Now the only way the US can specifically outlaw pot and prevent California from taxing it is via a constitutional amendment (its what they did for the alcohol prohibition after all) and its really doubtful such a thing would pass in this political environment.
I do believe the DEA will challenge it if it passes, but I think whoever put Prop 19 together was smart in that they specifically made the law to tax it and provide income to the state which historically cannot be legally interfered by the US Federal government.
Had their been no tax clause, the Feds could have shut it down,
Re: (Score:2)
Suppose Montana passed a law making it legal to assassinate IRS auditors but imposed a one cent tax on each such assassination. Would you still think your argument makes sense applied to that case?
Re: (Score:2)
Suppose Montana passed a law making it legal to assassinate IRS auditors but imposed a one cent tax on each such assassination.
in theory any state could make murder legal (though assault on Federal employees is technically a federal crime) but there is the issue of federal funds.
DId you know most the laws that the Federal government passes actually is enforces by laws in the states (such as speed limits and drinking age laws) simply because the federal government makes the enforcement of the law a requireme
Re: (Score:2)
Driving 56 MPH back when the "national speed limit" was 55MPH was not a Federal crime - as you point out, the Feds just used their role as a middleman in highway funding scheme to coerce most states to enact state level 55 MPH speed limit laws.
The Feds mostly don't bother to enforce many Federal marijuana laws involving small amounts of the evil weed because the state/local governments took care of that via state laws and enforcement. When Californi
Re: (Score:2)
I do believe the DEA will challenge it if it passes
No, they won't. They're not that stupid.
The Feds do not have anywhere near the numbers of agents necessary to do this. Just to put things in perspective: even if you took all the currently available federal agents from the FBI (~13500), the ATF (~2500) and the DEA (~5500), that's about the same number of sworn officers in the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department alone.
There is simply no way they could do it. And on top of that, they would get no coope
Re: (Score:2)
When the DEA starts worrying about the pot head with an ounce bag walking down the street, then the federal laws will matter. Until then, the Californian people will not have to worry about getting arrested by the local PD which is usually the origin of most federal charges brought against a pot enthusiast with his/her own plant in the basement.
Re: (Score:2)
For the most part you're right. There are a lot of historical reasons for this attitude. To quote the tenth amendment of the U.S. constitution, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This is why laws, cultures, and infrastructure vary so much from state to state. While the Commerce Clause ("[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the severa
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's what incited the country's only civil war. Urban and rural citizens have vastly different expectations of government. Their fight is to control the state first and the federal government second.
Sometimes I think that the US needs another civil war. Its so polarised at the moment its almost amazing that it does hang together as a country.
BTW as per HI. If I was Hawaiian I'd be more than indifferent to the mainland, I'd be pissed off. HI didn't choose to become a state. It was annexed due to business interests playing the US government - or perhaps the other way around.
Re: (Score:2)
How did the previous American Civil War depolarize the US? 145 years after it ended there are still Confederate flags and talk of secession.
Well it did vent a lot of feelings! But I was more thinking a civil war used to split the country up into 2 separate countries.
Re: (Score:2)
How did the previous American Civil War depolarize the US? 145 years after it ended there are still Confederate flags and talk of secession.
Well it did vent a lot of feelings! But I was more thinking a civil war used to split the country up into 2 separate countries.
There's a map for that [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Congressman Pelosi doesn't have to care about the midwest, but Speaker Pelosi most certainly does have to consider it. Inasmuch as the other congressmen who would vote her as speaker must weigh that decision against their constituents' wishes.
She's removed enough that she doesn't need to give it too much thought, but it looks like some fraction of her supporters won't be back next term to vote for her. So we'll see on tuesday how that's workin' out.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting, I've heard lots of people describe Germans that way in contrast to Americans having a strong national identity.
That may be a bias between looking from the inside vs looking from the outside
I certainly don't think of myself of North Carolinian or Georgian despite spending years in both. Identification with and focus on local issues though might be more true to some degree in that we actually have the potential to change things at that level where nationally we can't have much affect and internationally, even less.
That may be true. Opting out of greater things is easier to do. I'll have to ponder that.
Re: (Score:2)
I mostly agree with your analysis -- except perhaps for the community party.
Back 10 or 12 years ago I saw an issue raised in Pittsburgh where some local politician was complaining that the city was losing tax dollars because the players of the Pittsburgh Steelers were not choosing to live within the bounds of the city. I have lived in a couple of locations where there was a distinction between city and county and in each place I have seen issues like this raised - and that is part of basis for my community comment.
Another reason for it is that politics are carried out at such a
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Prop 19 (Score:5, Interesting)
btw, it annoys me to no end when some foreigner complains on Slashdot about how some comment is USA-centric. Sure, the internet is international, but when I go to a British website I don't complain about how it's UK-centric. I love that so many foreigners post on Slashdot; I've learned quite a bit from them, especially when the story is about their home country; but don't get annoyed when comments on a political story use the pronoun 'we' to refer to 'the American people.'
As a foreigner who posts here and has had stories accepted here I feel somewhat eligible to respond to this comment. I will do so with an example of what I have experienced.
I saw an article in a newspaper in my home country (of which English is the native language), made a submission with a direct quote from the linked text. The submission was accepted and published on /. but the kicker was that spelling in the direct quote was converted to US English.
It is this sort of lack of respect that brings forth the things you are complaining about.
You may say that ./ is a US centric website. Yes I agree it was a US based creation but I suspect that a significant amount of readership is non-US based and a huge number of stories are non US related, so I feel that complaining about foreigners saying what they do is a bit off base.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I'd have to agree there's no reason to change the spelling from UK English to U.S. It's not like U.S. book publishers do that sort of editing to UK/Aussie/ect. books. And /. readers should be intelligent enough to realize that the post didn't spell "colour" wrong, it's just non-American English. Shame on the editor in that case.
What I was complaining about is how when commenting on a political story I may say something like "we need to vote for candidate X" and then some snarky foreigner says, "I'm no
Re: (Score:2)
But of course U.S. publishers do routinely revise books for the American market. For example, "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" in the U.S. was originally "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" in the UK (which makes a lot more sense, if you know any history at all - apparently something the publishers don't expect from American readers).
Re: (Score:2)
Changing the spelling and complaining about changing the spelling are equally petty. Both you and the editor would be better off if you didn't bother.
Re: (Score:2)
So the editor should have kicked the EN-US spell checker to the kerb, and loaded the EN-UK or EN-AU spell checker instead? I don't think so. I think he should work with the tools of syntax that slashdot has chosen, and focus on the semantics of the job.
I believe that it was Churchill who said that Britain and America are two countries separated by a common language. Same goes for Australia, Canada, etc. A bit of tolerance for the way everyone else mangles the language in the wrong way seems appropriate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Prop 19 (Score:5, Insightful)
What politicians won't say: want to win the drug war? Lose it! [time.com]
Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal's drug use numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.
Ditch the politicians (Score:2, Interesting)
There is a solution to this, you know. We can be completely free of politicians: http://metagovernment.org/ [metagovernment.org]
Re: (Score:2)
There is a solution to this, you know. We can be completely free of politicians: http://metagovernment.org/ [metagovernment.org]
I read through that and then laughed my head off. Collectives do not scale past the number of people you can personally know. Been there, done that and yes I do have a T-shirt.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunatly, Prop 19 may end up making Cannabis less legal in California than it is now. Today possession of less than an ounce of Cannabis is not a jailable offense in California. Prop 19 would recriminalize it in some circumstances under the auspices of "regulation". It would restrict legal Cannabis productions to a small number of registered growers, setting the stage for corporate domination of the Cannabis market. It also allows cities to prohibit the sale of legal Cannabis, which will actually re
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
This is all an outright lie. It's not a jaillable offense, but it's still an offense that will cost you a ticket and the marijuana/paraphanalia you have confiscated. After, it will be legal unless an honest to god federal agent catches you.
Any adult can grow 25 square feet legally, so explain how that would mean it'll be restricted to a small number of growers.
Corporations are national entities. If they start trying to produce and sell pot then the federal government will have their ass.
Cities can regulate
Re: (Score:2)
After, it will be legal unless an honest to god federal agent catches you.
Or if you enjoy a joint in your own home when there are children in the house.
Any adult can grow 25 square feet legally
It's not 25 square feet per person, it's 25 square feet per property. This could be a big problem for multi-home properties.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hence the reasons regulation is more effective than making it illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting how the possible state law for legalization of marijuana is getting as much or more attention from American people than the elections of the legislators who actually make our laws.
Not to mention it probably won't happen even if it passes. In Arizona we've passed a proposition to legalize medical marijuana three times, and it's on the ballot again this year.
Re: (Score:2)
If it was on the ballot 3 times, then it wasn't passed any time prior unless your constitution allows the legislature to over turn it. In Cali... 51% of voters can pass a proposition and not a single politician can do a damn thing about it.
Prop 19 - The airline stimulus package! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The AC is correct, if vitriolic. I work for an employer that has pre-employment drug screenings. I specifically asked if a trip to Amsterdam exempted me. The long and short of it was "tough shit".
But CA is the bellwether state with lots of legislation. With luck, it will be with marijuana.
Yet another instance of the Observer Effect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny how physics principles apply to the socio-political domain. First it was popularity and election polls, now it's Google Predictions. In both cases the 'predictions' tend to become self-fulfilling. With this press release, the mere fact that Google is making these predictions will become a factor now and in future elections, just as it has become a factor in the success or failure of businesses that do or do not successfully manipulate their Google rankings. Politicians, political parties, lobbyists, and astro-turfers will all be scrambling to have Google 'predict' their success.
Make no mistake, Google is a kingmaker in our world. I find that a really scary state of affairs, especially given Eric Schmidt's pompous pronouncements on subjects such as privacy.
No need for elections now (Score:2)
Now more cheating or campaigns needed. we'll just google to determine who wins. Much less expensive. Plus people in other parts of the world can help determine our outcome, unlike now where it's just hackers in Norway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google might be good now, but there is no promise they will always remain so when the leadership changes.
Maybe 200 years from now people will curse us for allowing Google into existence. They might wonder how Google could have ever been a benevolent organization rather than the tool of dictators. In fact, they might never know that's how it was at the turn of the 21st century.
Re: (Score:2)
The trick, if you're a political party, is to get a bunch of pollsters and others engaged in reporting on predictions and polling and whatnot, to report your desired outcome.
Then you can vote-fraud the night away, and no one will be the wiser. Heck, leave some areas alone, and when they don't track the polls closely enough, complain that there was vote fraud there.
You probably couldn't get away with turning a landslide defeat into a landslide victory, but you could tweak enough close races (and there are p
since Google's not the government this is benign (Score:2)
Google announced they've searched for clues about the upcoming US election using their internal tools
Thank goodness Google has promised not to abuse the information it gathers! I mean, think of the influence and wealth you'd gain by providing the right information to the right powerful people.
Re: (Score:2)
You do know that there is already a large, well-established, well-funded industry around predicting (influencing? fixing?) elections? Worrying that Google's analysis of search trends to predict election results is going to taint the electoral process is rather like worrying that passengers on the Titanic might have gotten mild food poisoning.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank goodness Google has promised not to abuse the information it gathers! I mean, think of the influence and wealth you'd gain by providing the right information to the right powerful people.
Google to Politicians: "The voters think you all suck."
What's the problem?
Predicting? (Score:2)
It's not all that difficult. I mean, you currently have a 50% chance of guessing the correct answer. Republican or democrat. Choose the one you think is the most popular! No other parties exist, and if they did, they are evil communists who will ruin this already ruined nation!
How do they tell the difference (Score:3, Interesting)
Between stuff I'm looking at because I agree with it, and stuff I'm looking at because I want to know what the opposition is up to?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because nowadays most Americans only watch/read sources that they already agree with.
Hardly surprising Prop 19 is interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Which party is ascendant does not appear to affect the larger sweep of history by all that much. Loads of Democrats voted for the War. Banking deregulation did start under Reagan and Bush I, but continued merrily under Clinton. Obama was supposed to be this big transformation, but all the civil rights slide and the wars continued untouched; banking and health reforms were way more timid than expected.
As for the Stalinist Obama Takeover....they're arguing about whether income over $363,000 should be taxed at 35% or 39.6% ...spare me.
But Prop 19, that's the first crack in a very, very big wall that has stood there for over 75 years, making a crime out of a handful of leaves. Several tens of millions of people know that the underlying assumptions of that law are utterly false, Literally millions of people who work jobs, raise families, pay mortgages fear arrest because of it, and have all their adult lives.
It's a big deal. And enough has happened in recent years (complete decrim in Portugal, popularity for medical use) to make this, well, umm, change we can believe in. For those of us who thought it was surely going to happen in the 80's, before a sudden rightward swing brought stupid arguments (and lying ads based on brainwaves of coma patients) right back to fhe fore when we thought them defeated at last, it's starting to look Really Possible at long, long last.
Insights for Search (Score:2)
The problem with using only "insights for search" is that the people who are more likely to vote are less likely to use the internet (especially for researching politics). Now granted, the article says they used other sources as well, so I imagine they may have accounted for that. It's similar to the problem with the old-school random-digit-dialing approach that most polls use (they use other things as well, though). The kind of person who answers their phone without recognizing the number on caller ID i
Re: (Score:2)
further, I would imagine that internet-based approaches (like this one with Google) will typically skew toward democrats (at least the raw data - Google likely accounts for this). Democrats are younger and use the internet more (why do you think they are the party of Net Neutrality? it's because Net Neutrality lobbyists know that democrats are younger and are more likely to care about internet stuff).
As Long As O'Donnel Loses (Score:2)
I've adjusted to the fact that the Democrats are going to get clobbered ( some of them deserve it ).
I just hope Christine O'Donnell loses the race for Senate in Delaware. I find her to be the most offensive candidate. Watching her lose will be like a preview of watching Sara Palin's demise. They seem very similar. Luckily, her opponent has a solid lead on her in the real polls( not google ).
After that, every TEA party candidate who loses will be a bonus for me.
I think this election cycle will be call
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So who do you want to win. Or is the political process only about loosing no matter who beats the person you want beat.
There is a school of thought that says that the main function of elections isn't to elect the best candidate (since different people have different ideas about what is "best"), but rather to ensure that the truly dangerous candidates are kept out of power.
You may find that cynical, but certainly when the elected individual will be given the ability to do great harm (e.g. will have the nucle
Re: (Score:2)
When I first mentioned to my parents that an idiot like Palin could never win, they pointed out that I was too young to remember what an idiot everyone thought Reagan was in 1976.
Seems reasonable (Score:3, Interesting)
Today Brazilians are electing their new President. It is the second turn of our elections so we get to choose between the two candidates for the presidential chair which were most voted in the first turn that occurred one month ago.
The candidates are Jose Serra (current opposition) and Dilma Rousseff (candidate supported by the current President). According to a simple "volumetric" serach on Google, Serra has 47% and Rousseff has 53%. These predictions are somewhat similar to what polls and public opinion surveys have been showing (reckoning only the valid votes). Tonight we will have the final results and I will be amazed if this Google prediction so to speak turns out to be more accurate than official polls.
Re: (Score:2)
Are those results with google.com or google.br (is that the right TLD?)? Wonder if there is a difference.
Potential rigging (Score:2)
Was it just me or... (Score:2)
did other people read the title at first glance as 'Predecting erection results with google"?
Candidate position based on Google results (Score:2)
A political campaign is all about telling the voters what they want to hear, in the hopes enough people believe them and will vote for them. Google searches are a great way to do the market research to determine this.
The catch is that while a political candidate's running platform is based on what he thinks voters want, it is generally a poor indicator of what he'll actually do in office. Often the platform is centered around things the candidate won't even have control over once in office. For example,
Interest != Results (Score:2)
Interest in different races and resolutions on ballots doesn't indicate results. How many people searching the Web will even show up to vote? How many are getting wrong info from the pages they found? How many are aligned with opposition looking for negative info on something on the ballot?
Even turnout can't be predicted, let alone results.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes Google, but is Prop 19 going to pass??
Google is a Search Engine not a Magic 8-Ball (yet) ... though it would be interesting to see what their predictions are if they could be posted before the elections but not accessible until after the results are in (I'd hate for Google to inadvertently affect the outcome of any election).
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Google is a Search Engine not a Magic 8-Ball (yet)
In other words: Reply hazy. Search again later.
Re: (Score:2)
"search again on Nov 3rd".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Economics, you fail it.
Re: (Score:2)
Some honesty. If either side was actually honest about their side of the issue, they could gain more traction. But when the pro side of the issue can't be honest about what they want, they shouldn't be surprised when people don't find their argument convincing.
I don't get your argument. This isn't a "medical marijuana" law, it just legalizes marijuana outright. The current system in California is dishonest. You go to some quack doctor and complain about headaches or nervousness or any bullshit symptom that "goes away when I smoke pot" and the quack hands out a prescription.
Prop 19 just legalizes marijuana and the arguments in favor of it are that it would unburden the justice system of the time and money spent arresting, convicting, and imprisoning marijuana sell
Re:Prop 19 could really use ... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'll be honest about what I want. Cannabis should have roughly the same legal status as coffee. As a daily user of each, I can tell you which is more harmful and it sure as hell isn't Cannabis.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to know a thing or two about it, so question: who do you think it responsible for keeping cannabis illegal? I've heard people accuse the pharma companies, paper companies, fiber companies, and maybe some others, because cannabis is a cheap way of doing things better than some of their business models, but I've always assumed the ones who try to keep anti-cannabis laws on the books are the DEA/criminal 'justice' industry/prison-industrial complex ...people who deal in ruined lives and human misery,
Re: (Score:2)
I have read that the largest contributors to the campaign against Prop 19 are the makers and distributors of alcoholic beverages, but certainly the prison industry also has a horse in this race.
Re:Prop 19 could really use ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Driving after using Cannabis is a bigger deal, I've used and driven and it was at least as impairing as drinking alcohol.
The DOT has done studies [erowid.org] that show even at the higher range of recreational doses Cannabis is not as impairing as legal doses of alcohol. In fact, cannabis users over estimate their impairment and over compensate for it, which is what I expect you experienced.
Also, you can't tell me that coffee impairs you worse than Cannabis while working.
Depends entirely on the person and the type of work. I don't smoke before work, but I know people who do and they're all good at their jobs. Even high pressure jobs dealing with lots of information and deadlines. Give some of these same people 2 cups of coffee and they may well have a panic attack before lunch.
Re: (Score:2)
Well then this simply implies one should take similar precautions with Cannabis and driving that one does with Ethyl Alcohol and driving.
The problem with caffeine is that it builds a chemical dependency so that you need to drink coffee every morning just to return to your baseline level of alertness - if you drink less coffee than usual in the morning you will be more tired than usual. See this article [bbc.co.uk] which discusses some research asserting that a regular coffee drinker's morning coffee only counteracts t
Re:Prop 19 could really use ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Many people want to smoke pot, prop 19 proponents think they should be allowed to, and they think that creating a (regulated and taxed) legitimate industry to serve that desire would be of greater benefit to society than the prohibition which is current policy.
So far as I know, that's the main thrust of the pro side's arguments... everything I've heard on it basically boils down to one or more of those points.
The opposition's main point seems to be, essentially, pot is bad, smoking pot is bad, and we should continue to prohibit the cultivation, distribution and use of pot because doing so is in the best interests of society.
Again, their arguments seem to pretty consistently fall into these points.
Is there a class of argument that I've not witnessed which is fundamentally dishonest?
As some one who has smoked pot, quite a bit of it in fact, but no longer does and has no intention of ever doing it again (it tends to trigger panic attacks, paranoia, and crippling neurosis... none of which I find enjoyable in the slightest), I feel that the pro side has a much stronger case... if only because it is my general opinion that an activity should only be banned when it poses substantial and immediate danger of real harm to society. I support banning impaired drivers regardless of what impairs them (and yes, pot does impair one's ability to drive in ways similar to but somewhat different from alcohol... much like being high is similar to, but somewhat different from being drunk) based on the danger that they pose to others, but I also view that ban as substantially and obviously separate from an outright ban on consumption etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a class of argument that I've not witnessed which is fundamentally dishonest?
No, but one of the classes you have witnessed is fundamentally dishonest.
FTFY (Score:2)
Marijuana is not a drug; it is a plant. It has homeopathic benefits, and Science News recently reported that the medical community is discovering a multitude of uses for it in a medical setting. A simple investigation into the underhanded lies the US government told to the populace
Re: (Score:2)
Little nitpick: perhaps you mean therapeutic benefits, which marijuana certainly has, not homeopathic. Nothing has homeopathic benefits because homeopathy is bullshit quackery. Homeopathy is the concept that super dilute concentrations of something have the opposite effect, for example, using poison ivy to cure rashes or using cola nut to help you sleep.
Re: (Score:2)
No wonder your homeopathic remedies don't work: according to wikipedia, you have to rap the container of the super dilute whatever to make it work.
Re: (Score:2)
Marijuana is not a drug; it is a plant.
Turns out those two categories aren't mutually exclusive. Marijuana is a drug, and a plant.
Re: (Score:2)
By the more loose definition that you are using food is a drug too. My point is that pharmaceutical companies are referred to as drug companies because they manufacture drugs. Heroin and Cocaine are drugs, because they are manufactured. Naturally occurring substances such as food, valerian root, and marijuana, while technically mood and mind altering substances, are not in the same category, whatever word you use
Re: (Score:2)
I feel that the pro side has a much stronger case
You are forgetting another argument for the pro side: while marijuana is illegal you have a defacto illicit market for its distribution. Once it's legal and regulated, legitimate entrepreneurs come in and market forces push the price down, which drives the criminals away.
Re: (Score:2)
Both sides dishonest? On one had we've got people saying that cannabis is a just plant (and last time I checked, science is pretty clear that C. sativa is indeed a plant), and that it is immoral to imprison people because they like to grow and consume the wrong plant in the comfort of their own home, and on the other hand we have the people who brought you Reefer Madness [google.com], who go on and on about freedom then try to squash people's inherent right to said freedom because they disagree with it. Only one side
Re: (Score:2)
Both sides dishonest?
Yes, both sides are dishonest. The people who support prop 19 (and other legalization initiatives) should say "most users of pot can use it responsibly, and should be able to buy it legally". Instead, they opt for a much more extreme statement of "legalizing pot will solve every problem the world has ever faced, ever, immediately". And being as the supporters of prop 19 need a majority in order to achieve their desired change, they need to present a convincing argument.
Of course, there is plenty of di
Re: (Score:2)
Some honesty. If either side was actually honest about their side of the issue, they could gain more traction. But when the pro side of the issue can't be honest about what they want, they shouldn't be surprised when people don't find their argument convincing.
Yourself included, or are you still pretending that actual dope use leads to Reefer Madness type behaviour and homemade beer and wine are major causes of blindness?
Re: (Score:2)
If either side was actually honest about their side of the issue, they could gain more traction
Instead the issue is coming through like any other political crap; lots of emotion from both sides, lots of extreme (and at least in part lacking in fact) opinions, and very little honesty. Perhaps it is an effect of the current political climate that favors this kind of crap, or perhaps it was always attached to this issue anyways. Either way, neither side is truly honest.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One step better would be to allow the states to decide individually whether to make it appoi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We should amend it so that we go back to the Governor appointing and state legislators approving, but allow the people to recall them in a statewide vote. We should also allow a Governor to ask the state legislature to recall a senator, but it requires the legislature to have a 2/3 vote.
It will prevent senators from being bought, and allow the people to remove a senator they think is not representing them correctly
Re: (Score:2)
I have a better solution. Make me supreme dictator. I'll stay out of the way on most things, appoint people who know what they're doing for other things, and only be corrupt enough to make a decent living. Might make a few declarations myself, but I'll mostly stay in the background. Everybody gets to live in a relatively nice country run by really competent, ethical individuals (I'm not talking about myself, I'm appointing these people, not running anything), and I don't even care if they bitch about me. Pl
Re: (Score:2)
flame bait... really?
A statement of fact about what someone said is not flame bait.