<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_03_1155221</id>
	<title>Open Government Brainstorm Defies Wisdom of Crowds</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1244033280000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:theodp@aol.com" rel="nofollow">theodp</a> writes <i>"In May, the White House launched what it called an '<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/open/blog/">unprecedented online process for public engagement in policymaking</a>.' Brainstorming was conducted in an effort to identify ways to 'strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness by making government more transparent, participatory, and collaborative.' So, what were some of the <a href="http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/ideafactory.do?id=4049&amp;mode=top">top vote-getters</a>? Currently near the top of the list are <a href="http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/2762-4049">Legalize Marijuana And Solve Many Tax Issues / Prison Issues</a> (#2) and <a href="http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/3191-4049">Remove Marijuana from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act</a> (#3). For those who remember <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578\_3-10205063-38.html">Obama's earlier Online Town Hall</a>, it's deja vu all over again."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>theodp writes " In May , the White House launched what it called an 'unprecedented online process for public engagement in policymaking .
' Brainstorming was conducted in an effort to identify ways to 'strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness by making government more transparent , participatory , and collaborative .
' So , what were some of the top vote-getters ?
Currently near the top of the list are Legalize Marijuana And Solve Many Tax Issues / Prison Issues ( # 2 ) and Remove Marijuana from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act ( # 3 ) .
For those who remember Obama 's earlier Online Town Hall , it 's deja vu all over again .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>theodp writes "In May, the White House launched what it called an 'unprecedented online process for public engagement in policymaking.
' Brainstorming was conducted in an effort to identify ways to 'strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness by making government more transparent, participatory, and collaborative.
' So, what were some of the top vote-getters?
Currently near the top of the list are Legalize Marijuana And Solve Many Tax Issues / Prison Issues (#2) and Remove Marijuana from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (#3).
For those who remember Obama's earlier Online Town Hall, it's deja vu all over again.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194789</id>
	<title>The public just need a veto on legislation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244039640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's no need for all this phony 'consultation'. It leads nowhere in any case. The legislators simply legislate the way they want to regardless and use the feedback, if at all, to help them figure out how to sell their self serving new laws.</p><p>A practical form of referendum on legislation, effectively providing the population with a veto on legislation would work.</p><p>That way, politicians would not waste time on legislation unless they believed that the public would go with it. More importantly, the politicians would have to keep the public informed (in a way that they don't bother to currently) and explain why legislation is needed.</p><p>Frightened that the mob use their communal ignorance to stop all progress? Give them some credit. You are part of that mob too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no need for all this phony 'consultation' .
It leads nowhere in any case .
The legislators simply legislate the way they want to regardless and use the feedback , if at all , to help them figure out how to sell their self serving new laws.A practical form of referendum on legislation , effectively providing the population with a veto on legislation would work.That way , politicians would not waste time on legislation unless they believed that the public would go with it .
More importantly , the politicians would have to keep the public informed ( in a way that they do n't bother to currently ) and explain why legislation is needed.Frightened that the mob use their communal ignorance to stop all progress ?
Give them some credit .
You are part of that mob too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no need for all this phony 'consultation'.
It leads nowhere in any case.
The legislators simply legislate the way they want to regardless and use the feedback, if at all, to help them figure out how to sell their self serving new laws.A practical form of referendum on legislation, effectively providing the population with a veto on legislation would work.That way, politicians would not waste time on legislation unless they believed that the public would go with it.
More importantly, the politicians would have to keep the public informed (in a way that they don't bother to currently) and explain why legislation is needed.Frightened that the mob use their communal ignorance to stop all progress?
Give them some credit.
You are part of that mob too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194491</id>
	<title>deja vu</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244038200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For those who remember Obama's earlier Online Town Hall, it's deja vu <b>all over again</b>.</p></div><p>So this is the <i>second</i> time we're experiencing deja vu? Am I the only one who fails to RTFA because they can't get past the horrible grammar in the synopsis?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For those who remember Obama 's earlier Online Town Hall , it 's deja vu all over again.So this is the second time we 're experiencing deja vu ?
Am I the only one who fails to RTFA because they ca n't get past the horrible grammar in the synopsis ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those who remember Obama's earlier Online Town Hall, it's deja vu all over again.So this is the second time we're experiencing deja vu?
Am I the only one who fails to RTFA because they can't get past the horrible grammar in the synopsis?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196961</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy is the problem</title>
	<author>Yungoe</author>
	<datestamp>1244048880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are 100\% Correct.  If you live in the US, check your constitution, specifically article 4 section 4.  The USA is to be a Republic and not a Democracy.  Essential liberties DIE under Democracies.  A good current examples of what you call "Epic Fail" is the government take over of GM.  There is nothing in the constitution that permits this activity but because it is popular, it happens.</p><p>My favorite quote to illustrate the point of Democracy being anti-liberty is one I stole directly from someone here:  "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.  Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting the vote."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are 100 \ % Correct .
If you live in the US , check your constitution , specifically article 4 section 4 .
The USA is to be a Republic and not a Democracy .
Essential liberties DIE under Democracies .
A good current examples of what you call " Epic Fail " is the government take over of GM .
There is nothing in the constitution that permits this activity but because it is popular , it happens.My favorite quote to illustrate the point of Democracy being anti-liberty is one I stole directly from someone here : " Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what 's for dinner .
Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting the vote .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are 100\% Correct.
If you live in the US, check your constitution, specifically article 4 section 4.
The USA is to be a Republic and not a Democracy.
Essential liberties DIE under Democracies.
A good current examples of what you call "Epic Fail" is the government take over of GM.
There is nothing in the constitution that permits this activity but because it is popular, it happens.My favorite quote to illustrate the point of Democracy being anti-liberty is one I stole directly from someone here:  "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting the vote.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195689</id>
	<title>No transparency there</title>
	<author>alta</author>
	<datestamp>1244043600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yesterday, the number one topic was the birth certificate issue.  One single post had the most votes.  Then, the 3rd, 5th and 6th were also the same topic.  Now go today, and those tops have been removed, and new ones are moving up the ranking, only around 200 now.</p><p>Yes, there's currently a spam problem going on.  There should be no more than ONE instance of a topic at the top.  But to remove the number one post AND the dupes is NOT transparent.  Obama may not be happy with what the people are interested in, but HE opened that can of worms.</p><p>So, yes, remove EVERY SINGLE TOPIC that deals with the birth cert issue EXECPT the one that's performing the best.</p><p>What gets me the most is that the site is about being transparent but they are covering the fact that people are interested in this issue AND they are not not being transparent on this whole cert issue to begin with.  Just release the damn original so they will shut up about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yesterday , the number one topic was the birth certificate issue .
One single post had the most votes .
Then , the 3rd , 5th and 6th were also the same topic .
Now go today , and those tops have been removed , and new ones are moving up the ranking , only around 200 now.Yes , there 's currently a spam problem going on .
There should be no more than ONE instance of a topic at the top .
But to remove the number one post AND the dupes is NOT transparent .
Obama may not be happy with what the people are interested in , but HE opened that can of worms.So , yes , remove EVERY SINGLE TOPIC that deals with the birth cert issue EXECPT the one that 's performing the best.What gets me the most is that the site is about being transparent but they are covering the fact that people are interested in this issue AND they are not not being transparent on this whole cert issue to begin with .
Just release the damn original so they will shut up about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yesterday, the number one topic was the birth certificate issue.
One single post had the most votes.
Then, the 3rd, 5th and 6th were also the same topic.
Now go today, and those tops have been removed, and new ones are moving up the ranking, only around 200 now.Yes, there's currently a spam problem going on.
There should be no more than ONE instance of a topic at the top.
But to remove the number one post AND the dupes is NOT transparent.
Obama may not be happy with what the people are interested in, but HE opened that can of worms.So, yes, remove EVERY SINGLE TOPIC that deals with the birth cert issue EXECPT the one that's performing the best.What gets me the most is that the site is about being transparent but they are covering the fact that people are interested in this issue AND they are not not being transparent on this whole cert issue to begin with.
Just release the damn original so they will shut up about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195529</id>
	<title>Re:The marijuana crowd is retarded</title>
	<author>Mr. Slippery</author>
	<datestamp>1244042880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>You know, if I can just grow the shit, I'm not paying $3500 for it.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>I could, in theory, grow grapes, corn, and tobacco, and so I could make wine, bourbon, and cigars. But it's a lot of work and the end product would suck, so I'll gladly pay others.

</p><p>Yes, certainly the figures cited in the article you quoted are inflated, but there's no question that legalizing cannabis and other drugs and taxing them would not only bring in significant income, but would reduce prison and law enforcement costs -- as well as increasing liberty. Keep your laws off my body.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , if I can just grow the shit , I 'm not paying $ 3500 for it .
I could , in theory , grow grapes , corn , and tobacco , and so I could make wine , bourbon , and cigars .
But it 's a lot of work and the end product would suck , so I 'll gladly pay others .
Yes , certainly the figures cited in the article you quoted are inflated , but there 's no question that legalizing cannabis and other drugs and taxing them would not only bring in significant income , but would reduce prison and law enforcement costs -- as well as increasing liberty .
Keep your laws off my body .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> You know, if I can just grow the shit, I'm not paying $3500 for it.
I could, in theory, grow grapes, corn, and tobacco, and so I could make wine, bourbon, and cigars.
But it's a lot of work and the end product would suck, so I'll gladly pay others.
Yes, certainly the figures cited in the article you quoted are inflated, but there's no question that legalizing cannabis and other drugs and taxing them would not only bring in significant income, but would reduce prison and law enforcement costs -- as well as increasing liberty.
Keep your laws off my body.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194809</id>
	<title>Re:We all laugh</title>
	<author>krou</author>
	<datestamp>1244039700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I think you completely misunderstand why many people want drugs like marijuana legalised.</p><p>It's not just so you can light a joint any time that you want without risk of being caught. There are a lot more important issues here.</p><p>It's because the current system is harmful, wastes money, and doesn't work. It's got sweet FA to do about taking the drugs themselves to solve society's problems. It's about legalising drugs in order to solve problems the Drug War and prohibition creates. It's about solving the issues of: wasting public money in a drugs war that has had no tangible effect; treating drug users as criminals and overburdening the prison population (not to mention the cost of incarceration, the cost to the economy, and the social costs as well); it's about focusing on the real issue, which is addiction and rehabilitation.</p><p>Sit down and read through <a href="http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/" title="drugwarfacts.org">this website</a> [drugwarfacts.org] and hopefully you'll understand why the War on Drugs is bogus, and why marijuana (at the very least) should be legalised. I, myself, take the view that the Dutch model is the way to go (so I go further than just legalisation of marijuana).</p><p>Incidentally, in my opinion it's not that the voting public don't want it, it's that it's not an issue on the agenda in the media itself, which shapes the opinions of the voting public (never mind that the US government and certain banks have and continue to make extremely large profits as a result of drugs). The "War on Drugs" has been and is extremely lucrative for big business, and for the government, in terms of profits and control, and that's one of the underlying reasons why the myths of the dangers of legalising drugs like marijuana continue to dominate discourse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I think you completely misunderstand why many people want drugs like marijuana legalised.It 's not just so you can light a joint any time that you want without risk of being caught .
There are a lot more important issues here.It 's because the current system is harmful , wastes money , and does n't work .
It 's got sweet FA to do about taking the drugs themselves to solve society 's problems .
It 's about legalising drugs in order to solve problems the Drug War and prohibition creates .
It 's about solving the issues of : wasting public money in a drugs war that has had no tangible effect ; treating drug users as criminals and overburdening the prison population ( not to mention the cost of incarceration , the cost to the economy , and the social costs as well ) ; it 's about focusing on the real issue , which is addiction and rehabilitation.Sit down and read through this website [ drugwarfacts.org ] and hopefully you 'll understand why the War on Drugs is bogus , and why marijuana ( at the very least ) should be legalised .
I , myself , take the view that the Dutch model is the way to go ( so I go further than just legalisation of marijuana ) .Incidentally , in my opinion it 's not that the voting public do n't want it , it 's that it 's not an issue on the agenda in the media itself , which shapes the opinions of the voting public ( never mind that the US government and certain banks have and continue to make extremely large profits as a result of drugs ) .
The " War on Drugs " has been and is extremely lucrative for big business , and for the government , in terms of profits and control , and that 's one of the underlying reasons why the myths of the dangers of legalising drugs like marijuana continue to dominate discourse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I think you completely misunderstand why many people want drugs like marijuana legalised.It's not just so you can light a joint any time that you want without risk of being caught.
There are a lot more important issues here.It's because the current system is harmful, wastes money, and doesn't work.
It's got sweet FA to do about taking the drugs themselves to solve society's problems.
It's about legalising drugs in order to solve problems the Drug War and prohibition creates.
It's about solving the issues of: wasting public money in a drugs war that has had no tangible effect; treating drug users as criminals and overburdening the prison population (not to mention the cost of incarceration, the cost to the economy, and the social costs as well); it's about focusing on the real issue, which is addiction and rehabilitation.Sit down and read through this website [drugwarfacts.org] and hopefully you'll understand why the War on Drugs is bogus, and why marijuana (at the very least) should be legalised.
I, myself, take the view that the Dutch model is the way to go (so I go further than just legalisation of marijuana).Incidentally, in my opinion it's not that the voting public don't want it, it's that it's not an issue on the agenda in the media itself, which shapes the opinions of the voting public (never mind that the US government and certain banks have and continue to make extremely large profits as a result of drugs).
The "War on Drugs" has been and is extremely lucrative for big business, and for the government, in terms of profits and control, and that's one of the underlying reasons why the myths of the dangers of legalising drugs like marijuana continue to dominate discourse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195515</id>
	<title>It is "Knowledge of the crowds", not wisdom</title>
	<author>Kaukomieli</author>
	<datestamp>1244042820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many people know lots of things. People who have better knowledge about a thing then others will be able to dominate people with less knowledge since facts are on their side.</p><p>Regardless of how tainted onces beliefs are, facts are facts.</p><p>Wisdom, ethics, insight, knowing whats best for society, looking at stuff not from onces own field of expertise is not prevalent in crowds.</p><p>History is full of people who had knowledge, but lacked wisdom...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many people know lots of things .
People who have better knowledge about a thing then others will be able to dominate people with less knowledge since facts are on their side.Regardless of how tainted onces beliefs are , facts are facts.Wisdom , ethics , insight , knowing whats best for society , looking at stuff not from onces own field of expertise is not prevalent in crowds.History is full of people who had knowledge , but lacked wisdom.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many people know lots of things.
People who have better knowledge about a thing then others will be able to dominate people with less knowledge since facts are on their side.Regardless of how tainted onces beliefs are, facts are facts.Wisdom, ethics, insight, knowing whats best for society, looking at stuff not from onces own field of expertise is not prevalent in crowds.History is full of people who had knowledge, but lacked wisdom...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195731</id>
	<title>Re:The marijuana crowd is retarded</title>
	<author>kilfarsnar</author>
	<datestamp>1244043780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>By this logic no one would buy beer either.  You can just brew it at home!  Or tomatoes!  Why do you pay for tomatoes when you could just grow them yourself?<p>
No, the fact is that people will pay for convenience.  We do it every day.  It is a hassle to grow your own pot.  I know; I've done it.  Why would I bother with the time and expense of setting up a grow area, managing the growing process, harvesting, drying, and setting up crop rotation when I could just go down to the smoke shop?  Some will grow it as a hobby, just as some people brew beer.  But most will just buy it.</p><p>
Besides all that, if it were legal it would likely be much less expensive.  The risk of arrest puts a premium on black market offerings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By this logic no one would buy beer either .
You can just brew it at home !
Or tomatoes !
Why do you pay for tomatoes when you could just grow them yourself ?
No , the fact is that people will pay for convenience .
We do it every day .
It is a hassle to grow your own pot .
I know ; I 've done it .
Why would I bother with the time and expense of setting up a grow area , managing the growing process , harvesting , drying , and setting up crop rotation when I could just go down to the smoke shop ?
Some will grow it as a hobby , just as some people brew beer .
But most will just buy it .
Besides all that , if it were legal it would likely be much less expensive .
The risk of arrest puts a premium on black market offerings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By this logic no one would buy beer either.
You can just brew it at home!
Or tomatoes!
Why do you pay for tomatoes when you could just grow them yourself?
No, the fact is that people will pay for convenience.
We do it every day.
It is a hassle to grow your own pot.
I know; I've done it.
Why would I bother with the time and expense of setting up a grow area, managing the growing process, harvesting, drying, and setting up crop rotation when I could just go down to the smoke shop?
Some will grow it as a hobby, just as some people brew beer.
But most will just buy it.
Besides all that, if it were legal it would likely be much less expensive.
The risk of arrest puts a premium on black market offerings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196985</id>
	<title>Pot Smoking is incredibly dangerous... Here's why.</title>
	<author>apocalypse2012</author>
	<datestamp>1244049000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Marijuana has an almost universal effect of inhibiting the users 'Vote' response. People who smokey pot regularly are ten times more likely to sit on their asses on election day in spite of their strongly held political beliefs. Users typically engage in some form of disenfranchisement delusion or conspiracy theory as a cover for their pot induce political impotence. In fact, this is widely believed to be the primary reason Marijuana is illegal in the first place. The people who use it are the least likely to do any thing about it except whine and bitch.

In fact, if anyone in the Republican party had any sense about them, they would legalize it immediately and paralysis half of the left wing electorate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Marijuana has an almost universal effect of inhibiting the users 'Vote ' response .
People who smokey pot regularly are ten times more likely to sit on their asses on election day in spite of their strongly held political beliefs .
Users typically engage in some form of disenfranchisement delusion or conspiracy theory as a cover for their pot induce political impotence .
In fact , this is widely believed to be the primary reason Marijuana is illegal in the first place .
The people who use it are the least likely to do any thing about it except whine and bitch .
In fact , if anyone in the Republican party had any sense about them , they would legalize it immediately and paralysis half of the left wing electorate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Marijuana has an almost universal effect of inhibiting the users 'Vote' response.
People who smokey pot regularly are ten times more likely to sit on their asses on election day in spite of their strongly held political beliefs.
Users typically engage in some form of disenfranchisement delusion or conspiracy theory as a cover for their pot induce political impotence.
In fact, this is widely believed to be the primary reason Marijuana is illegal in the first place.
The people who use it are the least likely to do any thing about it except whine and bitch.
In fact, if anyone in the Republican party had any sense about them, they would legalize it immediately and paralysis half of the left wing electorate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195057</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy is the problem</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1244040720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Civilization declining? No way. It's getting better all the time. These are very groovy times. Try to look objectively at history. The amount of suck in life is decreasing at a fantastic rate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Civilization declining ?
No way .
It 's getting better all the time .
These are very groovy times .
Try to look objectively at history .
The amount of suck in life is decreasing at a fantastic rate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Civilization declining?
No way.
It's getting better all the time.
These are very groovy times.
Try to look objectively at history.
The amount of suck in life is decreasing at a fantastic rate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28207529</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy isn't perfect.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244119440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Way to go</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Way to go</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Way to go</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194781</id>
	<title>Re:deja vu</title>
	<author>knewter</author>
	<datestamp>1244039580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You've seriously never heard that phrase?  Geezus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've seriously never heard that phrase ?
Geezus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've seriously never heard that phrase?
Geezus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195435</id>
	<title>Wisdom easily gamed</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1244042520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The wisdom of crowds, which works quite well when each individual does their own research and reaches their own judgments, is easily subverted. All that's required is that individuals cease to do their own research and use their own judgment, and start echoing the opinions of others (social networks), or their judgments receive a blunt force bias in the form of advertisements (television, newspapers). This reduces the non-duplicate information content of the crowd.

The result? You have a population concerned about marijuana laws (admittedly stupid) more than hydrocarbon depletion, overpopulation and potential economic collapse. The web, rather than making the wisdom of crowds ubiquitous, has made the stupidity of crowds inevitable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The wisdom of crowds , which works quite well when each individual does their own research and reaches their own judgments , is easily subverted .
All that 's required is that individuals cease to do their own research and use their own judgment , and start echoing the opinions of others ( social networks ) , or their judgments receive a blunt force bias in the form of advertisements ( television , newspapers ) .
This reduces the non-duplicate information content of the crowd .
The result ?
You have a population concerned about marijuana laws ( admittedly stupid ) more than hydrocarbon depletion , overpopulation and potential economic collapse .
The web , rather than making the wisdom of crowds ubiquitous , has made the stupidity of crowds inevitable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The wisdom of crowds, which works quite well when each individual does their own research and reaches their own judgments, is easily subverted.
All that's required is that individuals cease to do their own research and use their own judgment, and start echoing the opinions of others (social networks), or their judgments receive a blunt force bias in the form of advertisements (television, newspapers).
This reduces the non-duplicate information content of the crowd.
The result?
You have a population concerned about marijuana laws (admittedly stupid) more than hydrocarbon depletion, overpopulation and potential economic collapse.
The web, rather than making the wisdom of crowds ubiquitous, has made the stupidity of crowds inevitable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194441</id>
	<title>Re:We all laugh</title>
	<author>dpilot</author>
	<datestamp>1244037960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are really bigger issues behind this.</p><p>The entire War on Drugs would be a farce, if only it weren't such a disaster with such bad side-effects.  Not only does our drug policy not work, it has destabilized governments of many other nations, particularly in the western hemisphere south of the US, and is a root cause of a heck of a lot of deaths and human-rights violations.  In addition, at least partly due to our drug policy, we have criminalized a larger percentage of our population than any first-world nation, perhaps the highest overall.</p><p>IMHO we should focus on treatment (demand reduction) and stopping crimes of financing (stealing money for the next fix) that harm uninvolved innocents, as well as any other related violent acts.  Trying to restrict supply while taking a "Just Say NO!" policy on demand is not only doomed to failure, it HAS been failing for decades.  The side-effect is that it raises the price of drugs, pushing a LOT of money into the drug business, and saps more money out of the "good" economy by people buying their drugs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are really bigger issues behind this.The entire War on Drugs would be a farce , if only it were n't such a disaster with such bad side-effects .
Not only does our drug policy not work , it has destabilized governments of many other nations , particularly in the western hemisphere south of the US , and is a root cause of a heck of a lot of deaths and human-rights violations .
In addition , at least partly due to our drug policy , we have criminalized a larger percentage of our population than any first-world nation , perhaps the highest overall.IMHO we should focus on treatment ( demand reduction ) and stopping crimes of financing ( stealing money for the next fix ) that harm uninvolved innocents , as well as any other related violent acts .
Trying to restrict supply while taking a " Just Say NO !
" policy on demand is not only doomed to failure , it HAS been failing for decades .
The side-effect is that it raises the price of drugs , pushing a LOT of money into the drug business , and saps more money out of the " good " economy by people buying their drugs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are really bigger issues behind this.The entire War on Drugs would be a farce, if only it weren't such a disaster with such bad side-effects.
Not only does our drug policy not work, it has destabilized governments of many other nations, particularly in the western hemisphere south of the US, and is a root cause of a heck of a lot of deaths and human-rights violations.
In addition, at least partly due to our drug policy, we have criminalized a larger percentage of our population than any first-world nation, perhaps the highest overall.IMHO we should focus on treatment (demand reduction) and stopping crimes of financing (stealing money for the next fix) that harm uninvolved innocents, as well as any other related violent acts.
Trying to restrict supply while taking a "Just Say NO!
" policy on demand is not only doomed to failure, it HAS been failing for decades.
The side-effect is that it raises the price of drugs, pushing a LOT of money into the drug business, and saps more money out of the "good" economy by people buying their drugs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195681</id>
	<title>Re:Hey, wait a minute...</title>
	<author>vertinox</author>
	<datestamp>1244043540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Don't we already have this? It's called voting.</i></p><p>The USSR had voting and they only had one less candidate to choose from.</p><p>The problem with the American system is that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First\_past\_the\_post" title="wikipedia.org">"first past the post"</a> [wikipedia.org] system really disenfranchises 49\% of the population.</p><p>You would need something like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional\_Representation" title="wikipedia.org">Proportional Representation</a> [wikipedia.org] (like Ireland and Israel) to resolve this issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't we already have this ?
It 's called voting.The USSR had voting and they only had one less candidate to choose from.The problem with the American system is that " first past the post " [ wikipedia.org ] system really disenfranchises 49 \ % of the population.You would need something like Proportional Representation [ wikipedia.org ] ( like Ireland and Israel ) to resolve this issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't we already have this?
It's called voting.The USSR had voting and they only had one less candidate to choose from.The problem with the American system is that "first past the post" [wikipedia.org] system really disenfranchises 49\% of the population.You would need something like Proportional Representation [wikipedia.org] (like Ireland and Israel) to resolve this issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195549</id>
	<title>What does Marijuana have to do with this?</title>
	<author>hAckz0r</author>
	<datestamp>1244043000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness by making government more transparent, participatory, and collaborative.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Say what? Let me analyse this point by point...</p><p>

<b>Strengthen our democracy:</b> How, by making people sit around their bong every night discussing the problems of the world? Like.. "Man... link um.. why do they fold those papers around those little sticks of gum? Can't they see we need to save some trees? Besides they taste terrible when folding a joint, their just disgusting."</p><p>

<b>Promote efficiency:</b> Get real, Marijuana and efficiency in the same sentence? Last I knew all my childhood friends were doing nothing with their lives. Just sitting around getting high with no aspirations in life. Several are dead from accidents, suicide, some perpetually in rehab clinics, and all living life day-t-day. Efficiency is not the first word on my mind. </p><p>

<b>Making government more transparent:</b> Ok, Marijuana is hallucinogenic for some people, but I doubt that the Government is going to get any more transparent that way. </p><p>

<b>Collaborative:</b> Ok, lets get this one definition straight. We are talking about the Government being more collaborative, not people sitting around talking about fantasies while smoking joints. How is legalizing Marijuana going to get the Government to improve on their collaboration skills?</p><p>

I know I'll get flamed, and I'm not trying to argue that it should or should not be legalized, but what the study is for and the conclusions being stated about Marijuana are just not related from my viewpoint. But as I remember back to 'hanging out' with my childhood friends, they usually were not thinking all so coherently about much of anything, and no doubt they were the ones 'brainstorming' here. So why would I think this study would be any different? Go figure.</p><p>

You want it legalized? Good for you, go for it. This is a democracy after all. But, with the next study trying to 'fix the Government', please try to come up with ideas on topic and that actually solve the issues that the study is supposed to discuss. If you want to change the law there are already ways to do that. Go for it. </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness by making government more transparent , participatory , and collaborative .
Say what ?
Let me analyse this point by point.. . Strengthen our democracy : How , by making people sit around their bong every night discussing the problems of the world ?
Like.. " Man... link um.. why do they fold those papers around those little sticks of gum ?
Ca n't they see we need to save some trees ?
Besides they taste terrible when folding a joint , their just disgusting .
" Promote efficiency : Get real , Marijuana and efficiency in the same sentence ?
Last I knew all my childhood friends were doing nothing with their lives .
Just sitting around getting high with no aspirations in life .
Several are dead from accidents , suicide , some perpetually in rehab clinics , and all living life day-t-day .
Efficiency is not the first word on my mind .
Making government more transparent : Ok , Marijuana is hallucinogenic for some people , but I doubt that the Government is going to get any more transparent that way .
Collaborative : Ok , lets get this one definition straight .
We are talking about the Government being more collaborative , not people sitting around talking about fantasies while smoking joints .
How is legalizing Marijuana going to get the Government to improve on their collaboration skills ?
I know I 'll get flamed , and I 'm not trying to argue that it should or should not be legalized , but what the study is for and the conclusions being stated about Marijuana are just not related from my viewpoint .
But as I remember back to 'hanging out ' with my childhood friends , they usually were not thinking all so coherently about much of anything , and no doubt they were the ones 'brainstorming ' here .
So why would I think this study would be any different ?
Go figure .
You want it legalized ?
Good for you , go for it .
This is a democracy after all .
But , with the next study trying to 'fix the Government ' , please try to come up with ideas on topic and that actually solve the issues that the study is supposed to discuss .
If you want to change the law there are already ways to do that .
Go for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness by making government more transparent, participatory, and collaborative.
Say what?
Let me analyse this point by point...

Strengthen our democracy: How, by making people sit around their bong every night discussing the problems of the world?
Like.. "Man... link um.. why do they fold those papers around those little sticks of gum?
Can't they see we need to save some trees?
Besides they taste terrible when folding a joint, their just disgusting.
"

Promote efficiency: Get real, Marijuana and efficiency in the same sentence?
Last I knew all my childhood friends were doing nothing with their lives.
Just sitting around getting high with no aspirations in life.
Several are dead from accidents, suicide, some perpetually in rehab clinics, and all living life day-t-day.
Efficiency is not the first word on my mind.
Making government more transparent: Ok, Marijuana is hallucinogenic for some people, but I doubt that the Government is going to get any more transparent that way.
Collaborative: Ok, lets get this one definition straight.
We are talking about the Government being more collaborative, not people sitting around talking about fantasies while smoking joints.
How is legalizing Marijuana going to get the Government to improve on their collaboration skills?
I know I'll get flamed, and I'm not trying to argue that it should or should not be legalized, but what the study is for and the conclusions being stated about Marijuana are just not related from my viewpoint.
But as I remember back to 'hanging out' with my childhood friends, they usually were not thinking all so coherently about much of anything, and no doubt they were the ones 'brainstorming' here.
So why would I think this study would be any different?
Go figure.
You want it legalized?
Good for you, go for it.
This is a democracy after all.
But, with the next study trying to 'fix the Government', please try to come up with ideas on topic and that actually solve the issues that the study is supposed to discuss.
If you want to change the law there are already ways to do that.
Go for it. 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28204751</id>
	<title>Re:The marijuana crowd is retarded -- bad analogy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244040480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Next time you get some smokes, save me the seeds, buddy.  Ever try to get tobacco seeds?  Have to have a permit to grow the stuff.  Yes, there's native stuff around, but I suggest you try that on a smoker and watch them gag and puke.  The good stuff isn't easy to get the seeds for at all.  Easier to get pot seeds, to tell the truth.</p><p>In fact, this may be why pot continues to be not as high priced per gram as say, coke -- where again can I get some plants/seeds/sprouts or whatever to get started with again?<br>Its not like the drug cartels make this kind of thing available at any price.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Next time you get some smokes , save me the seeds , buddy .
Ever try to get tobacco seeds ?
Have to have a permit to grow the stuff .
Yes , there 's native stuff around , but I suggest you try that on a smoker and watch them gag and puke .
The good stuff is n't easy to get the seeds for at all .
Easier to get pot seeds , to tell the truth.In fact , this may be why pot continues to be not as high priced per gram as say , coke -- where again can I get some plants/seeds/sprouts or whatever to get started with again ? Its not like the drug cartels make this kind of thing available at any price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Next time you get some smokes, save me the seeds, buddy.
Ever try to get tobacco seeds?
Have to have a permit to grow the stuff.
Yes, there's native stuff around, but I suggest you try that on a smoker and watch them gag and puke.
The good stuff isn't easy to get the seeds for at all.
Easier to get pot seeds, to tell the truth.In fact, this may be why pot continues to be not as high priced per gram as say, coke -- where again can I get some plants/seeds/sprouts or whatever to get started with again?Its not like the drug cartels make this kind of thing available at any price.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194825</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195843</id>
	<title>Re:We all laugh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244044140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...they've had enough life experience that they've figured out more drugs isn't the answer to society's problems</p></div><p>So then why is alcohol legal? By objective metrics alcohol is much worse than marijuana: it's more addictive, there is a much greater risk of overdose, and intoxication results in a more dangerous type of impairment.</p><p>At the end of the day, you want a population that believes in and respects the rule of law - but, when the law is so obviously arbitrary, people lose faith in the rule of law.</p><p>It's OK for people to be wary of government but you don't want outright fear or hostility. For example, when someone gets called up for jury duty you don't want them to be so set in the mindset that the government is the enemy that they can't work with the government to reach a fair verdict.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...they 've had enough life experience that they 've figured out more drugs is n't the answer to society 's problemsSo then why is alcohol legal ?
By objective metrics alcohol is much worse than marijuana : it 's more addictive , there is a much greater risk of overdose , and intoxication results in a more dangerous type of impairment.At the end of the day , you want a population that believes in and respects the rule of law - but , when the law is so obviously arbitrary , people lose faith in the rule of law.It 's OK for people to be wary of government but you do n't want outright fear or hostility .
For example , when someone gets called up for jury duty you do n't want them to be so set in the mindset that the government is the enemy that they ca n't work with the government to reach a fair verdict .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...they've had enough life experience that they've figured out more drugs isn't the answer to society's problemsSo then why is alcohol legal?
By objective metrics alcohol is much worse than marijuana: it's more addictive, there is a much greater risk of overdose, and intoxication results in a more dangerous type of impairment.At the end of the day, you want a population that believes in and respects the rule of law - but, when the law is so obviously arbitrary, people lose faith in the rule of law.It's OK for people to be wary of government but you don't want outright fear or hostility.
For example, when someone gets called up for jury duty you don't want them to be so set in the mindset that the government is the enemy that they can't work with the government to reach a fair verdict.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195245</id>
	<title>Re:We all laugh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244041680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The idea that America is "the land of the free" is pretty ridiculous now given that it has the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Incarceration\_rates\_worldwide.gif" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">highest proportion</a> [wikipedia.org] of prisoners in the world (possibly excluding dictatorships), in part to the pathetic war on drugs.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> not sure how I feel overall about "the land of the free and the home of the brave" making something illegal just because it makes the population less competitive on the world stage,</p></div><p> Well ill tell you how i feel about it, its batshit fucking insane, the idea that the feds don't have the authority to regulate if i can own a lethal weapon, but can tell me what i can/can't eat! total lunacy!!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea that America is " the land of the free " is pretty ridiculous now given that it has the highest proportion [ wikipedia.org ] of prisoners in the world ( possibly excluding dictatorships ) , in part to the pathetic war on drugs .
not sure how I feel overall about " the land of the free and the home of the brave " making something illegal just because it makes the population less competitive on the world stage , Well ill tell you how i feel about it , its batshit fucking insane , the idea that the feds do n't have the authority to regulate if i can own a lethal weapon , but can tell me what i can/ca n't eat !
total lunacy !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea that America is "the land of the free" is pretty ridiculous now given that it has the highest proportion [wikipedia.org] of prisoners in the world (possibly excluding dictatorships), in part to the pathetic war on drugs.
not sure how I feel overall about "the land of the free and the home of the brave" making something illegal just because it makes the population less competitive on the world stage, Well ill tell you how i feel about it, its batshit fucking insane, the idea that the feds don't have the authority to regulate if i can own a lethal weapon, but can tell me what i can/can't eat!
total lunacy!
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28198349</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>eiMichael</author>
	<datestamp>1244054220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So throwing everyone in jail for smoking such a substance is somehow better?  That's the bigger reason for legalization, reducing the harm that this il-legalization has caused.  There is real harm done to society for spending resources on seeking out, arresting, prosecuting, and incarcerating users of marijuana rather than spending the equivalent amount to benefit society, like educating millions of its citizens.</p><p>Just to throw in a little rant to my argument.  Marijuana is no different than alcohol in terms of it's use,  "I'm stressed and I need to escape reality for a bit,"  so you gather some of your friends and alter your mind to not focus on your stress.  Either in a bar or in a basement it makes little difference.  So assuming the money spent on "The War on Drugs" was spent to fund higher education and/or health care, there would be less stress in people's lives, as they would be better prepared to find a job (healthier and smarter), and so the need to escape reality should decrease.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So throwing everyone in jail for smoking such a substance is somehow better ?
That 's the bigger reason for legalization , reducing the harm that this il-legalization has caused .
There is real harm done to society for spending resources on seeking out , arresting , prosecuting , and incarcerating users of marijuana rather than spending the equivalent amount to benefit society , like educating millions of its citizens.Just to throw in a little rant to my argument .
Marijuana is no different than alcohol in terms of it 's use , " I 'm stressed and I need to escape reality for a bit , " so you gather some of your friends and alter your mind to not focus on your stress .
Either in a bar or in a basement it makes little difference .
So assuming the money spent on " The War on Drugs " was spent to fund higher education and/or health care , there would be less stress in people 's lives , as they would be better prepared to find a job ( healthier and smarter ) , and so the need to escape reality should decrease .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So throwing everyone in jail for smoking such a substance is somehow better?
That's the bigger reason for legalization, reducing the harm that this il-legalization has caused.
There is real harm done to society for spending resources on seeking out, arresting, prosecuting, and incarcerating users of marijuana rather than spending the equivalent amount to benefit society, like educating millions of its citizens.Just to throw in a little rant to my argument.
Marijuana is no different than alcohol in terms of it's use,  "I'm stressed and I need to escape reality for a bit,"  so you gather some of your friends and alter your mind to not focus on your stress.
Either in a bar or in a basement it makes little difference.
So assuming the money spent on "The War on Drugs" was spent to fund higher education and/or health care, there would be less stress in people's lives, as they would be better prepared to find a job (healthier and smarter), and so the need to escape reality should decrease.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28197933</id>
	<title>Re:The marijuana crowd is retarded</title>
	<author>Ezrymyrh</author>
	<datestamp>1244052660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not everyone has the time or the resources to grow it. Hell have you ever grown it, it stinks, takes up a lot of room, if done indoors not to mention the light=electric bill. And if outside if you don't own your own land it would be up to the management to decide if it could be grown, Say a trailer park. As for the markup, The feds mark up the street cost to cover their collective ass on spending. When they spend $250,000+court fees to bust a dealer for pot that has an HONEST street value of $1500.00 is at best corrupt. And as for the tax any hardcore smoker already has the resources to grow their own and are already doing it TAX FREE. The casual smoker WILL pay a tax to have the ability to go and buy a pack of weed.You must grow all your own food meat and veg's, i bet you make all your own clothes too,and furniture? No you don't because it is a better trade off to pay more for something then to grow,or make it for many people. We all pay for convenience at some point. Look in the mirror next time you make a slur on someone's cognitive or social ability just because they do not share your narrow point of view...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not everyone has the time or the resources to grow it .
Hell have you ever grown it , it stinks , takes up a lot of room , if done indoors not to mention the light = electric bill .
And if outside if you do n't own your own land it would be up to the management to decide if it could be grown , Say a trailer park .
As for the markup , The feds mark up the street cost to cover their collective ass on spending .
When they spend $ 250,000 + court fees to bust a dealer for pot that has an HONEST street value of $ 1500.00 is at best corrupt .
And as for the tax any hardcore smoker already has the resources to grow their own and are already doing it TAX FREE .
The casual smoker WILL pay a tax to have the ability to go and buy a pack of weed.You must grow all your own food meat and veg 's , i bet you make all your own clothes too,and furniture ?
No you do n't because it is a better trade off to pay more for something then to grow,or make it for many people .
We all pay for convenience at some point .
Look in the mirror next time you make a slur on someone 's cognitive or social ability just because they do not share your narrow point of view.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not everyone has the time or the resources to grow it.
Hell have you ever grown it, it stinks, takes up a lot of room, if done indoors not to mention the light=electric bill.
And if outside if you don't own your own land it would be up to the management to decide if it could be grown, Say a trailer park.
As for the markup, The feds mark up the street cost to cover their collective ass on spending.
When they spend $250,000+court fees to bust a dealer for pot that has an HONEST street value of $1500.00 is at best corrupt.
And as for the tax any hardcore smoker already has the resources to grow their own and are already doing it TAX FREE.
The casual smoker WILL pay a tax to have the ability to go and buy a pack of weed.You must grow all your own food meat and veg's, i bet you make all your own clothes too,and furniture?
No you don't because it is a better trade off to pay more for something then to grow,or make it for many people.
We all pay for convenience at some point.
Look in the mirror next time you make a slur on someone's cognitive or social ability just because they do not share your narrow point of view...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195099</id>
	<title>Re:Related, in a way</title>
	<author>UnknownSoldier</author>
	<datestamp>1244041020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; I used to think that all drugs were bad, and all that stuff.</p><p>Someone should of told the US Dept of Agriculture<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br>"Hemp for Victory"<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne9UF-pFhJY" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne9UF-pFhJY</a> [youtube.com]<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jokV8xlJTNE" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jokV8xlJTNE</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>This rather an interesting anatomy on the whole failed drug war.  Using peer pressure to stop gang violence in Section 7 is rather interesting...<br><a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/17438347/how\_america\_lost\_the\_war\_on\_drugs/print" title="rollingstone.com">http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/17438347/how\_america\_lost\_the\_war\_on\_drugs/print</a> [rollingstone.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I used to think that all drugs were bad , and all that stuff.Someone should of told the US Dept of Agriculture : ) " Hemp for Victory " http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = Ne9UF-pFhJY [ youtube.com ] http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = jokV8xlJTNE [ youtube.com ] This rather an interesting anatomy on the whole failed drug war .
Using peer pressure to stop gang violence in Section 7 is rather interesting...http : //www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/17438347/how \ _america \ _lost \ _the \ _war \ _on \ _drugs/print [ rollingstone.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; I used to think that all drugs were bad, and all that stuff.Someone should of told the US Dept of Agriculture :)"Hemp for Victory"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne9UF-pFhJY [youtube.com]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jokV8xlJTNE [youtube.com]This rather an interesting anatomy on the whole failed drug war.
Using peer pressure to stop gang violence in Section 7 is rather interesting...http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/17438347/how\_america\_lost\_the\_war\_on\_drugs/print [rollingstone.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195943</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy isn't perfect.</title>
	<author>tygerstripes</author>
	<datestamp>1244044680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think you read the article I linked at all.
</p><p>My opinion is much like that of Winston Churchill's - democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the others. Its most important feature is that <b>the ruler can be deposed at the whim of the masses</b>, which means it's the most effective practical system we have to keep our rulers' agendas in the same rough sphere our own collective ideologies.
</p><p>It sucks, but it's better than the alternatives; that was Clive James' thrust, and it's an insightful &amp; well-reasoned argument to which I wanted to draw attention. How you've corrupted that into "want[ing] to be ruled by kings" is baffling.
</p><p>Given the original remit of this endeavour - to elicit "suggestions for creating a more transparent, participatory, and collaborative government" - and the fact that the top two suggestions appear completely irrelevant to that agenda, if anything the exercise proves to uphold my point. For every intelligent, informed armchair politician, there is a crap-flood of uninterested and fickle people who can't be trusted to regularly make informed choices about the future of their fellow citizen, and would happily serve their own isolated agenda at the expense of everyone else.
</p><p>I'm trying to fit too much in here. Seriously, read the article. <i>Then</i> explain to me what made you think I was slagging off our current incarnation of democracy, rather than criticising this doomed attempt at further devolution of political decision-making.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think you read the article I linked at all .
My opinion is much like that of Winston Churchill 's - democracy is the worst system of government , except for all the others .
Its most important feature is that the ruler can be deposed at the whim of the masses , which means it 's the most effective practical system we have to keep our rulers ' agendas in the same rough sphere our own collective ideologies .
It sucks , but it 's better than the alternatives ; that was Clive James ' thrust , and it 's an insightful &amp; well-reasoned argument to which I wanted to draw attention .
How you 've corrupted that into " want [ ing ] to be ruled by kings " is baffling .
Given the original remit of this endeavour - to elicit " suggestions for creating a more transparent , participatory , and collaborative government " - and the fact that the top two suggestions appear completely irrelevant to that agenda , if anything the exercise proves to uphold my point .
For every intelligent , informed armchair politician , there is a crap-flood of uninterested and fickle people who ca n't be trusted to regularly make informed choices about the future of their fellow citizen , and would happily serve their own isolated agenda at the expense of everyone else .
I 'm trying to fit too much in here .
Seriously , read the article .
Then explain to me what made you think I was slagging off our current incarnation of democracy , rather than criticising this doomed attempt at further devolution of political decision-making .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think you read the article I linked at all.
My opinion is much like that of Winston Churchill's - democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the others.
Its most important feature is that the ruler can be deposed at the whim of the masses, which means it's the most effective practical system we have to keep our rulers' agendas in the same rough sphere our own collective ideologies.
It sucks, but it's better than the alternatives; that was Clive James' thrust, and it's an insightful &amp; well-reasoned argument to which I wanted to draw attention.
How you've corrupted that into "want[ing] to be ruled by kings" is baffling.
Given the original remit of this endeavour - to elicit "suggestions for creating a more transparent, participatory, and collaborative government" - and the fact that the top two suggestions appear completely irrelevant to that agenda, if anything the exercise proves to uphold my point.
For every intelligent, informed armchair politician, there is a crap-flood of uninterested and fickle people who can't be trusted to regularly make informed choices about the future of their fellow citizen, and would happily serve their own isolated agenda at the expense of everyone else.
I'm trying to fit too much in here.
Seriously, read the article.
Then explain to me what made you think I was slagging off our current incarnation of democracy, rather than criticising this doomed attempt at further devolution of political decision-making.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195085</id>
	<title>Re:Think about it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244040960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No Sir everyone is NOT smoking it, this is a pure liberal myth. The marrijuana you can buy today has been scientifically proved that its 56,820 times stronger than the natural product, which was bad enough, and can and does cause almost instant irrevocable and permanent psychosis, paranoia and schizophrenia to name but a few of it's deadly effects.</p><p>Sure some of those pop singers and other losers that kids look up may boast they smoke a bit and so it might even be fashionable and 'cool' amongst the non god fearing and easily led youth of today but I can guarantee almost none of them will have actually got their hands on any of the evil weed.</p><p>Despite the, discredited, opinions on display here the war on drugs is proceeding excellently, our police and associated agencies are capturing ever greater hauls of the drug and we're catching and imprisoning more users, dealers, smugglers, manufacturers and suppliers than ever before. No Sir almost every wannabe pot head will already be on a police watch list and rapidly apprehended, brought to justice and locked up for a very long time the very first time he sets eyes on any reefer. Those who slip through the net rapidly become addicted and have their lives ruined by the deadly psychotic effects of the hash skunk, praise God we are able to capture most of them before they go on to kill or maim in psychotic murder rampages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No Sir everyone is NOT smoking it , this is a pure liberal myth .
The marrijuana you can buy today has been scientifically proved that its 56,820 times stronger than the natural product , which was bad enough , and can and does cause almost instant irrevocable and permanent psychosis , paranoia and schizophrenia to name but a few of it 's deadly effects.Sure some of those pop singers and other losers that kids look up may boast they smoke a bit and so it might even be fashionable and 'cool ' amongst the non god fearing and easily led youth of today but I can guarantee almost none of them will have actually got their hands on any of the evil weed.Despite the , discredited , opinions on display here the war on drugs is proceeding excellently , our police and associated agencies are capturing ever greater hauls of the drug and we 're catching and imprisoning more users , dealers , smugglers , manufacturers and suppliers than ever before .
No Sir almost every wannabe pot head will already be on a police watch list and rapidly apprehended , brought to justice and locked up for a very long time the very first time he sets eyes on any reefer .
Those who slip through the net rapidly become addicted and have their lives ruined by the deadly psychotic effects of the hash skunk , praise God we are able to capture most of them before they go on to kill or maim in psychotic murder rampages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No Sir everyone is NOT smoking it, this is a pure liberal myth.
The marrijuana you can buy today has been scientifically proved that its 56,820 times stronger than the natural product, which was bad enough, and can and does cause almost instant irrevocable and permanent psychosis, paranoia and schizophrenia to name but a few of it's deadly effects.Sure some of those pop singers and other losers that kids look up may boast they smoke a bit and so it might even be fashionable and 'cool' amongst the non god fearing and easily led youth of today but I can guarantee almost none of them will have actually got their hands on any of the evil weed.Despite the, discredited, opinions on display here the war on drugs is proceeding excellently, our police and associated agencies are capturing ever greater hauls of the drug and we're catching and imprisoning more users, dealers, smugglers, manufacturers and suppliers than ever before.
No Sir almost every wannabe pot head will already be on a police watch list and rapidly apprehended, brought to justice and locked up for a very long time the very first time he sets eyes on any reefer.
Those who slip through the net rapidly become addicted and have their lives ruined by the deadly psychotic effects of the hash skunk, praise God we are able to capture most of them before they go on to kill or maim in psychotic murder rampages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195555</id>
	<title>Re:We all laugh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244043000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't trust the voting public in USA.  Look what happened in American Idol!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't trust the voting public in USA .
Look what happened in American Idol !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't trust the voting public in USA.
Look what happened in American Idol!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194475</id>
	<title>Related, in a way</title>
	<author>Looce</author>
	<datestamp>1244038140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to think that all drugs were bad, and all that stuff. But after reading the <a href="http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/3191-4049" title="ideascale.com">second linked thread, the Schedule I thread</a> [ideascale.com], specifically the bits about</p><p>* marijuana not killing people as much as tobacco and alcohol;<br>* pure THC being ranked as a Schedule III drug and marijuana as a Schedule I drug (see comment by user pbrigando13);<br>* Oxycontin et al., more damaging and causing more of a dependency than marijuana (which creates none), not being on the Controlled Substances List altogether;<br>* (taking this one with a grain of salt) the advantages of marijuana, rarer use of violence and driving accidents from users than alcoholics, etc. (see comment by user onegod1world)</p><p>, I'm reconsidering that stance.</p><p>Also, I'd like to point out that #1 is <a href="http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/3161-4049" title="ideascale.com">End Imperial Presidency</a> [ideascale.com] -- with 755 votes against #2's 351 --, heavily criticizing Bush's presidency and calling out what happened in Iraq as war crimes, <i>as they should be called</i>. That is a serious one, and I for one am glad that it got voted up top.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to think that all drugs were bad , and all that stuff .
But after reading the second linked thread , the Schedule I thread [ ideascale.com ] , specifically the bits about * marijuana not killing people as much as tobacco and alcohol ; * pure THC being ranked as a Schedule III drug and marijuana as a Schedule I drug ( see comment by user pbrigando13 ) ; * Oxycontin et al. , more damaging and causing more of a dependency than marijuana ( which creates none ) , not being on the Controlled Substances List altogether ; * ( taking this one with a grain of salt ) the advantages of marijuana , rarer use of violence and driving accidents from users than alcoholics , etc .
( see comment by user onegod1world ) , I 'm reconsidering that stance.Also , I 'd like to point out that # 1 is End Imperial Presidency [ ideascale.com ] -- with 755 votes against # 2 's 351 -- , heavily criticizing Bush 's presidency and calling out what happened in Iraq as war crimes , as they should be called .
That is a serious one , and I for one am glad that it got voted up top .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to think that all drugs were bad, and all that stuff.
But after reading the second linked thread, the Schedule I thread [ideascale.com], specifically the bits about* marijuana not killing people as much as tobacco and alcohol;* pure THC being ranked as a Schedule III drug and marijuana as a Schedule I drug (see comment by user pbrigando13);* Oxycontin et al., more damaging and causing more of a dependency than marijuana (which creates none), not being on the Controlled Substances List altogether;* (taking this one with a grain of salt) the advantages of marijuana, rarer use of violence and driving accidents from users than alcoholics, etc.
(see comment by user onegod1world), I'm reconsidering that stance.Also, I'd like to point out that #1 is End Imperial Presidency [ideascale.com] -- with 755 votes against #2's 351 --, heavily criticizing Bush's presidency and calling out what happened in Iraq as war crimes, as they should be called.
That is a serious one, and I for one am glad that it got voted up top.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196073</id>
	<title>Re:Related, in a way</title>
	<author>littlerubberfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1244045220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, instead of debating pot (Sched. 1), why don't we debate the equivalent, legal, pill. After all, your entire last sentence describes the symptoms of our war on drugs, NOT the symptoms of marijuana use.

</p><p>Sure. People die from impairment. Pot, booze, opiates, Oxycontin...cell phones, pets or children in the back seat...dashboard TVs...but I digress.

</p><p>Marinol (Pure THC) is a schedule 3 drug. What we have is a tacit acknowledgment by the pharmaceutical industry, the FDA, the US government, and state governments across the nation that pure THC has a valid medical use and is of so little risk that it is a schedule 3 drug.

</p><p>Yes, pot has problems. yes, it causes cognitive and memory loss issues...the problem that most people have is one of disproportionate response. THC is less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco, and that has been clinically shown.

</p><p>When someone gets drunk, orders a pizza and masturbates in the privacy of their home, you don't automatically respond with a <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/07/mayor.warrant/" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">SWAT</a> [cnn.com] team. When someone smokes an 8th and drives, then we rightfully throw the DWI book at them...however, we also send them to jail for years, whereas a drunk gets probation.

</p><p>It is a matter of proportionate response, and right now, we are seeing cancer patients getting tossed in jail, a mayor's dogs getting shot in a botched SWAT raid, and the symptoms of a war on drugs that are doing more harm than the drugs, per your last sentence.

</p><p>In parting, a little trivia: MDMA (Ecstasy) was used clinically on and off for quite a while after its initial discovery in 1912 until its scheduling (I) in 1985. We are now studying this 'dangerous raver drug' as a possible treatment for PTSD. Our perceptions about an individual drug are rarely shaped by medicine, but routinely shaped by politics and FUD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , instead of debating pot ( Sched .
1 ) , why do n't we debate the equivalent , legal , pill .
After all , your entire last sentence describes the symptoms of our war on drugs , NOT the symptoms of marijuana use .
Sure. People die from impairment .
Pot , booze , opiates , Oxycontin...cell phones , pets or children in the back seat...dashboard TVs...but I digress .
Marinol ( Pure THC ) is a schedule 3 drug .
What we have is a tacit acknowledgment by the pharmaceutical industry , the FDA , the US government , and state governments across the nation that pure THC has a valid medical use and is of so little risk that it is a schedule 3 drug .
Yes , pot has problems .
yes , it causes cognitive and memory loss issues...the problem that most people have is one of disproportionate response .
THC is less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco , and that has been clinically shown .
When someone gets drunk , orders a pizza and masturbates in the privacy of their home , you do n't automatically respond with a SWAT [ cnn.com ] team .
When someone smokes an 8th and drives , then we rightfully throw the DWI book at them...however , we also send them to jail for years , whereas a drunk gets probation .
It is a matter of proportionate response , and right now , we are seeing cancer patients getting tossed in jail , a mayor 's dogs getting shot in a botched SWAT raid , and the symptoms of a war on drugs that are doing more harm than the drugs , per your last sentence .
In parting , a little trivia : MDMA ( Ecstasy ) was used clinically on and off for quite a while after its initial discovery in 1912 until its scheduling ( I ) in 1985 .
We are now studying this 'dangerous raver drug ' as a possible treatment for PTSD .
Our perceptions about an individual drug are rarely shaped by medicine , but routinely shaped by politics and FUD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, instead of debating pot (Sched.
1), why don't we debate the equivalent, legal, pill.
After all, your entire last sentence describes the symptoms of our war on drugs, NOT the symptoms of marijuana use.
Sure. People die from impairment.
Pot, booze, opiates, Oxycontin...cell phones, pets or children in the back seat...dashboard TVs...but I digress.
Marinol (Pure THC) is a schedule 3 drug.
What we have is a tacit acknowledgment by the pharmaceutical industry, the FDA, the US government, and state governments across the nation that pure THC has a valid medical use and is of so little risk that it is a schedule 3 drug.
Yes, pot has problems.
yes, it causes cognitive and memory loss issues...the problem that most people have is one of disproportionate response.
THC is less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco, and that has been clinically shown.
When someone gets drunk, orders a pizza and masturbates in the privacy of their home, you don't automatically respond with a SWAT [cnn.com] team.
When someone smokes an 8th and drives, then we rightfully throw the DWI book at them...however, we also send them to jail for years, whereas a drunk gets probation.
It is a matter of proportionate response, and right now, we are seeing cancer patients getting tossed in jail, a mayor's dogs getting shot in a botched SWAT raid, and the symptoms of a war on drugs that are doing more harm than the drugs, per your last sentence.
In parting, a little trivia: MDMA (Ecstasy) was used clinically on and off for quite a while after its initial discovery in 1912 until its scheduling (I) in 1985.
We are now studying this 'dangerous raver drug' as a possible treatment for PTSD.
Our perceptions about an individual drug are rarely shaped by medicine, but routinely shaped by politics and FUD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195579</id>
	<title>Legalizing cannabis more popular than Republicans</title>
	<author>Mark\_in\_Brazil</author>
	<datestamp>1244043060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not easy to do this in a two-party system, but one of the major parties in the US is less popular among US citizens than legalization of cannabis is.</p><p>Earlier this year, a couple of polling organizations asked about legalization of cannabis.  An ABC News/Washington Post poll in late April asked: "In general, do you favor or oppose legalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use?"  Of 1072 respondents, 46\% were in favor, 52\% opposed, and 2\% unsure.  A CBS News poll (see at the same link) of 1142 adults in January asked "Do you think that the use of marijuana should be made legal or not?"  It found similar support at 41\% in favor, 52\% opposed, and 7\% unsure.  But in March, when the question was repeated, the support was lower at 31\%-63\%-6\%, down in the same territory as Republicans (we'll get to their numbers in a minute).  In February, Rasmussen polled 100 adults, asking them "Should Marijuana be legalized?"  40\% answered yes, 46\% no, and 14\% unsure.  Crosstabs aren't available to the non-subscribing public, but Rasmussen does let us know that 48\% of US men are in favor of legalization, but only 34\% of US women agree.  It also said that voters under 40 years of age support legalization much more strongly.</p><p>So we see legalization of cannabis with support just above 40\% on average.  It's looking tough for my claim in the subject line, right?  How are the Republicans doing?</p><p> <a href="http://www.pollingreport.com/C.htm" title="pollingreport.com">Dick Cheney</a> [pollingreport.com] was around 30\% in his last job approval numbers, and his personal favorability numbers in May varied between different polls, with a range of 18\% to 37\%.</p><p> <a href="http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm" title="pollingreport.com">George W. Bush</a> [pollingreport.com] had final job ratings from different polls between 24\% and 33\%.  His latest <a href="http://www.pollingreport.com/BushFav.htm" title="pollingreport.com">favorability numbers</a> [pollingreport.com] vary, depending on the poll, between 25\% and 41\%, with 41\% looking like a bit of an outlier.</p><p> <a href="http://www.pollingreport.com/l.htm#Limbaugh" title="pollingreport.com">Rush Limbaugh</a> [pollingreport.com] generally gets positive marks from about a quarter of the population, with results varying between 20\% and 30\%.</p><p> <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/weeklytrends" title="dailykos.com">John Boehner</a> [dailykos.com] gets marks of (favorable-unfavorable-don't know)15-64-21.</p><p> <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/weeklytrends" title="dailykos.com">Mitch McConnell</a> [dailykos.com] is at 22-60-18.</p><p> <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/weeklytrends" title="dailykos.com">Congressional Republicans</a> [dailykos.com] get favorability numbers of 12-72-16.</p><p> <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/weeklytrends" title="dailykos.com">The Republican Party</a> [dailykos.com] as a whole gets marks of 21-71-8.</p><p>So in fact we see that legalization of reefer madness is currently more popular than prominent Republicans, about three times as popular as Congressional Republicans as a group, and about twice as popular as the Republican party as a whole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not easy to do this in a two-party system , but one of the major parties in the US is less popular among US citizens than legalization of cannabis is.Earlier this year , a couple of polling organizations asked about legalization of cannabis .
An ABC News/Washington Post poll in late April asked : " In general , do you favor or oppose legalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use ?
" Of 1072 respondents , 46 \ % were in favor , 52 \ % opposed , and 2 \ % unsure .
A CBS News poll ( see at the same link ) of 1142 adults in January asked " Do you think that the use of marijuana should be made legal or not ?
" It found similar support at 41 \ % in favor , 52 \ % opposed , and 7 \ % unsure .
But in March , when the question was repeated , the support was lower at 31 \ % -63 \ % -6 \ % , down in the same territory as Republicans ( we 'll get to their numbers in a minute ) .
In February , Rasmussen polled 100 adults , asking them " Should Marijuana be legalized ?
" 40 \ % answered yes , 46 \ % no , and 14 \ % unsure .
Crosstabs are n't available to the non-subscribing public , but Rasmussen does let us know that 48 \ % of US men are in favor of legalization , but only 34 \ % of US women agree .
It also said that voters under 40 years of age support legalization much more strongly.So we see legalization of cannabis with support just above 40 \ % on average .
It 's looking tough for my claim in the subject line , right ?
How are the Republicans doing ?
Dick Cheney [ pollingreport.com ] was around 30 \ % in his last job approval numbers , and his personal favorability numbers in May varied between different polls , with a range of 18 \ % to 37 \ % .
George W. Bush [ pollingreport.com ] had final job ratings from different polls between 24 \ % and 33 \ % .
His latest favorability numbers [ pollingreport.com ] vary , depending on the poll , between 25 \ % and 41 \ % , with 41 \ % looking like a bit of an outlier .
Rush Limbaugh [ pollingreport.com ] generally gets positive marks from about a quarter of the population , with results varying between 20 \ % and 30 \ % .
John Boehner [ dailykos.com ] gets marks of ( favorable-unfavorable-do n't know ) 15-64-21 .
Mitch McConnell [ dailykos.com ] is at 22-60-18 .
Congressional Republicans [ dailykos.com ] get favorability numbers of 12-72-16 .
The Republican Party [ dailykos.com ] as a whole gets marks of 21-71-8.So in fact we see that legalization of reefer madness is currently more popular than prominent Republicans , about three times as popular as Congressional Republicans as a group , and about twice as popular as the Republican party as a whole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not easy to do this in a two-party system, but one of the major parties in the US is less popular among US citizens than legalization of cannabis is.Earlier this year, a couple of polling organizations asked about legalization of cannabis.
An ABC News/Washington Post poll in late April asked: "In general, do you favor or oppose legalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use?
"  Of 1072 respondents, 46\% were in favor, 52\% opposed, and 2\% unsure.
A CBS News poll (see at the same link) of 1142 adults in January asked "Do you think that the use of marijuana should be made legal or not?
"  It found similar support at 41\% in favor, 52\% opposed, and 7\% unsure.
But in March, when the question was repeated, the support was lower at 31\%-63\%-6\%, down in the same territory as Republicans (we'll get to their numbers in a minute).
In February, Rasmussen polled 100 adults, asking them "Should Marijuana be legalized?
"  40\% answered yes, 46\% no, and 14\% unsure.
Crosstabs aren't available to the non-subscribing public, but Rasmussen does let us know that 48\% of US men are in favor of legalization, but only 34\% of US women agree.
It also said that voters under 40 years of age support legalization much more strongly.So we see legalization of cannabis with support just above 40\% on average.
It's looking tough for my claim in the subject line, right?
How are the Republicans doing?
Dick Cheney [pollingreport.com] was around 30\% in his last job approval numbers, and his personal favorability numbers in May varied between different polls, with a range of 18\% to 37\%.
George W. Bush [pollingreport.com] had final job ratings from different polls between 24\% and 33\%.
His latest favorability numbers [pollingreport.com] vary, depending on the poll, between 25\% and 41\%, with 41\% looking like a bit of an outlier.
Rush Limbaugh [pollingreport.com] generally gets positive marks from about a quarter of the population, with results varying between 20\% and 30\%.
John Boehner [dailykos.com] gets marks of (favorable-unfavorable-don't know)15-64-21.
Mitch McConnell [dailykos.com] is at 22-60-18.
Congressional Republicans [dailykos.com] get favorability numbers of 12-72-16.
The Republican Party [dailykos.com] as a whole gets marks of 21-71-8.So in fact we see that legalization of reefer madness is currently more popular than prominent Republicans, about three times as popular as Congressional Republicans as a group, and about twice as popular as the Republican party as a whole.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194575</id>
	<title>Ubuntu brainstorm gets more votes than these</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244038620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>not that I disagree with some of them.... maaaaaayn....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>not that I disagree with some of them.... maaaaaayn... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not that I disagree with some of them.... maaaaaayn....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195025</id>
	<title>Re:We all laugh</title>
	<author>JoeMerchant</author>
	<datestamp>1244040540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it shows that the pro-legalization crowd has a lot of free time on their hands, which was the real reason THC was banned in the first place - it was believed to make people lazy, non-industrious layabouts.<br> <br>

I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary... not sure how I feel overall about "the land of the free and the home of the brave" making something illegal just because it makes the population less competitive on the world stage, but I certainly can't argue that a bong hit a day would make the USA more likely to stop the Chinese army from overrunning the world by 2100.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it shows that the pro-legalization crowd has a lot of free time on their hands , which was the real reason THC was banned in the first place - it was believed to make people lazy , non-industrious layabouts .
I have n't seen any evidence to the contrary... not sure how I feel overall about " the land of the free and the home of the brave " making something illegal just because it makes the population less competitive on the world stage , but I certainly ca n't argue that a bong hit a day would make the USA more likely to stop the Chinese army from overrunning the world by 2100 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it shows that the pro-legalization crowd has a lot of free time on their hands, which was the real reason THC was banned in the first place - it was believed to make people lazy, non-industrious layabouts.
I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary... not sure how I feel overall about "the land of the free and the home of the brave" making something illegal just because it makes the population less competitive on the world stage, but I certainly can't argue that a bong hit a day would make the USA more likely to stop the Chinese army from overrunning the world by 2100.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194403</id>
	<title>Gov't logic reguarding the risk of legalization...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244037660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Think of all the DA's, DEA employees, prison workers that would be out of a job"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Think of all the DA 's , DEA employees , prison workers that would be out of a job "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Think of all the DA's, DEA employees, prison workers that would be out of a job"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194495</id>
	<title>Re:We all laugh</title>
	<author>Glock27</author>
	<datestamp>1244038200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly. I'd say this exercise DID show the "wisdom of the crowds" to a large extent. Marijuana use may not be beneficial, but it's certainly no worse a drag on society than alcohol. Regardless, marijuana <b>enforcement</b> has been a much worse drag on society, resulting in a general loss of civil liberties, an increase in government confiscation, and millions of citizens unnecessarily incarcerated, many with felonies. Oh, and the illegal marijuana trade is largely responsible for destabilizing Mexico almost to the point of civil war.
<p>-</p><p>
It's clearly time to rethink marijuana policy. This country has too many serious problems that require attention.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
I 'd say this exercise DID show the " wisdom of the crowds " to a large extent .
Marijuana use may not be beneficial , but it 's certainly no worse a drag on society than alcohol .
Regardless , marijuana enforcement has been a much worse drag on society , resulting in a general loss of civil liberties , an increase in government confiscation , and millions of citizens unnecessarily incarcerated , many with felonies .
Oh , and the illegal marijuana trade is largely responsible for destabilizing Mexico almost to the point of civil war .
- It 's clearly time to rethink marijuana policy .
This country has too many serious problems that require attention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
I'd say this exercise DID show the "wisdom of the crowds" to a large extent.
Marijuana use may not be beneficial, but it's certainly no worse a drag on society than alcohol.
Regardless, marijuana enforcement has been a much worse drag on society, resulting in a general loss of civil liberties, an increase in government confiscation, and millions of citizens unnecessarily incarcerated, many with felonies.
Oh, and the illegal marijuana trade is largely responsible for destabilizing Mexico almost to the point of civil war.
-
It's clearly time to rethink marijuana policy.
This country has too many serious problems that require attention.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28201791</id>
	<title>Re:Gov't logic reguarding the risk of legalization</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244025420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Meh. Part of the argument is that the prisons are overcrowded and the courts are overworked. Decriminalizing mere minor possession of weed doesn't shut down these institutions, it just slims down the court backlog.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Meh .
Part of the argument is that the prisons are overcrowded and the courts are overworked .
Decriminalizing mere minor possession of weed does n't shut down these institutions , it just slims down the court backlog .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meh.
Part of the argument is that the prisons are overcrowded and the courts are overworked.
Decriminalizing mere minor possession of weed doesn't shut down these institutions, it just slims down the court backlog.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28200179</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy isn't perfect.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244062620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Democracy isn't perfect, but it isn't as bad as everyone here likes to smugly assume it is.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Democracy is n't perfect , but it is n't as bad as everyone here likes to smugly assume it is .
Democracy is the worst form of government , except for all the others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Democracy isn't perfect, but it isn't as bad as everyone here likes to smugly assume it is.
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195679</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy is the problem</title>
	<author>Absolut187</author>
	<datestamp>1244043540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thomas Jefferson &amp; John Adams said it better.</p><blockquote><div><p>A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.</p></div></blockquote><blockquote><div><p>Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thomas Jefferson &amp; John Adams said it better.A democracy is nothing more than mob rule , where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy .
Remember , democracy never lasts long .
It soon wastes , exhausts , and murders itself .
There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thomas Jefferson &amp; John Adams said it better.A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy.
Remember, democracy never lasts long.
It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.
There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195497</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy is the problem</title>
	<author>Starlon</author>
	<datestamp>1244042760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Democracy is common law. Democracy keeps the government in check as much as it keeps the people in check. It's not perfect, but it's certainly not, as you put it, "the problem." It's always one of you sour pusses getting steamed over some topic of great interest, only to blame the rest of the world for not having the best interest of the whole in mind. Don't blame democracy. It is the most fundamental form of government, and you can bet it is not going away any time soon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Democracy is common law .
Democracy keeps the government in check as much as it keeps the people in check .
It 's not perfect , but it 's certainly not , as you put it , " the problem .
" It 's always one of you sour pusses getting steamed over some topic of great interest , only to blame the rest of the world for not having the best interest of the whole in mind .
Do n't blame democracy .
It is the most fundamental form of government , and you can bet it is not going away any time soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Democracy is common law.
Democracy keeps the government in check as much as it keeps the people in check.
It's not perfect, but it's certainly not, as you put it, "the problem.
" It's always one of you sour pusses getting steamed over some topic of great interest, only to blame the rest of the world for not having the best interest of the whole in mind.
Don't blame democracy.
It is the most fundamental form of government, and you can bet it is not going away any time soon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194331</id>
	<title>This just proves</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244037180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>stoners have too much time at their hands spamming the gov servers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>stoners have too much time at their hands spamming the gov servers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>stoners have too much time at their hands spamming the gov servers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195839</id>
	<title>think of the awesome revenue</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1244044140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>from taxing the open marijuana trade</p><p>c'mon, most people complain how little the government cares about jobs in this country. now suddenly you assert they care a lot? the amount saved from getting rid of dea, prison union jobs, etc., combined with the massive amounts of cash from taxing the trade in something like marijuana: its a fucking no brainer</p><p>the only thing that stands in the way of legal marijuana is social conservatism</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>from taxing the open marijuana tradec'mon , most people complain how little the government cares about jobs in this country .
now suddenly you assert they care a lot ?
the amount saved from getting rid of dea , prison union jobs , etc. , combined with the massive amounts of cash from taxing the trade in something like marijuana : its a fucking no brainerthe only thing that stands in the way of legal marijuana is social conservatism</tokentext>
<sentencetext>from taxing the open marijuana tradec'mon, most people complain how little the government cares about jobs in this country.
now suddenly you assert they care a lot?
the amount saved from getting rid of dea, prison union jobs, etc., combined with the massive amounts of cash from taxing the trade in something like marijuana: its a fucking no brainerthe only thing that stands in the way of legal marijuana is social conservatism</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194943</id>
	<title>Re:We all laugh</title>
	<author>robably</author>
	<datestamp>1244040240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What vote? When do the voting public get a chance to vote for legalisation?<br>
<br>
And why should drugs be the answer to society's problems anyway? Society is never going to solve all of it's problems - ever. As long as there are more than two people in the world there will be someone who thinks someone else is doing something wrong.<br>
<br>
The truth is that we already are a nation of illegal drug-takers - millions of people take them every day. Drugs are essential to society and it would grind to a halt without them. It's time we accepted that and stopped criminalising people for it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What vote ?
When do the voting public get a chance to vote for legalisation ?
And why should drugs be the answer to society 's problems anyway ?
Society is never going to solve all of it 's problems - ever .
As long as there are more than two people in the world there will be someone who thinks someone else is doing something wrong .
The truth is that we already are a nation of illegal drug-takers - millions of people take them every day .
Drugs are essential to society and it would grind to a halt without them .
It 's time we accepted that and stopped criminalising people for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What vote?
When do the voting public get a chance to vote for legalisation?
And why should drugs be the answer to society's problems anyway?
Society is never going to solve all of it's problems - ever.
As long as there are more than two people in the world there will be someone who thinks someone else is doing something wrong.
The truth is that we already are a nation of illegal drug-takers - millions of people take them every day.
Drugs are essential to society and it would grind to a halt without them.
It's time we accepted that and stopped criminalising people for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196685</id>
	<title>Legalize and Tax it.</title>
	<author>Alari</author>
	<datestamp>1244047860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Legalize it, tax it at $1 a gram, and we'd have 7.5 billion dollars a year in tax income from it. (Based on US Government estimates of marijuana usage, verify the figures yourself, they're on some<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.gov site.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Legalize it , tax it at $ 1 a gram , and we 'd have 7.5 billion dollars a year in tax income from it .
( Based on US Government estimates of marijuana usage , verify the figures yourself , they 're on some .gov site .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Legalize it, tax it at $1 a gram, and we'd have 7.5 billion dollars a year in tax income from it.
(Based on US Government estimates of marijuana usage, verify the figures yourself, they're on some .gov site.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194433</id>
	<title>Re:We all laugh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244037840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Think of the children??  No?  Nothing??  Ah crap, now what catch phrase are we gonna use...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Think of the children ? ?
No ? Nothing ? ?
Ah crap , now what catch phrase are we gon na use.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think of the children??
No?  Nothing??
Ah crap, now what catch phrase are we gonna use...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195159</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy isn't perfect.</title>
	<author>twostix</author>
	<datestamp>1244041260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have exactly one mod point left which I'd love to use in a topic like this, but I'd rather reply to you as it appears that as usual the paternal government believers on this site are sending you to +5 post haste.</p><p>1. Anybody who believes the politicians "we" elect "know what's best" for society better than anyone else should probably not be voting...or using sharp objects.<br>2. There's this raw and quite ugly (yes I'll use the word) elitism that runs on these sorts of sites where tech-nerdy loner types hang out.  Never ending snorting and hrmphing at the stupidity of the "masses", misplaced snobbery, tortured "logic" and outright hypocrisy.</p><p>After spending 9 years reading this site and other various sites like it kuro5hin, digg, reddit, etc. I truly have come to the disturbing conclusion that despite much of the fawning over libertarian ideals (which have a nice appeal in many ways), huge swaths of the users that frequent these sites really deep down just want to be ruled by kings.</p><p>I mean here we have a prime example, the US federal government sets up a site to let the general public let it know without the distortion of lobbyists or twist of demographic surveys; what issues are important to the people that can access the site.  Well the people that can access the site who are probably the same people snorting and hrmphing about the uselessness of democracy and the "masses" (which they inevitably define as everyone beneath themselves) have stated loud and clear that the main issue in their lives is the legalisation of a particular drug.  An issue that is most likely the hub of a larger ideology in themselves.</p><p>But what I don't understand is why to many people here is that such a bad and embarrassing failure of the "masses" or democracy or open governance in general?  Oh people want something that *directly* affects them in their day to day life legal?  And they are *partaking* in the political process in a small way to try and make that happen...hahah well that's just stupid, democracy fails it!11.</p><p>And so what?  How is that a failing except for lick-spittles who worship power? To those who have daydreams of central government politicians being great and powerful Lords and Noblemen who don't have time for the dirty masses silly little problems in between hunting down terrorists and single handedly "running the country" it's a problem, but only so far as it interrupts the illusion.</p><p>Democracy isn't perfect, but it isn't as bad as everyone here likes to smugly assume it is.  And whatever the US federal government is...it's a bloody loooong way from anything resembling democracy or even the representative republic that it's supposed to be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have exactly one mod point left which I 'd love to use in a topic like this , but I 'd rather reply to you as it appears that as usual the paternal government believers on this site are sending you to + 5 post haste.1 .
Anybody who believes the politicians " we " elect " know what 's best " for society better than anyone else should probably not be voting...or using sharp objects.2 .
There 's this raw and quite ugly ( yes I 'll use the word ) elitism that runs on these sorts of sites where tech-nerdy loner types hang out .
Never ending snorting and hrmphing at the stupidity of the " masses " , misplaced snobbery , tortured " logic " and outright hypocrisy.After spending 9 years reading this site and other various sites like it kuro5hin , digg , reddit , etc .
I truly have come to the disturbing conclusion that despite much of the fawning over libertarian ideals ( which have a nice appeal in many ways ) , huge swaths of the users that frequent these sites really deep down just want to be ruled by kings.I mean here we have a prime example , the US federal government sets up a site to let the general public let it know without the distortion of lobbyists or twist of demographic surveys ; what issues are important to the people that can access the site .
Well the people that can access the site who are probably the same people snorting and hrmphing about the uselessness of democracy and the " masses " ( which they inevitably define as everyone beneath themselves ) have stated loud and clear that the main issue in their lives is the legalisation of a particular drug .
An issue that is most likely the hub of a larger ideology in themselves.But what I do n't understand is why to many people here is that such a bad and embarrassing failure of the " masses " or democracy or open governance in general ?
Oh people want something that * directly * affects them in their day to day life legal ?
And they are * partaking * in the political process in a small way to try and make that happen...hahah well that 's just stupid , democracy fails it ! 11.And so what ?
How is that a failing except for lick-spittles who worship power ?
To those who have daydreams of central government politicians being great and powerful Lords and Noblemen who do n't have time for the dirty masses silly little problems in between hunting down terrorists and single handedly " running the country " it 's a problem , but only so far as it interrupts the illusion.Democracy is n't perfect , but it is n't as bad as everyone here likes to smugly assume it is .
And whatever the US federal government is...it 's a bloody loooong way from anything resembling democracy or even the representative republic that it 's supposed to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have exactly one mod point left which I'd love to use in a topic like this, but I'd rather reply to you as it appears that as usual the paternal government believers on this site are sending you to +5 post haste.1.
Anybody who believes the politicians "we" elect "know what's best" for society better than anyone else should probably not be voting...or using sharp objects.2.
There's this raw and quite ugly (yes I'll use the word) elitism that runs on these sorts of sites where tech-nerdy loner types hang out.
Never ending snorting and hrmphing at the stupidity of the "masses", misplaced snobbery, tortured "logic" and outright hypocrisy.After spending 9 years reading this site and other various sites like it kuro5hin, digg, reddit, etc.
I truly have come to the disturbing conclusion that despite much of the fawning over libertarian ideals (which have a nice appeal in many ways), huge swaths of the users that frequent these sites really deep down just want to be ruled by kings.I mean here we have a prime example, the US federal government sets up a site to let the general public let it know without the distortion of lobbyists or twist of demographic surveys; what issues are important to the people that can access the site.
Well the people that can access the site who are probably the same people snorting and hrmphing about the uselessness of democracy and the "masses" (which they inevitably define as everyone beneath themselves) have stated loud and clear that the main issue in their lives is the legalisation of a particular drug.
An issue that is most likely the hub of a larger ideology in themselves.But what I don't understand is why to many people here is that such a bad and embarrassing failure of the "masses" or democracy or open governance in general?
Oh people want something that *directly* affects them in their day to day life legal?
And they are *partaking* in the political process in a small way to try and make that happen...hahah well that's just stupid, democracy fails it!11.And so what?
How is that a failing except for lick-spittles who worship power?
To those who have daydreams of central government politicians being great and powerful Lords and Noblemen who don't have time for the dirty masses silly little problems in between hunting down terrorists and single handedly "running the country" it's a problem, but only so far as it interrupts the illusion.Democracy isn't perfect, but it isn't as bad as everyone here likes to smugly assume it is.
And whatever the US federal government is...it's a bloody loooong way from anything resembling democracy or even the representative republic that it's supposed to be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194795</id>
	<title>The DEA should have got the memo by now</title>
	<author>petrus4</author>
	<datestamp>1244039700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The War on Drugs isn't one that they can hope to win, primarily because the enemy are their own constituents.</p><p>I don't consider marijuana a desirable substance myself (and stoners who insist on self-justification beyond all rationality, go away.  Yes, I <b>have</b> smoked, <b>and</b> inhaled, despite your insistence that it is impossible for anyone who has smoked to have a negative opinion on the substance) but I also know very well that criminalisation does not work, and will never work.</p><p>As a (admittedly informally, and generally fairly secretively) practicing Shakta Hindu, I <b>could</b> also if I wanted, claim historical precedent for my own use of marijuana as a religious sacrament.  (Although AFAIK, in India at least, marijuana is more commonly used in association with Shiva, but it <b>has</b> been consumed as part of the worship of Kali)</p><p>Although I hold nothing against other adherents of various religions who do so, I have made the decision not to do that, as my own experience has led me to believe that marijuana is not b primarily beneficial substance, at least in the case of my own specific physiology.</p><p>I acknowledge, however, that it is not up to me to make that decision for anyone else other than myself.  I further acknowledge that the plant does have certain extremely legitimate medical uses; I have advocated at least trying it with a few people I know at times, when they have been in extreme pain.</p><p>There is a certain percentage of the population (whether they are a minority or not, I do not know specifically, and make no claim about) who whether for good or ill, are mortally determined to smoke marijuana.  Given their level of adamancy on this especially, it is not the place of government to make the decision for these individuals as to whether they should be allowed to smoke or not, especially considering that such a decision is usually made against these individuals' implicit, if not explicit, consent.</p><p>It has long been my opinion that the American government is, and always has been, at its' heart, a fundamentally tyrannical and insidious institution, which will, at any opportunity afforded to it, enthusiastically act as the mortal enemy of its' own constituents.  The long term war that the Drug Enforcement Administration has been waging against said constituents, is in itself compelling proof of this assertion.</p><p>The DEA, in its' own defense, would likely try to claim that many of the substances which it crusades against the use of are gravely harmful; sometimes lethally so.  In the cases of heroine, cocaine, and methamphetamines in particular, I would not argue against such an assertion.  However, whether the drugs themselves are lethal is not the point.</p><p>The point is that it should not rightfully be the role of government to act as a parental figure for its' constituents.  As adults, said constituents are supposed to be able to serve that role for themselves.</p><p>I also believe that criminalisation, rather than reducing the use of these substances, in face greatly contributes to their appeal, as it is well known that both teenagers and retrograde adults take particular delight in doing certain things, primarily when they know that said things are illegal or taboo.  If many of these drugs, marijuana included, we made legal, use of them would cease to appear to be an act of rebellion, and would instead become socially mundane.</p><p>A third point is that many of the entheogens have not been allowed virtually any academic study, because of a hysterical, knee-jerk governmental approach to criminalisation.  Some early work was done with LSD, yes; but very little such work has been done with other substances such as MDMA.  If this research was permitted to be conducted, more could likely be learned about the drugs' drawbacks, potentially beneficial uses, and guidelines could possibly even be developed for the safe and guided use of the substances by those who still wished to consume them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The War on Drugs is n't one that they can hope to win , primarily because the enemy are their own constituents.I do n't consider marijuana a desirable substance myself ( and stoners who insist on self-justification beyond all rationality , go away .
Yes , I have smoked , and inhaled , despite your insistence that it is impossible for anyone who has smoked to have a negative opinion on the substance ) but I also know very well that criminalisation does not work , and will never work.As a ( admittedly informally , and generally fairly secretively ) practicing Shakta Hindu , I could also if I wanted , claim historical precedent for my own use of marijuana as a religious sacrament .
( Although AFAIK , in India at least , marijuana is more commonly used in association with Shiva , but it has been consumed as part of the worship of Kali ) Although I hold nothing against other adherents of various religions who do so , I have made the decision not to do that , as my own experience has led me to believe that marijuana is not b primarily beneficial substance , at least in the case of my own specific physiology.I acknowledge , however , that it is not up to me to make that decision for anyone else other than myself .
I further acknowledge that the plant does have certain extremely legitimate medical uses ; I have advocated at least trying it with a few people I know at times , when they have been in extreme pain.There is a certain percentage of the population ( whether they are a minority or not , I do not know specifically , and make no claim about ) who whether for good or ill , are mortally determined to smoke marijuana .
Given their level of adamancy on this especially , it is not the place of government to make the decision for these individuals as to whether they should be allowed to smoke or not , especially considering that such a decision is usually made against these individuals ' implicit , if not explicit , consent.It has long been my opinion that the American government is , and always has been , at its ' heart , a fundamentally tyrannical and insidious institution , which will , at any opportunity afforded to it , enthusiastically act as the mortal enemy of its ' own constituents .
The long term war that the Drug Enforcement Administration has been waging against said constituents , is in itself compelling proof of this assertion.The DEA , in its ' own defense , would likely try to claim that many of the substances which it crusades against the use of are gravely harmful ; sometimes lethally so .
In the cases of heroine , cocaine , and methamphetamines in particular , I would not argue against such an assertion .
However , whether the drugs themselves are lethal is not the point.The point is that it should not rightfully be the role of government to act as a parental figure for its ' constituents .
As adults , said constituents are supposed to be able to serve that role for themselves.I also believe that criminalisation , rather than reducing the use of these substances , in face greatly contributes to their appeal , as it is well known that both teenagers and retrograde adults take particular delight in doing certain things , primarily when they know that said things are illegal or taboo .
If many of these drugs , marijuana included , we made legal , use of them would cease to appear to be an act of rebellion , and would instead become socially mundane.A third point is that many of the entheogens have not been allowed virtually any academic study , because of a hysterical , knee-jerk governmental approach to criminalisation .
Some early work was done with LSD , yes ; but very little such work has been done with other substances such as MDMA .
If this research was permitted to be conducted , more could likely be learned about the drugs ' drawbacks , potentially beneficial uses , and guidelines could possibly even be developed for the safe and guided use of the substances by those who still wished to consume them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The War on Drugs isn't one that they can hope to win, primarily because the enemy are their own constituents.I don't consider marijuana a desirable substance myself (and stoners who insist on self-justification beyond all rationality, go away.
Yes, I have smoked, and inhaled, despite your insistence that it is impossible for anyone who has smoked to have a negative opinion on the substance) but I also know very well that criminalisation does not work, and will never work.As a (admittedly informally, and generally fairly secretively) practicing Shakta Hindu, I could also if I wanted, claim historical precedent for my own use of marijuana as a religious sacrament.
(Although AFAIK, in India at least, marijuana is more commonly used in association with Shiva, but it has been consumed as part of the worship of Kali)Although I hold nothing against other adherents of various religions who do so, I have made the decision not to do that, as my own experience has led me to believe that marijuana is not b primarily beneficial substance, at least in the case of my own specific physiology.I acknowledge, however, that it is not up to me to make that decision for anyone else other than myself.
I further acknowledge that the plant does have certain extremely legitimate medical uses; I have advocated at least trying it with a few people I know at times, when they have been in extreme pain.There is a certain percentage of the population (whether they are a minority or not, I do not know specifically, and make no claim about) who whether for good or ill, are mortally determined to smoke marijuana.
Given their level of adamancy on this especially, it is not the place of government to make the decision for these individuals as to whether they should be allowed to smoke or not, especially considering that such a decision is usually made against these individuals' implicit, if not explicit, consent.It has long been my opinion that the American government is, and always has been, at its' heart, a fundamentally tyrannical and insidious institution, which will, at any opportunity afforded to it, enthusiastically act as the mortal enemy of its' own constituents.
The long term war that the Drug Enforcement Administration has been waging against said constituents, is in itself compelling proof of this assertion.The DEA, in its' own defense, would likely try to claim that many of the substances which it crusades against the use of are gravely harmful; sometimes lethally so.
In the cases of heroine, cocaine, and methamphetamines in particular, I would not argue against such an assertion.
However, whether the drugs themselves are lethal is not the point.The point is that it should not rightfully be the role of government to act as a parental figure for its' constituents.
As adults, said constituents are supposed to be able to serve that role for themselves.I also believe that criminalisation, rather than reducing the use of these substances, in face greatly contributes to their appeal, as it is well known that both teenagers and retrograde adults take particular delight in doing certain things, primarily when they know that said things are illegal or taboo.
If many of these drugs, marijuana included, we made legal, use of them would cease to appear to be an act of rebellion, and would instead become socially mundane.A third point is that many of the entheogens have not been allowed virtually any academic study, because of a hysterical, knee-jerk governmental approach to criminalisation.
Some early work was done with LSD, yes; but very little such work has been done with other substances such as MDMA.
If this research was permitted to be conducted, more could likely be learned about the drugs' drawbacks, potentially beneficial uses, and guidelines could possibly even be developed for the safe and guided use of the substances by those who still wished to consume them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195501</id>
	<title>Re:Related, in a way</title>
	<author>Looce</author>
	<datestamp>1244042760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aye, I did some research after viewing the Schedule reclassification thread (because the full legalization one is more full of potheads-for-the-sake-of-it and people who just don't care and jump on the bandwagon, I would take everything there with a grain of salt in that one<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-). There are indeed road accidents (<a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1255255&amp;cid=28195241" title="slashdot.org">other comment</a> [slashdot.org] in this thread) caused by the use of marijuana, and some undesirable effects when "high", and I'm not so keen on full legalization for those reasons. Researching the whole marijuana issue is interesting, and I've only touched the tip of the iceberg yet. Are there any official studies you know about and could link to here?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Aye , I did some research after viewing the Schedule reclassification thread ( because the full legalization one is more full of potheads-for-the-sake-of-it and people who just do n't care and jump on the bandwagon , I would take everything there with a grain of salt in that one : - ) .
There are indeed road accidents ( other comment [ slashdot.org ] in this thread ) caused by the use of marijuana , and some undesirable effects when " high " , and I 'm not so keen on full legalization for those reasons .
Researching the whole marijuana issue is interesting , and I 've only touched the tip of the iceberg yet .
Are there any official studies you know about and could link to here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aye, I did some research after viewing the Schedule reclassification thread (because the full legalization one is more full of potheads-for-the-sake-of-it and people who just don't care and jump on the bandwagon, I would take everything there with a grain of salt in that one :-).
There are indeed road accidents (other comment [slashdot.org] in this thread) caused by the use of marijuana, and some undesirable effects when "high", and I'm not so keen on full legalization for those reasons.
Researching the whole marijuana issue is interesting, and I've only touched the tip of the iceberg yet.
Are there any official studies you know about and could link to here?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196111</id>
	<title>Re:We all laugh</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1244045340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, the second it goes legal, all 300 million of us are going to toke up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , the second it goes legal , all 300 million of us are going to toke up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, the second it goes legal, all 300 million of us are going to toke up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28197849</id>
	<title>Re:Gov't logic reguarding the risk of legalization</title>
	<author>eiMichael</author>
	<datestamp>1244052300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"And think of all the unemployed newly released prisoners!"<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>/puke</htmltext>
<tokenext>" And think of all the unemployed newly released prisoners !
" /puke</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"And think of all the unemployed newly released prisoners!
" /puke</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194863</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy is the problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244039820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i> The problem being illustrated is with the concept of 'democracy', an idea our Founding Fathers was aware of and not only discarded it was a notion they took great measures to prevent [...] This created the Rule of Laws instead of the Rule of Men. We had divided and limited government. But we threw that away and now have the Rule of Men and our civilization is declining.</i> <br>
<br>
You are wrong. A bunch of dead white men from several hundred years ago don't know what's best for 2009.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem being illustrated is with the concept of 'democracy ' , an idea our Founding Fathers was aware of and not only discarded it was a notion they took great measures to prevent [ ... ] This created the Rule of Laws instead of the Rule of Men .
We had divided and limited government .
But we threw that away and now have the Rule of Men and our civilization is declining .
You are wrong .
A bunch of dead white men from several hundred years ago do n't know what 's best for 2009 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The problem being illustrated is with the concept of 'democracy', an idea our Founding Fathers was aware of and not only discarded it was a notion they took great measures to prevent [...] This created the Rule of Laws instead of the Rule of Men.
We had divided and limited government.
But we threw that away and now have the Rule of Men and our civilization is declining.
You are wrong.
A bunch of dead white men from several hundred years ago don't know what's best for 2009.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196377</id>
	<title>Re:We all laugh</title>
	<author>mdarksbane</author>
	<datestamp>1244046480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are a large number of people who are pro-legalization who do not smoke pot.</p><p>It's like saying the only people who support gay marriage like to have sex with other dudes. It distracts from the point of the argument - sound, fair policy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a large number of people who are pro-legalization who do not smoke pot.It 's like saying the only people who support gay marriage like to have sex with other dudes .
It distracts from the point of the argument - sound , fair policy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a large number of people who are pro-legalization who do not smoke pot.It's like saying the only people who support gay marriage like to have sex with other dudes.
It distracts from the point of the argument - sound, fair policy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195671</id>
	<title>Biased Sample -- Hasty Generalization</title>
	<author>Temujin\_12</author>
	<datestamp>1244043480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Putting the drug debate aside, online polls always suffer from two things:</p><p><a href="http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/biased-sample.html" title="nizkor.org">biased sample</a> [nizkor.org] and <a href="http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html" title="nizkor.org">hasty generalization</a> [nizkor.org]</p><p>A poll at WhiteHouse.gov merely reflects the opinion of those who visited WhiteHouse.gov--nothing more and nothing less. A poll at cnn.com or foxnews.com merely reflects the opinions of those who visit those sites--nothing more and nothing less. It doesn't matter how popular the online poll is... THEY CANNOT BE GENERALIZED TO THE US POPULATION AT LARGE. And it would be unwise for an administration to make policy decisions based on informal online polls.</p><p>That's why we have the voting system. Those who vote represent legal US citizens who chose to exercise their constitutional right to vote--nothing more, nothing less.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Putting the drug debate aside , online polls always suffer from two things : biased sample [ nizkor.org ] and hasty generalization [ nizkor.org ] A poll at WhiteHouse.gov merely reflects the opinion of those who visited WhiteHouse.gov--nothing more and nothing less .
A poll at cnn.com or foxnews.com merely reflects the opinions of those who visit those sites--nothing more and nothing less .
It does n't matter how popular the online poll is... THEY CAN NOT BE GENERALIZED TO THE US POPULATION AT LARGE .
And it would be unwise for an administration to make policy decisions based on informal online polls.That 's why we have the voting system .
Those who vote represent legal US citizens who chose to exercise their constitutional right to vote--nothing more , nothing less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Putting the drug debate aside, online polls always suffer from two things:biased sample [nizkor.org] and hasty generalization [nizkor.org]A poll at WhiteHouse.gov merely reflects the opinion of those who visited WhiteHouse.gov--nothing more and nothing less.
A poll at cnn.com or foxnews.com merely reflects the opinions of those who visit those sites--nothing more and nothing less.
It doesn't matter how popular the online poll is... THEY CANNOT BE GENERALIZED TO THE US POPULATION AT LARGE.
And it would be unwise for an administration to make policy decisions based on informal online polls.That's why we have the voting system.
Those who vote represent legal US citizens who chose to exercise their constitutional right to vote--nothing more, nothing less.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196455</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy is the problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244046900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You look at this system and say that it is bad because it shows what the majority want. So, what is wrong with giving people another forum for communicating what they think?</p><p>As for our county being a Republic, that only applies if you are a WASP. Where was the republic when Andrew Jackson decided to relocate the Indians? Where was the republic when the Mormon's had to change their religious beliefs? Where was the republic for the Japanese-Americans in 1945 or the Communist Americans in the 1950's? Where was the republic during the Democratic and Republican conventions of 2004?  Oh yeah, setting up free speech zones...</p><p>This country is not the worst for protecting its citizens rights but claiming that this website is a bad thing as it will bring us closer to a democracy is stupid. I think this is the next step in civil involvement. It is hard for someone in California to show up in DC and protest, it is not that hard for them to log onto the internet and create a petition or comment on a blog. Yes, there will be stupid ideas that are put up, but there will also be good ideas. I for one welcome any tool that lets me communicate with my government easier. I hope you would do the same.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You look at this system and say that it is bad because it shows what the majority want .
So , what is wrong with giving people another forum for communicating what they think ? As for our county being a Republic , that only applies if you are a WASP .
Where was the republic when Andrew Jackson decided to relocate the Indians ?
Where was the republic when the Mormon 's had to change their religious beliefs ?
Where was the republic for the Japanese-Americans in 1945 or the Communist Americans in the 1950 's ?
Where was the republic during the Democratic and Republican conventions of 2004 ?
Oh yeah , setting up free speech zones...This country is not the worst for protecting its citizens rights but claiming that this website is a bad thing as it will bring us closer to a democracy is stupid .
I think this is the next step in civil involvement .
It is hard for someone in California to show up in DC and protest , it is not that hard for them to log onto the internet and create a petition or comment on a blog .
Yes , there will be stupid ideas that are put up , but there will also be good ideas .
I for one welcome any tool that lets me communicate with my government easier .
I hope you would do the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You look at this system and say that it is bad because it shows what the majority want.
So, what is wrong with giving people another forum for communicating what they think?As for our county being a Republic, that only applies if you are a WASP.
Where was the republic when Andrew Jackson decided to relocate the Indians?
Where was the republic when the Mormon's had to change their religious beliefs?
Where was the republic for the Japanese-Americans in 1945 or the Communist Americans in the 1950's?
Where was the republic during the Democratic and Republican conventions of 2004?
Oh yeah, setting up free speech zones...This country is not the worst for protecting its citizens rights but claiming that this website is a bad thing as it will bring us closer to a democracy is stupid.
I think this is the next step in civil involvement.
It is hard for someone in California to show up in DC and protest, it is not that hard for them to log onto the internet and create a petition or comment on a blog.
Yes, there will be stupid ideas that are put up, but there will also be good ideas.
I for one welcome any tool that lets me communicate with my government easier.
I hope you would do the same.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194601</id>
	<title>Defies?</title>
	<author>SlashDread</author>
	<datestamp>1244038680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why exactly is it not "wisdom of the crowd" to legalize MJ if SO MANY people vote for it? Id reason it indeed would gain massive tax income, and lower prison population.<br>DISCLAIMER: Im Dutch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why exactly is it not " wisdom of the crowd " to legalize MJ if SO MANY people vote for it ?
Id reason it indeed would gain massive tax income , and lower prison population.DISCLAIMER : Im Dutch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why exactly is it not "wisdom of the crowd" to legalize MJ if SO MANY people vote for it?
Id reason it indeed would gain massive tax income, and lower prison population.DISCLAIMER: Im Dutch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194805</id>
	<title>Here in the UK we call them Quango's</title>
	<author>Big Hairy Ian</author>
	<datestamp>1244039700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quango" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quango</a> [wikipedia.org] generally they are quite hard to get on unless you are the wife of an MP or Captain of Industry or hubbies 1st name is either Sir or Lord.  I seem to recall you get quite well paid for being on one too something like &#194;&pound;500 a day + expenses (Obviously Citation needed but can't find one).</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quango [ wikipedia.org ] generally they are quite hard to get on unless you are the wife of an MP or Captain of Industry or hubbies 1st name is either Sir or Lord .
I seem to recall you get quite well paid for being on one too something like     500 a day + expenses ( Obviously Citation needed but ca n't find one ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quango [wikipedia.org] generally they are quite hard to get on unless you are the wife of an MP or Captain of Industry or hubbies 1st name is either Sir or Lord.
I seem to recall you get quite well paid for being on one too something like Â£500 a day + expenses (Obviously Citation needed but can't find one).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28198461</id>
	<title>Re:Gov't logic reguarding the risk of legalization</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244054640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot,</p><p>Pharma, Beer/Alcohol and distribution (this is a big one), Rope makers, and more that I can't think of.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot,Pharma , Beer/Alcohol and distribution ( this is a big one ) , Rope makers , and more that I ca n't think of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot,Pharma, Beer/Alcohol and distribution (this is a big one), Rope makers, and more that I can't think of.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195079</id>
	<title>Re:Related, in a way</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1244040900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are lying.  No one ever changes their mind on slashdot!<br>You were already pro-pot and are just pretending to apply a little critical thinking for the first time...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are lying .
No one ever changes their mind on slashdot ! You were already pro-pot and are just pretending to apply a little critical thinking for the first time.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are lying.
No one ever changes their mind on slashdot!You were already pro-pot and are just pretending to apply a little critical thinking for the first time...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28200093</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy is the problem</title>
	<author>copponex</author>
	<datestamp>1244062380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The centerpiece of your argument is that people are not capable of governing themselves. If you take a smaller sample and put them in charge, why are they more capable of governing the others? Won't the smaller group just write the rules for themselves?</p><p>Republicanism is basically saying, "Look - you can't trust people, they might vote for their own interests. It's better to be oppressed by 10\% of the population who know what's good for you, than 51\% of the population who doesn't know what's good for themselves."</p><p>Republicanism is also inherently incompatible with the free market, since that is also a system of people governing themselves. You guys should pick one and stick with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The centerpiece of your argument is that people are not capable of governing themselves .
If you take a smaller sample and put them in charge , why are they more capable of governing the others ?
Wo n't the smaller group just write the rules for themselves ? Republicanism is basically saying , " Look - you ca n't trust people , they might vote for their own interests .
It 's better to be oppressed by 10 \ % of the population who know what 's good for you , than 51 \ % of the population who does n't know what 's good for themselves .
" Republicanism is also inherently incompatible with the free market , since that is also a system of people governing themselves .
You guys should pick one and stick with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The centerpiece of your argument is that people are not capable of governing themselves.
If you take a smaller sample and put them in charge, why are they more capable of governing the others?
Won't the smaller group just write the rules for themselves?Republicanism is basically saying, "Look - you can't trust people, they might vote for their own interests.
It's better to be oppressed by 10\% of the population who know what's good for you, than 51\% of the population who doesn't know what's good for themselves.
"Republicanism is also inherently incompatible with the free market, since that is also a system of people governing themselves.
You guys should pick one and stick with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194749</id>
	<title>Re:Gov't logic reguarding the risk of legalization</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244039460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They'll say that, but they'll really be taking RIAA campaign contributions on the side and retasking those DA's DEA, employees, etc. to deal with all those evil music pirates out there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 'll say that , but they 'll really be taking RIAA campaign contributions on the side and retasking those DA 's DEA , employees , etc .
to deal with all those evil music pirates out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They'll say that, but they'll really be taking RIAA campaign contributions on the side and retasking those DA's DEA, employees, etc.
to deal with all those evil music pirates out there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195857</id>
	<title>Re:The marijuana crowd is retarded</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244044200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you legalize it then the government will tax what you grow.  Or make it illegal to grow without a license.  Or without FDA approval and control.  Basically, Phillip Morris et al. will be the only people capable of legally growing it and the DEA will just continue being the DEA.  Except now the legal marijuana will have additives that make it less healthy, more addictive and more profitable while the illegal marijuana charges will be the same as they are now plus tax evasion and FDA violations.</p><p>That is, legalizing marijuana will not solve any problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you legalize it then the government will tax what you grow .
Or make it illegal to grow without a license .
Or without FDA approval and control .
Basically , Phillip Morris et al .
will be the only people capable of legally growing it and the DEA will just continue being the DEA .
Except now the legal marijuana will have additives that make it less healthy , more addictive and more profitable while the illegal marijuana charges will be the same as they are now plus tax evasion and FDA violations.That is , legalizing marijuana will not solve any problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you legalize it then the government will tax what you grow.
Or make it illegal to grow without a license.
Or without FDA approval and control.
Basically, Phillip Morris et al.
will be the only people capable of legally growing it and the DEA will just continue being the DEA.
Except now the legal marijuana will have additives that make it less healthy, more addictive and more profitable while the illegal marijuana charges will be the same as they are now plus tax evasion and FDA violations.That is, legalizing marijuana will not solve any problems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28199995</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy isn't perfect.</title>
	<author>Scrameustache</author>
	<datestamp>1244061960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I mean here we have a prime example, the US federal government sets up a site to let the general public let it know without the distortion of lobbyists</p></div><p>What's keeping the lobbyists from spamming that site?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean here we have a prime example , the US federal government sets up a site to let the general public let it know without the distortion of lobbyistsWhat 's keeping the lobbyists from spamming that site ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean here we have a prime example, the US federal government sets up a site to let the general public let it know without the distortion of lobbyistsWhat's keeping the lobbyists from spamming that site?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195377</id>
	<title>Re:Related, in a way</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1244042220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here is a unique idea:<br>Don't base your decisions on information from propaganda sites. Go to an unbiased source, maybe you will learn something.</p><p>You might even learn how marijuana use causes memory loss and cognitive problems. In other words, stoners forget things and can't think straight. I am sure the propaganda sites you were on didn't mention those.</p><p>Oh, and marijuana does kill people, just like alcohol kills many people by impairing the users who then drive or do something else stupid. It also kills and injures people out hiking when they step on booby traps set up by growers, when mules and dealers decide to run from the cops, and when users decide to rob people to get some cash for more pot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is a unique idea : Do n't base your decisions on information from propaganda sites .
Go to an unbiased source , maybe you will learn something.You might even learn how marijuana use causes memory loss and cognitive problems .
In other words , stoners forget things and ca n't think straight .
I am sure the propaganda sites you were on did n't mention those.Oh , and marijuana does kill people , just like alcohol kills many people by impairing the users who then drive or do something else stupid .
It also kills and injures people out hiking when they step on booby traps set up by growers , when mules and dealers decide to run from the cops , and when users decide to rob people to get some cash for more pot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is a unique idea:Don't base your decisions on information from propaganda sites.
Go to an unbiased source, maybe you will learn something.You might even learn how marijuana use causes memory loss and cognitive problems.
In other words, stoners forget things and can't think straight.
I am sure the propaganda sites you were on didn't mention those.Oh, and marijuana does kill people, just like alcohol kills many people by impairing the users who then drive or do something else stupid.
It also kills and injures people out hiking when they step on booby traps set up by growers, when mules and dealers decide to run from the cops, and when users decide to rob people to get some cash for more pot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196767</id>
	<title>Has anyone RTFB?</title>
	<author>semateos</author>
	<datestamp>1244048100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Has anyone else here read and fully understood that book?  It's point was that a properly polled and diverse crowd will give more precise answers than any individual expert.  The whole point of the exercise is that no individual can know the best course of action - or for example exactly what the positive or negative ramifications of legalization would be.  By definition the collective answer may not make sense to the individuals - and that is frequently the nature of wisdom - one who lacks it frequently ignores the one who has it.  Just because the voice of the crowd in this instance happens to be a bunch of stoners that doesn't mean we should dismiss it offhand - who's to say what the right answer looks like - maybe legalization is exactly the kind of wallet lubricant our economy needs to get moving again.<br> <br>


Marijuana aside - the debate should not be whether or not to legalize, but how good or bad is this particular mechanism at culling the true wisdom of the crowd.  On first blush it seems bad - two criteria from the book are not met: Diversity - you need to have a diverse enough crowd to get all the pieces of the puzzle - whereas this system is undoubtedly limited to the technologically savvy segment of the population; and Incentive - each individual needs to have a real incentive forcing them to make their best possible guess - whereas voting in this system has no consequence.<br> <br>


The book was focused mostly on markets as good predictors - specifically the author was looking at political outcome markets like the Iowa Electoral Market and showing why they tend to predict outcomes better than pundits or exit polls.  So what if we rephrased the question in terms of economic or opinion results so that the performance of an idea could be measured in terms of economic growth or some other index like quality of life?  Then each idea would be assigned stock - so rather than simply voting you have to invest real dollars in an idea that you think will be successful - and successful ideas in turn yield actual returns.<br> <br>


Any thoughts from the crowd on how to best implement a Good Idea Market?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anyone else here read and fully understood that book ?
It 's point was that a properly polled and diverse crowd will give more precise answers than any individual expert .
The whole point of the exercise is that no individual can know the best course of action - or for example exactly what the positive or negative ramifications of legalization would be .
By definition the collective answer may not make sense to the individuals - and that is frequently the nature of wisdom - one who lacks it frequently ignores the one who has it .
Just because the voice of the crowd in this instance happens to be a bunch of stoners that does n't mean we should dismiss it offhand - who 's to say what the right answer looks like - maybe legalization is exactly the kind of wallet lubricant our economy needs to get moving again .
Marijuana aside - the debate should not be whether or not to legalize , but how good or bad is this particular mechanism at culling the true wisdom of the crowd .
On first blush it seems bad - two criteria from the book are not met : Diversity - you need to have a diverse enough crowd to get all the pieces of the puzzle - whereas this system is undoubtedly limited to the technologically savvy segment of the population ; and Incentive - each individual needs to have a real incentive forcing them to make their best possible guess - whereas voting in this system has no consequence .
The book was focused mostly on markets as good predictors - specifically the author was looking at political outcome markets like the Iowa Electoral Market and showing why they tend to predict outcomes better than pundits or exit polls .
So what if we rephrased the question in terms of economic or opinion results so that the performance of an idea could be measured in terms of economic growth or some other index like quality of life ?
Then each idea would be assigned stock - so rather than simply voting you have to invest real dollars in an idea that you think will be successful - and successful ideas in turn yield actual returns .
Any thoughts from the crowd on how to best implement a Good Idea Market ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has anyone else here read and fully understood that book?
It's point was that a properly polled and diverse crowd will give more precise answers than any individual expert.
The whole point of the exercise is that no individual can know the best course of action - or for example exactly what the positive or negative ramifications of legalization would be.
By definition the collective answer may not make sense to the individuals - and that is frequently the nature of wisdom - one who lacks it frequently ignores the one who has it.
Just because the voice of the crowd in this instance happens to be a bunch of stoners that doesn't mean we should dismiss it offhand - who's to say what the right answer looks like - maybe legalization is exactly the kind of wallet lubricant our economy needs to get moving again.
Marijuana aside - the debate should not be whether or not to legalize, but how good or bad is this particular mechanism at culling the true wisdom of the crowd.
On first blush it seems bad - two criteria from the book are not met: Diversity - you need to have a diverse enough crowd to get all the pieces of the puzzle - whereas this system is undoubtedly limited to the technologically savvy segment of the population; and Incentive - each individual needs to have a real incentive forcing them to make their best possible guess - whereas voting in this system has no consequence.
The book was focused mostly on markets as good predictors - specifically the author was looking at political outcome markets like the Iowa Electoral Market and showing why they tend to predict outcomes better than pundits or exit polls.
So what if we rephrased the question in terms of economic or opinion results so that the performance of an idea could be measured in terms of economic growth or some other index like quality of life?
Then each idea would be assigned stock - so rather than simply voting you have to invest real dollars in an idea that you think will be successful - and successful ideas in turn yield actual returns.
Any thoughts from the crowd on how to best implement a Good Idea Market?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196361</id>
	<title>Re:Related, in a way</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1244046420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oxycontin et al., are very much controlled substances:</p><p><a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling.html" title="usdoj.gov" rel="nofollow">http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling.html</a> [usdoj.gov]</p><p>Pretty much any opiate derivative is going to be on one of the schedules (and I think most of them are going to be I and II; it looks like low dosages are sometimes III).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oxycontin et al. , are very much controlled substances : http : //www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling.html [ usdoj.gov ] Pretty much any opiate derivative is going to be on one of the schedules ( and I think most of them are going to be I and II ; it looks like low dosages are sometimes III ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oxycontin et al., are very much controlled substances:http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling.html [usdoj.gov]Pretty much any opiate derivative is going to be on one of the schedules (and I think most of them are going to be I and II; it looks like low dosages are sometimes III).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28200295</id>
	<title>Re:What does Marijuana have to do with this?</title>
	<author>copponex</author>
	<datestamp>1244019900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>Strengthen our democracy:</b> How, by making people sit around their bong every night discussing the problems of the world? Like.. "Man... link um.. why do they fold those papers around those little sticks of gum? Can't they see we need to save some trees? Besides they taste terrible when folding a joint, their just disgusting."</p></div><p>Democracy as in, the population can decide what it wants to do with it's own country. Which may be hitting a bong and watching Pineapple Express. But perhaps they should be drinking Bud and killing families in their Ford pickups - a true American's Saturday night.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>Promote efficiency:</b> Get real, Marijuana and efficiency in the same sentence? Last I knew all my childhood friends were doing nothing with their lives. Just sitting around getting high with no aspirations in life. Several are dead from accidents, suicide, some perpetually in rehab clinics, and all living life day-t-day. Efficiency is not the first word on my mind.</p></div><p>Officers are no longer arresting people who aren't committing a crime. Carrying a joint in your pocket denies the freedom of no one. Then they can get to real crime, like rape, murder, theft, and so on. If you're more afraid of a guy in a Bonnaroo t-shirt playing the bongos than you are of a sociopath slitting your throat, well, you're probably a Baptist.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>Making government more transparent:</b> Ok, Marijuana is hallucinogenic for some people, but I doubt that the Government is going to get any more transparent that way.</p> </div><p>The war on drugs has been used in the past to fund the CIA. They will be forced to get their money through official channels. Resulting in greater transparency. Maybe.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>Collaborative:</b> Ok, lets get this one definition straight. We are talking about the Government being more collaborative, not people sitting around talking about fantasies while smoking joints. How is legalizing Marijuana going to get the Government to improve on their collaboration skills?</p></div><p>I'm not sure either. Maybe they wrote that after they switched to hash that evening.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I know I'll get flamed, and I'm not trying to argue that it should or should not be legalized, but what the study is for and the conclusions being stated about Marijuana are just not related from my viewpoint. But as I remember back to 'hanging out' with my childhood friends, they usually were not thinking all so coherently about much of anything, and no doubt they were the ones 'brainstorming' here. So why would I think this study would be any different? Go figure.</p></div><p>Give me a pothead over an alcoholic any day. Bill Hicks said it best:</p><p>"They lie about marijuana. Tell you pot-smoking makes you unmotivated. Lie! When you're high, you can do everything you normally do, just as well. You just realize that it's not worth the fucking effort. There is a difference.... Let's see, do I want to go to a job I hate to work for a life I don't want to live, or stay home and learn how to play the sitar?"</p><p>Or something like that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Strengthen our democracy : How , by making people sit around their bong every night discussing the problems of the world ?
Like.. " Man... link um.. why do they fold those papers around those little sticks of gum ?
Ca n't they see we need to save some trees ?
Besides they taste terrible when folding a joint , their just disgusting .
" Democracy as in , the population can decide what it wants to do with it 's own country .
Which may be hitting a bong and watching Pineapple Express .
But perhaps they should be drinking Bud and killing families in their Ford pickups - a true American 's Saturday night .
Promote efficiency : Get real , Marijuana and efficiency in the same sentence ?
Last I knew all my childhood friends were doing nothing with their lives .
Just sitting around getting high with no aspirations in life .
Several are dead from accidents , suicide , some perpetually in rehab clinics , and all living life day-t-day .
Efficiency is not the first word on my mind.Officers are no longer arresting people who are n't committing a crime .
Carrying a joint in your pocket denies the freedom of no one .
Then they can get to real crime , like rape , murder , theft , and so on .
If you 're more afraid of a guy in a Bonnaroo t-shirt playing the bongos than you are of a sociopath slitting your throat , well , you 're probably a Baptist .
Making government more transparent : Ok , Marijuana is hallucinogenic for some people , but I doubt that the Government is going to get any more transparent that way .
The war on drugs has been used in the past to fund the CIA .
They will be forced to get their money through official channels .
Resulting in greater transparency .
Maybe. Collaborative : Ok , lets get this one definition straight .
We are talking about the Government being more collaborative , not people sitting around talking about fantasies while smoking joints .
How is legalizing Marijuana going to get the Government to improve on their collaboration skills ? I 'm not sure either .
Maybe they wrote that after they switched to hash that evening.I know I 'll get flamed , and I 'm not trying to argue that it should or should not be legalized , but what the study is for and the conclusions being stated about Marijuana are just not related from my viewpoint .
But as I remember back to 'hanging out ' with my childhood friends , they usually were not thinking all so coherently about much of anything , and no doubt they were the ones 'brainstorming ' here .
So why would I think this study would be any different ?
Go figure.Give me a pothead over an alcoholic any day .
Bill Hicks said it best : " They lie about marijuana .
Tell you pot-smoking makes you unmotivated .
Lie ! When you 're high , you can do everything you normally do , just as well .
You just realize that it 's not worth the fucking effort .
There is a difference.... Let 's see , do I want to go to a job I hate to work for a life I do n't want to live , or stay home and learn how to play the sitar ?
" Or something like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Strengthen our democracy: How, by making people sit around their bong every night discussing the problems of the world?
Like.. "Man... link um.. why do they fold those papers around those little sticks of gum?
Can't they see we need to save some trees?
Besides they taste terrible when folding a joint, their just disgusting.
"Democracy as in, the population can decide what it wants to do with it's own country.
Which may be hitting a bong and watching Pineapple Express.
But perhaps they should be drinking Bud and killing families in their Ford pickups - a true American's Saturday night.
Promote efficiency: Get real, Marijuana and efficiency in the same sentence?
Last I knew all my childhood friends were doing nothing with their lives.
Just sitting around getting high with no aspirations in life.
Several are dead from accidents, suicide, some perpetually in rehab clinics, and all living life day-t-day.
Efficiency is not the first word on my mind.Officers are no longer arresting people who aren't committing a crime.
Carrying a joint in your pocket denies the freedom of no one.
Then they can get to real crime, like rape, murder, theft, and so on.
If you're more afraid of a guy in a Bonnaroo t-shirt playing the bongos than you are of a sociopath slitting your throat, well, you're probably a Baptist.
Making government more transparent: Ok, Marijuana is hallucinogenic for some people, but I doubt that the Government is going to get any more transparent that way.
The war on drugs has been used in the past to fund the CIA.
They will be forced to get their money through official channels.
Resulting in greater transparency.
Maybe. Collaborative: Ok, lets get this one definition straight.
We are talking about the Government being more collaborative, not people sitting around talking about fantasies while smoking joints.
How is legalizing Marijuana going to get the Government to improve on their collaboration skills?I'm not sure either.
Maybe they wrote that after they switched to hash that evening.I know I'll get flamed, and I'm not trying to argue that it should or should not be legalized, but what the study is for and the conclusions being stated about Marijuana are just not related from my viewpoint.
But as I remember back to 'hanging out' with my childhood friends, they usually were not thinking all so coherently about much of anything, and no doubt they were the ones 'brainstorming' here.
So why would I think this study would be any different?
Go figure.Give me a pothead over an alcoholic any day.
Bill Hicks said it best:"They lie about marijuana.
Tell you pot-smoking makes you unmotivated.
Lie! When you're high, you can do everything you normally do, just as well.
You just realize that it's not worth the fucking effort.
There is a difference.... Let's see, do I want to go to a job I hate to work for a life I don't want to live, or stay home and learn how to play the sitar?
"Or something like that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195549</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194973</id>
	<title>Re:The marijuana crowd is retarded</title>
	<author>mariushm</author>
	<datestamp>1244040300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some people won't bother growing themselves because it may not be worth it. You have to use a lot of electricity, the right humidity, have space, not everyone will care enough to learn how to grow their own stuff. Some people may also prefer to experiment with various types of marijuana, of various THC levels, and it's probably not that easy to grow 10 types of plants in your closet.</p><p>You could now have pots at the window with tomato plants for example, but you don't care to plant your own because it's cheaper and easier to just buy from store.</p><p>The state can easily place a 30-50\% tax on it and it will probably get cheaper than the current street prices in a few months after all the excitement is gone.<br>The state could also use laws to restrict growing plants at home to less than 10 plants for example and require you get a license if you want to grow more, and can get for example 10$ per plant per year from you in this case.<br>Or why not, let you buy seeds from an authorized seller, grow your stuff and sell it back to a company and make money legally.</p><p>Just because marijuana would be legal it doesn't mean anyone will be allowed to sell it, just like you're not allowed to make alcohol in your basement and sell it. You need a license to make sure the alcohol is safe for human consumption, and just like that, you could sell marijuana legally with a license that guarantees the plants have a minimum quality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some people wo n't bother growing themselves because it may not be worth it .
You have to use a lot of electricity , the right humidity , have space , not everyone will care enough to learn how to grow their own stuff .
Some people may also prefer to experiment with various types of marijuana , of various THC levels , and it 's probably not that easy to grow 10 types of plants in your closet.You could now have pots at the window with tomato plants for example , but you do n't care to plant your own because it 's cheaper and easier to just buy from store.The state can easily place a 30-50 \ % tax on it and it will probably get cheaper than the current street prices in a few months after all the excitement is gone.The state could also use laws to restrict growing plants at home to less than 10 plants for example and require you get a license if you want to grow more , and can get for example 10 $ per plant per year from you in this case.Or why not , let you buy seeds from an authorized seller , grow your stuff and sell it back to a company and make money legally.Just because marijuana would be legal it does n't mean anyone will be allowed to sell it , just like you 're not allowed to make alcohol in your basement and sell it .
You need a license to make sure the alcohol is safe for human consumption , and just like that , you could sell marijuana legally with a license that guarantees the plants have a minimum quality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some people won't bother growing themselves because it may not be worth it.
You have to use a lot of electricity, the right humidity, have space, not everyone will care enough to learn how to grow their own stuff.
Some people may also prefer to experiment with various types of marijuana, of various THC levels, and it's probably not that easy to grow 10 types of plants in your closet.You could now have pots at the window with tomato plants for example, but you don't care to plant your own because it's cheaper and easier to just buy from store.The state can easily place a 30-50\% tax on it and it will probably get cheaper than the current street prices in a few months after all the excitement is gone.The state could also use laws to restrict growing plants at home to less than 10 plants for example and require you get a license if you want to grow more, and can get for example 10$ per plant per year from you in this case.Or why not, let you buy seeds from an authorized seller, grow your stuff and sell it back to a company and make money legally.Just because marijuana would be legal it doesn't mean anyone will be allowed to sell it, just like you're not allowed to make alcohol in your basement and sell it.
You need a license to make sure the alcohol is safe for human consumption, and just like that, you could sell marijuana legally with a license that guarantees the plants have a minimum quality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28199685</id>
	<title>Re:The DEA should have got the memo by now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244060580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a web developer.  I make websites much better, faster, and error free while I'm high.  I enjoy my smoke, but it kind of sucks having to use a crutch to produce quality work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a web developer .
I make websites much better , faster , and error free while I 'm high .
I enjoy my smoke , but it kind of sucks having to use a crutch to produce quality work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a web developer.
I make websites much better, faster, and error free while I'm high.
I enjoy my smoke, but it kind of sucks having to use a crutch to produce quality work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28201431</id>
	<title>Re:The marijuana crowd is retarded</title>
	<author>FiloEleven</author>
	<datestamp>1244024160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Some people won't bother growing themselves because it may not be worth it. You have to use a lot of electricity, the right humidity, have space, not everyone will care enough to learn how to grow their own stuff.</p></div><p>Yep, a lot of people would rather pay for convenience, and there's a potential to take advantage of that.  Pre-rolled optionally filtered joints and blunts, pre-formed plugs you just pop into a pipe, or even just the good stuff from the bottom of a grinder so you don't have to remove stems and seeds yourself.</p><p>And then there's the idea of mixing it with food, the pothead's dream come true!  (It's been around for a long time, but there's all that <em>work</em> involved in baking brownies; it's much easier to wander down to the corner store for some "baked" goods.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some people wo n't bother growing themselves because it may not be worth it .
You have to use a lot of electricity , the right humidity , have space , not everyone will care enough to learn how to grow their own stuff.Yep , a lot of people would rather pay for convenience , and there 's a potential to take advantage of that .
Pre-rolled optionally filtered joints and blunts , pre-formed plugs you just pop into a pipe , or even just the good stuff from the bottom of a grinder so you do n't have to remove stems and seeds yourself.And then there 's the idea of mixing it with food , the pothead 's dream come true !
( It 's been around for a long time , but there 's all that work involved in baking brownies ; it 's much easier to wander down to the corner store for some " baked " goods .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some people won't bother growing themselves because it may not be worth it.
You have to use a lot of electricity, the right humidity, have space, not everyone will care enough to learn how to grow their own stuff.Yep, a lot of people would rather pay for convenience, and there's a potential to take advantage of that.
Pre-rolled optionally filtered joints and blunts, pre-formed plugs you just pop into a pipe, or even just the good stuff from the bottom of a grinder so you don't have to remove stems and seeds yourself.And then there's the idea of mixing it with food, the pothead's dream come true!
(It's been around for a long time, but there's all that work involved in baking brownies; it's much easier to wander down to the corner store for some "baked" goods.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28200609</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong Idea Form</title>
	<author>mdarksbane</author>
	<datestamp>1244021280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You assume that getting useful ideas out of this site was actually a goal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You assume that getting useful ideas out of this site was actually a goal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You assume that getting useful ideas out of this site was actually a goal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194319</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195289</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy is the problem</title>
	<author>OneSmartFellow</author>
	<datestamp>1244041860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><em>You are wrong. A bunch of dead white men from several hundred years ago don't know what's best for 2009.</em> <br> <br>
The OP probably can't be bothered to respond to your childish assertion, but I will.<br>
Your thinking is amazingly naive.  These were not "a bunch of old men", in fact most of them at the time were in the prime of their lives.  You may wish to read a little more about their collective backgrounds <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding\_Fathers\_of\_the\_United\_States" title="wikipedia.org">HERE</a> [wikipedia.org].<br> <br>
These were 'average' men in the sense that the diversity of their lives and experiences was wide, (I'll ignore the whole race issue, since it's actually completely insignificant, and impossible to understand anyway).  What they did (almost) all have was a decent standard of education, and time to think, and thus apply their knowledge to very difficult problems.  The fact that they came up with such a radical plan of self-governance which none-the-less presented a strong framework for the obvious success of the U.S. (when compared to most other governments in the word, past and present) indicates just how much they did know about 'the future' (which is now 2009), and the perils it held in store.<br> <br>I'm not worshiping the them as deities, but I think you should give credit where it's due.  I'm pretty certain that you would never be able to hold a candle to any of them in any intellectual pursuit, and the fact that you so easily dismiss them as old men out of touch with "the now" (and even included a racist slur, to boot) makes me realize that even this post is probably a waste of time.  You're very likely a lost cause.  But, at least you have the freedom to expose your ignorance for the rest of the world to see.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are wrong .
A bunch of dead white men from several hundred years ago do n't know what 's best for 2009 .
The OP probably ca n't be bothered to respond to your childish assertion , but I will .
Your thinking is amazingly naive .
These were not " a bunch of old men " , in fact most of them at the time were in the prime of their lives .
You may wish to read a little more about their collective backgrounds HERE [ wikipedia.org ] .
These were 'average ' men in the sense that the diversity of their lives and experiences was wide , ( I 'll ignore the whole race issue , since it 's actually completely insignificant , and impossible to understand anyway ) .
What they did ( almost ) all have was a decent standard of education , and time to think , and thus apply their knowledge to very difficult problems .
The fact that they came up with such a radical plan of self-governance which none-the-less presented a strong framework for the obvious success of the U.S. ( when compared to most other governments in the word , past and present ) indicates just how much they did know about 'the future ' ( which is now 2009 ) , and the perils it held in store .
I 'm not worshiping the them as deities , but I think you should give credit where it 's due .
I 'm pretty certain that you would never be able to hold a candle to any of them in any intellectual pursuit , and the fact that you so easily dismiss them as old men out of touch with " the now " ( and even included a racist slur , to boot ) makes me realize that even this post is probably a waste of time .
You 're very likely a lost cause .
But , at least you have the freedom to expose your ignorance for the rest of the world to see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are wrong.
A bunch of dead white men from several hundred years ago don't know what's best for 2009.
The OP probably can't be bothered to respond to your childish assertion, but I will.
Your thinking is amazingly naive.
These were not "a bunch of old men", in fact most of them at the time were in the prime of their lives.
You may wish to read a little more about their collective backgrounds HERE [wikipedia.org].
These were 'average' men in the sense that the diversity of their lives and experiences was wide, (I'll ignore the whole race issue, since it's actually completely insignificant, and impossible to understand anyway).
What they did (almost) all have was a decent standard of education, and time to think, and thus apply their knowledge to very difficult problems.
The fact that they came up with such a radical plan of self-governance which none-the-less presented a strong framework for the obvious success of the U.S. (when compared to most other governments in the word, past and present) indicates just how much they did know about 'the future' (which is now 2009), and the perils it held in store.
I'm not worshiping the them as deities, but I think you should give credit where it's due.
I'm pretty certain that you would never be able to hold a candle to any of them in any intellectual pursuit, and the fact that you so easily dismiss them as old men out of touch with "the now" (and even included a racist slur, to boot) makes me realize that even this post is probably a waste of time.
You're very likely a lost cause.
But, at least you have the freedom to expose your ignorance for the rest of the world to see.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28197739</id>
	<title>Re:Think about it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244051880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wow dude... I want some of whatever drug you are on that allows you believe the complete drivel you just posted.  I think there are also several pharmaceutical companies that would be interested in the substance you consume that produces such artificial feelings of success.  Oh, the money we could make together providing a safe, legal, drug (I.e. consumable non-food substance) to the masses that causes euphoric feelings of comfort, success, and contentment.  Of course, that would only last until it was made illegal, due to "concerns over the health of the constituents," despite the fact that a statistically insignificant number of corpses were found to have the drug in their systems.  Couple that with political rhetoric designed to ignore the fact that our wonder-powder was not a contributing factor and soon we too will be demonized and imprisoned along with our multi-million dollar (tax-paying) enterprise.  In a few years, the war on our magic powder will cost the government many times more than the money it made off of our company when it was legal.</p><p>P.S.  Did I completely miss the joke?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>wow dude... I want some of whatever drug you are on that allows you believe the complete drivel you just posted .
I think there are also several pharmaceutical companies that would be interested in the substance you consume that produces such artificial feelings of success .
Oh , the money we could make together providing a safe , legal , drug ( I.e .
consumable non-food substance ) to the masses that causes euphoric feelings of comfort , success , and contentment .
Of course , that would only last until it was made illegal , due to " concerns over the health of the constituents , " despite the fact that a statistically insignificant number of corpses were found to have the drug in their systems .
Couple that with political rhetoric designed to ignore the fact that our wonder-powder was not a contributing factor and soon we too will be demonized and imprisoned along with our multi-million dollar ( tax-paying ) enterprise .
In a few years , the war on our magic powder will cost the government many times more than the money it made off of our company when it was legal.P.S .
Did I completely miss the joke ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wow dude... I want some of whatever drug you are on that allows you believe the complete drivel you just posted.
I think there are also several pharmaceutical companies that would be interested in the substance you consume that produces such artificial feelings of success.
Oh, the money we could make together providing a safe, legal, drug (I.e.
consumable non-food substance) to the masses that causes euphoric feelings of comfort, success, and contentment.
Of course, that would only last until it was made illegal, due to "concerns over the health of the constituents," despite the fact that a statistically insignificant number of corpses were found to have the drug in their systems.
Couple that with political rhetoric designed to ignore the fact that our wonder-powder was not a contributing factor and soon we too will be demonized and imprisoned along with our multi-million dollar (tax-paying) enterprise.
In a few years, the war on our magic powder will cost the government many times more than the money it made off of our company when it was legal.P.S.
Did I completely miss the joke?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195085</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195219</id>
	<title>what the hell are you talking about?</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1244041500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"But we threw that away and now have the Rule of Men and our civilization is declining"</p><p>we did? when the hell did that happen?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" But we threw that away and now have the Rule of Men and our civilization is declining " we did ?
when the hell did that happen ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"But we threw that away and now have the Rule of Men and our civilization is declining"we did?
when the hell did that happen?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28198691</id>
	<title>Re:Think again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244055600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Legalization would save <b>cost</b> tens of billions of dollars <b>jobs</b> in law enforcement and prison system<b>s</b> fees.</i></p><p>Fixed that for you.</p><p>Not to mention a good portion of the testing and lab industry.</p><p>And therein lies the rub.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Legalization would save cost tens of billions of dollars jobs in law enforcement and prison systems fees.Fixed that for you.Not to mention a good portion of the testing and lab industry.And therein lies the rub .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Legalization would save cost tens of billions of dollars jobs in law enforcement and prison systems fees.Fixed that for you.Not to mention a good portion of the testing and lab industry.And therein lies the rub.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28199773</id>
	<title>Re:We all laugh</title>
	<author>Optic7</author>
	<datestamp>1244061060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like the AC said, in most cases that I recall, whenever this has come for a popular vote in various states, it has passed (at least decriminalization of medical marijuana).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like the AC said , in most cases that I recall , whenever this has come for a popular vote in various states , it has passed ( at least decriminalization of medical marijuana ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like the AC said, in most cases that I recall, whenever this has come for a popular vote in various states, it has passed (at least decriminalization of medical marijuana).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194357</id>
	<title>We all laugh</title>
	<author>mdarksbane</author>
	<datestamp>1244037360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But I think the fact that this issue keeps coming up shows that marijuana legalization isn't as much of a fringe, oddball, shouldn't-even-talk-about-it issue as some people seem to think. Polls are showing around half of the people in the US could go for completely legalization, and more than 70\% are in favor of medicinal legalization. It's kind of ridiculous that despite the support for this issue it is still considered such a non-issue.</p><p>Hell, the numbers in favor of legalization are *much* larger than the numbers in favor of gun control, and they still talk about trying to push that through!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But I think the fact that this issue keeps coming up shows that marijuana legalization is n't as much of a fringe , oddball , should n't-even-talk-about-it issue as some people seem to think .
Polls are showing around half of the people in the US could go for completely legalization , and more than 70 \ % are in favor of medicinal legalization .
It 's kind of ridiculous that despite the support for this issue it is still considered such a non-issue.Hell , the numbers in favor of legalization are * much * larger than the numbers in favor of gun control , and they still talk about trying to push that through !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I think the fact that this issue keeps coming up shows that marijuana legalization isn't as much of a fringe, oddball, shouldn't-even-talk-about-it issue as some people seem to think.
Polls are showing around half of the people in the US could go for completely legalization, and more than 70\% are in favor of medicinal legalization.
It's kind of ridiculous that despite the support for this issue it is still considered such a non-issue.Hell, the numbers in favor of legalization are *much* larger than the numbers in favor of gun control, and they still talk about trying to push that through!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196713</id>
	<title>Exactly:What does Marijuana have to do with this?</title>
	<author>Cajun Hell</author>
	<datestamp>1244047920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Say what? Let me analyse this point by point...</p></div></blockquote><p>
All your analysis focused on the druggies and totally missed the government.  I would ask <em>you</em>, "What does marijuana have to do with this?"  I think it has nothing to do with this.  <em>Legalization vs prohibition</em> of marijuana, though, is a totally different subject:
</p><p> <strong>Strengthen our democracy</strong>: Let's declare a bunch of people, none of who are infringing anyone else's rights, criminals.  Depending on to what degree we've made them criminals, let's stop allowing them to vote.
</p><p> <strong>Promote efficiency</strong>: Let's spend public money on cops, courts, and prisons to enforce laws that have no useful purpose.  Let's put people in prison, for no reason, so that they can't contribute to the GDP and their families are weakened so that they become more economically dependent on others.  Let's penalize domestic farmers to increase foreign market share. Let's create health care problems that we <em>all</em> end up paying for, by making people turn to black markets with dubious quality products.
</p><p>Or we could <em>stop</em> doing those things. Which scenario is more democratic? Which is more efficient?  (I'll admit I don't, off the top of my head, see how it's related to transparency and collaboration.)
</p><p>
I can almost buy the argument that prohibition is more perversely "democratic" since it actually <em>is</em> some people's nature to want to gang up on others.
</p><p>But <em>efficient?</em>  You've got be kidding.  In terms of government efficiency, legalization advocacy is right on topic and directly addresses problems that prohibition is causing.  They're not only on-topic, but they crush their opponents without even a close fight.  <em>Please,</em> pro-prohibition advocates, bring up efficiency or just about anything else related to the economy. Libertarians will eat you for breakfast.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Say what ?
Let me analyse this point by point.. . All your analysis focused on the druggies and totally missed the government .
I would ask you , " What does marijuana have to do with this ?
" I think it has nothing to do with this .
Legalization vs prohibition of marijuana , though , is a totally different subject : Strengthen our democracy : Let 's declare a bunch of people , none of who are infringing anyone else 's rights , criminals .
Depending on to what degree we 've made them criminals , let 's stop allowing them to vote .
Promote efficiency : Let 's spend public money on cops , courts , and prisons to enforce laws that have no useful purpose .
Let 's put people in prison , for no reason , so that they ca n't contribute to the GDP and their families are weakened so that they become more economically dependent on others .
Let 's penalize domestic farmers to increase foreign market share .
Let 's create health care problems that we all end up paying for , by making people turn to black markets with dubious quality products .
Or we could stop doing those things .
Which scenario is more democratic ?
Which is more efficient ?
( I 'll admit I do n't , off the top of my head , see how it 's related to transparency and collaboration .
) I can almost buy the argument that prohibition is more perversely " democratic " since it actually is some people 's nature to want to gang up on others .
But efficient ?
You 've got be kidding .
In terms of government efficiency , legalization advocacy is right on topic and directly addresses problems that prohibition is causing .
They 're not only on-topic , but they crush their opponents without even a close fight .
Please , pro-prohibition advocates , bring up efficiency or just about anything else related to the economy .
Libertarians will eat you for breakfast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say what?
Let me analyse this point by point...
All your analysis focused on the druggies and totally missed the government.
I would ask you, "What does marijuana have to do with this?
"  I think it has nothing to do with this.
Legalization vs prohibition of marijuana, though, is a totally different subject:
 Strengthen our democracy: Let's declare a bunch of people, none of who are infringing anyone else's rights, criminals.
Depending on to what degree we've made them criminals, let's stop allowing them to vote.
Promote efficiency: Let's spend public money on cops, courts, and prisons to enforce laws that have no useful purpose.
Let's put people in prison, for no reason, so that they can't contribute to the GDP and their families are weakened so that they become more economically dependent on others.
Let's penalize domestic farmers to increase foreign market share.
Let's create health care problems that we all end up paying for, by making people turn to black markets with dubious quality products.
Or we could stop doing those things.
Which scenario is more democratic?
Which is more efficient?
(I'll admit I don't, off the top of my head, see how it's related to transparency and collaboration.
)

I can almost buy the argument that prohibition is more perversely "democratic" since it actually is some people's nature to want to gang up on others.
But efficient?
You've got be kidding.
In terms of government efficiency, legalization advocacy is right on topic and directly addresses problems that prohibition is causing.
They're not only on-topic, but they crush their opponents without even a close fight.
Please, pro-prohibition advocates, bring up efficiency or just about anything else related to the economy.
Libertarians will eat you for breakfast.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195549</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195481</id>
	<title>Re:The marijuana crowd is retarded</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244042700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hold on. We're flying from one extreme to the other.</p><p>The stuff grown indoors is so powerful  that it would rocket you out past the asteroid belt. That's super-high-grade ultra-amazing stuff.</p><p>That would be the kind of thing the super-rich can, and do, afford. The average person would probably be able to enjoy a toke at a very reasonable price.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hold on .
We 're flying from one extreme to the other.The stuff grown indoors is so powerful that it would rocket you out past the asteroid belt .
That 's super-high-grade ultra-amazing stuff.That would be the kind of thing the super-rich can , and do , afford .
The average person would probably be able to enjoy a toke at a very reasonable price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hold on.
We're flying from one extreme to the other.The stuff grown indoors is so powerful  that it would rocket you out past the asteroid belt.
That's super-high-grade ultra-amazing stuff.That would be the kind of thing the super-rich can, and do, afford.
The average person would probably be able to enjoy a toke at a very reasonable price.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28202005</id>
	<title>Re:Related, in a way</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244026020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spend more than five seconds thinking about it and it's incredibly retarded.</p><p>I can attack the US *and* have much greater odds of killing the families of the government! Or I can get away with doing a whole bunch of lower level stuff because the US leadership is afraid for the lives of their family!</p><p>Not to mention that we're in a democracy and the leadership changes regularly. Should the families of all the current Congress be on the front lines in Afghanistan right now? Even though some of them weren't even in the federal government in 2001?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spend more than five seconds thinking about it and it 's incredibly retarded.I can attack the US * and * have much greater odds of killing the families of the government !
Or I can get away with doing a whole bunch of lower level stuff because the US leadership is afraid for the lives of their family ! Not to mention that we 're in a democracy and the leadership changes regularly .
Should the families of all the current Congress be on the front lines in Afghanistan right now ?
Even though some of them were n't even in the federal government in 2001 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spend more than five seconds thinking about it and it's incredibly retarded.I can attack the US *and* have much greater odds of killing the families of the government!
Or I can get away with doing a whole bunch of lower level stuff because the US leadership is afraid for the lives of their family!Not to mention that we're in a democracy and the leadership changes regularly.
Should the families of all the current Congress be on the front lines in Afghanistan right now?
Even though some of them weren't even in the federal government in 2001?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28199507</id>
	<title>Obama birth certificate</title>
	<author>The Iso</author>
	<datestamp>1244059620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The actual #1 idea, with almost two thousand net votes, is about how annoying all the posts demanding to see Obama's birth certificate are.</p><p><a href="http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/4387-4049" title="ideascale.com">http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/4387-4049</a> [ideascale.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The actual # 1 idea , with almost two thousand net votes , is about how annoying all the posts demanding to see Obama 's birth certificate are.http : //opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/4387-4049 [ ideascale.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The actual #1 idea, with almost two thousand net votes, is about how annoying all the posts demanding to see Obama's birth certificate are.http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/4387-4049 [ideascale.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194593</id>
	<title>Re:We all laugh</title>
	<author>1u3hr</author>
	<datestamp>1244038680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>they've had enough life experience that they've figured out more drugs isn't the answer to society's problems</i> <p>
That is irrelevant to the question of legalisation. </p><p>And more likely people know that to get on in their career, they had better not espouse support for such an idea, or draw attention from law enforcement -- if you are sporting a "Legalise marijuana" bumper sticker,  you'd have to be prepared to have your car, and your person, searched rather more often than otherwise, for example.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they 've had enough life experience that they 've figured out more drugs is n't the answer to society 's problems That is irrelevant to the question of legalisation .
And more likely people know that to get on in their career , they had better not espouse support for such an idea , or draw attention from law enforcement -- if you are sporting a " Legalise marijuana " bumper sticker , you 'd have to be prepared to have your car , and your person , searched rather more often than otherwise , for example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they've had enough life experience that they've figured out more drugs isn't the answer to society's problems 
That is irrelevant to the question of legalisation.
And more likely people know that to get on in their career, they had better not espouse support for such an idea, or draw attention from law enforcement -- if you are sporting a "Legalise marijuana" bumper sticker,  you'd have to be prepared to have your car, and your person, searched rather more often than otherwise, for example.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196201</id>
	<title>Weed = Ugh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244045640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it's legalized so you could smoke it in your home or designated places then fine, but no way am I gonna stand for having to suck in second-hand weed smoke. It's bad enough with cigarettes and shit already; I don't want to add weed smoke to that!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's legalized so you could smoke it in your home or designated places then fine , but no way am I gon na stand for having to suck in second-hand weed smoke .
It 's bad enough with cigarettes and shit already ; I do n't want to add weed smoke to that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's legalized so you could smoke it in your home or designated places then fine, but no way am I gonna stand for having to suck in second-hand weed smoke.
It's bad enough with cigarettes and shit already; I don't want to add weed smoke to that!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196211</id>
	<title>Re:The marijuana crowd is retarded</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244045700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many people do you know that drink beer or wine?<br>How many of those people make their own?</p><p>I can't claim to speak for all potheads across this continent, but I can tell you what I predict based on my own opinion and based on discussions I've had with fellow pot heads.</p><p>Many of us would grow, absolutely. Many of us do today. The majority of us though are excited by the prospect of being able to walk into a dispensary and being able to pick between different types of bud and knowing that the quality is going to be good. The majority of us love the idea of sitting down at a cafe and being able to order raw marijuana for smoking/vaporization or purchasing edibles.</p><p>Even if you're right and everyone runs out and starts their own little gardens then at best that indicates that legalization does not ensure huge revenue from sales. There are still other items to consider: the financial costs of the war on drugs (from enforcement to jailhouses), freeing up police resources to deal with more severe crimes, lost revenue from people imprisoned for simple possession or other non-violent drug related offenses who otherwise would have been paying income tax.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many people do you know that drink beer or wine ? How many of those people make their own ? I ca n't claim to speak for all potheads across this continent , but I can tell you what I predict based on my own opinion and based on discussions I 've had with fellow pot heads.Many of us would grow , absolutely .
Many of us do today .
The majority of us though are excited by the prospect of being able to walk into a dispensary and being able to pick between different types of bud and knowing that the quality is going to be good .
The majority of us love the idea of sitting down at a cafe and being able to order raw marijuana for smoking/vaporization or purchasing edibles.Even if you 're right and everyone runs out and starts their own little gardens then at best that indicates that legalization does not ensure huge revenue from sales .
There are still other items to consider : the financial costs of the war on drugs ( from enforcement to jailhouses ) , freeing up police resources to deal with more severe crimes , lost revenue from people imprisoned for simple possession or other non-violent drug related offenses who otherwise would have been paying income tax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many people do you know that drink beer or wine?How many of those people make their own?I can't claim to speak for all potheads across this continent, but I can tell you what I predict based on my own opinion and based on discussions I've had with fellow pot heads.Many of us would grow, absolutely.
Many of us do today.
The majority of us though are excited by the prospect of being able to walk into a dispensary and being able to pick between different types of bud and knowing that the quality is going to be good.
The majority of us love the idea of sitting down at a cafe and being able to order raw marijuana for smoking/vaporization or purchasing edibles.Even if you're right and everyone runs out and starts their own little gardens then at best that indicates that legalization does not ensure huge revenue from sales.
There are still other items to consider: the financial costs of the war on drugs (from enforcement to jailhouses), freeing up police resources to deal with more severe crimes, lost revenue from people imprisoned for simple possession or other non-violent drug related offenses who otherwise would have been paying income tax.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28198235</id>
	<title>Re:We all laugh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244053740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that you've just hit on the best way to frame the issue from a political standpoint. What many pro-legalization proponents fail to realize is that most of the populace has very little sympathy for drug users, justified or not. These proponents have been shouting for years that it should be their right to do what they want with their bodies. Unfortunately, while making of it an issue of constitutional rights persuades a small group of people (myself included), most people just don't care.</p><p>Likewise, talking about the cost of incarceration is similarly unproductive. Again, people tend not to have sympathy for criminals, and whether the laws are justified or not, drug users are *by definition* criminals.</p><p>However, I believe that if someone could tabulate how many <b>completely innocent</b> Americans have died as a result of the drug war, that would be a more potent argument that would give the politicians in favor of legalization good cover.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that you 've just hit on the best way to frame the issue from a political standpoint .
What many pro-legalization proponents fail to realize is that most of the populace has very little sympathy for drug users , justified or not .
These proponents have been shouting for years that it should be their right to do what they want with their bodies .
Unfortunately , while making of it an issue of constitutional rights persuades a small group of people ( myself included ) , most people just do n't care.Likewise , talking about the cost of incarceration is similarly unproductive .
Again , people tend not to have sympathy for criminals , and whether the laws are justified or not , drug users are * by definition * criminals.However , I believe that if someone could tabulate how many completely innocent Americans have died as a result of the drug war , that would be a more potent argument that would give the politicians in favor of legalization good cover .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that you've just hit on the best way to frame the issue from a political standpoint.
What many pro-legalization proponents fail to realize is that most of the populace has very little sympathy for drug users, justified or not.
These proponents have been shouting for years that it should be their right to do what they want with their bodies.
Unfortunately, while making of it an issue of constitutional rights persuades a small group of people (myself included), most people just don't care.Likewise, talking about the cost of incarceration is similarly unproductive.
Again, people tend not to have sympathy for criminals, and whether the laws are justified or not, drug users are *by definition* criminals.However, I believe that if someone could tabulate how many completely innocent Americans have died as a result of the drug war, that would be a more potent argument that would give the politicians in favor of legalization good cover.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28197629</id>
	<title>Re:Gov't logic reguarding the risk of legalization</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244051520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And street corner drug dealers, and the imprisoned<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... won't someone think of the Unemployent Rate?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And street corner drug dealers , and the imprisoned ... wo n't someone think of the Unemployent Rate ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And street corner drug dealers, and the imprisoned ... won't someone think of the Unemployent Rate?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196465</id>
	<title>Re:Gov't logic reguarding the risk of legalization</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244046960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Think of the huge boost in tourism if this ever went through.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Think of the huge boost in tourism if this ever went through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think of the huge boost in tourism if this ever went through.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195179</id>
	<title>Wisdom of crowds is misnamed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244041380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...It's the wisdom of the underemployed and overeducated amongst the crowd, not the crowd itself. In the case of Wikipedia, bored graduate students and post-collegiate basement dwellers wrote an encyclopedia, but the "average net user" never touched it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...It 's the wisdom of the underemployed and overeducated amongst the crowd , not the crowd itself .
In the case of Wikipedia , bored graduate students and post-collegiate basement dwellers wrote an encyclopedia , but the " average net user " never touched it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...It's the wisdom of the underemployed and overeducated amongst the crowd, not the crowd itself.
In the case of Wikipedia, bored graduate students and post-collegiate basement dwellers wrote an encyclopedia, but the "average net user" never touched it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28201013</id>
	<title>Re:Related, in a way</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244022660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yar, following the "drug" units in school, I assumed Marijuana being illegal was for the best.  But thinking back, the worst they said about it was that it was a "gateway" drug, leading completely inevitably to "hard" drugs, who's dangers they described in detail.<br>
<br>
When you actually look at the facts, marijuana is certainly less dangerous then alcohol and possibly less dangerous then tobacco.<br>
<br>
And then there's the benefits.  Forget "rarer use of violence" etc, that's probably just statistical noise or correlation vs causation.  No, the real benefits come when you look at the "arrest log" in your local paper.  In my area, 1/2 to 3/4 of arrests are for possession of marijuana, every day.  Sure, most of them won't end up in jail, but some will.  The US imprisons more of its population (by \%) then any other country.  Second place is China.  The major reason... the war on drugs.  And it isn't working.  The savings from no longer prosecuting and imprisoning people for marijuana use would be... well I don't want to make up numbers, but it's quite large.<br>
<br>
And then there's the side effects of marijuana being illegal.  By which I mean hemp being illegal, mostly.  Paper, thread, whatever.  The point is that it's better then the alternatives in many applications and you can't smoke it to get high, but it's still illegal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yar , following the " drug " units in school , I assumed Marijuana being illegal was for the best .
But thinking back , the worst they said about it was that it was a " gateway " drug , leading completely inevitably to " hard " drugs , who 's dangers they described in detail .
When you actually look at the facts , marijuana is certainly less dangerous then alcohol and possibly less dangerous then tobacco .
And then there 's the benefits .
Forget " rarer use of violence " etc , that 's probably just statistical noise or correlation vs causation .
No , the real benefits come when you look at the " arrest log " in your local paper .
In my area , 1/2 to 3/4 of arrests are for possession of marijuana , every day .
Sure , most of them wo n't end up in jail , but some will .
The US imprisons more of its population ( by \ % ) then any other country .
Second place is China .
The major reason... the war on drugs .
And it is n't working .
The savings from no longer prosecuting and imprisoning people for marijuana use would be... well I do n't want to make up numbers , but it 's quite large .
And then there 's the side effects of marijuana being illegal .
By which I mean hemp being illegal , mostly .
Paper , thread , whatever .
The point is that it 's better then the alternatives in many applications and you ca n't smoke it to get high , but it 's still illegal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yar, following the "drug" units in school, I assumed Marijuana being illegal was for the best.
But thinking back, the worst they said about it was that it was a "gateway" drug, leading completely inevitably to "hard" drugs, who's dangers they described in detail.
When you actually look at the facts, marijuana is certainly less dangerous then alcohol and possibly less dangerous then tobacco.
And then there's the benefits.
Forget "rarer use of violence" etc, that's probably just statistical noise or correlation vs causation.
No, the real benefits come when you look at the "arrest log" in your local paper.
In my area, 1/2 to 3/4 of arrests are for possession of marijuana, every day.
Sure, most of them won't end up in jail, but some will.
The US imprisons more of its population (by \%) then any other country.
Second place is China.
The major reason... the war on drugs.
And it isn't working.
The savings from no longer prosecuting and imprisoning people for marijuana use would be... well I don't want to make up numbers, but it's quite large.
And then there's the side effects of marijuana being illegal.
By which I mean hemp being illegal, mostly.
Paper, thread, whatever.
The point is that it's better then the alternatives in many applications and you can't smoke it to get high, but it's still illegal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194291</id>
	<title>Painful to Watch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244036940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>

So on the frton page of the site, I counted more than ten "ideas" from one individual reading all the same (with a handful of votes to each!).  They all read:<p><div class="quote"><p>Hey folks, it seems that the administration is at it again. All of my posts have been removed regarding Obamas legitimacy of his birth certificate. It seems all of you that feel the same way will have yours removed sonner or later so that the ideas input portion of this website seems to consist mostly of garbage that doesnt really natter to true conservatives... How Sad Obama... You can change a leopards spots but you will never change the leopard.</p></div><p>Are there no abuse policy/software in place to catch this?  <br> <br>

Even the other users like a person named 'obamawatch' is ranting about the president's birth certificate.  I'm embarrassed enough for all parties involved--is this the "YouTube of the Government" to them?  This is really what you say when you get the chance to make suggestions to your government?  <br> <br>

Where's the "Ron Paul Should Be President" +75,496 idea? <br> <br>

I hate to say it but this might almost not work for a population the size of America.  I know on a smaller scale (like in Hennepin County, Minnesota) they get useful ideas from the populace with very realistic goals.  I dare say the only way this could work on a national level is to require the user to put in their SSN &amp; birthdate for verification and banning for repeated abuse.  But I don't like information going through IdeaScale one bit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So on the frton page of the site , I counted more than ten " ideas " from one individual reading all the same ( with a handful of votes to each ! ) .
They all read : Hey folks , it seems that the administration is at it again .
All of my posts have been removed regarding Obamas legitimacy of his birth certificate .
It seems all of you that feel the same way will have yours removed sonner or later so that the ideas input portion of this website seems to consist mostly of garbage that doesnt really natter to true conservatives... How Sad Obama... You can change a leopards spots but you will never change the leopard.Are there no abuse policy/software in place to catch this ?
Even the other users like a person named 'obamawatch ' is ranting about the president 's birth certificate .
I 'm embarrassed enough for all parties involved--is this the " YouTube of the Government " to them ?
This is really what you say when you get the chance to make suggestions to your government ?
Where 's the " Ron Paul Should Be President " + 75,496 idea ?
I hate to say it but this might almost not work for a population the size of America .
I know on a smaller scale ( like in Hennepin County , Minnesota ) they get useful ideas from the populace with very realistic goals .
I dare say the only way this could work on a national level is to require the user to put in their SSN &amp; birthdate for verification and banning for repeated abuse .
But I do n't like information going through IdeaScale one bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

So on the frton page of the site, I counted more than ten "ideas" from one individual reading all the same (with a handful of votes to each!).
They all read:Hey folks, it seems that the administration is at it again.
All of my posts have been removed regarding Obamas legitimacy of his birth certificate.
It seems all of you that feel the same way will have yours removed sonner or later so that the ideas input portion of this website seems to consist mostly of garbage that doesnt really natter to true conservatives... How Sad Obama... You can change a leopards spots but you will never change the leopard.Are there no abuse policy/software in place to catch this?
Even the other users like a person named 'obamawatch' is ranting about the president's birth certificate.
I'm embarrassed enough for all parties involved--is this the "YouTube of the Government" to them?
This is really what you say when you get the chance to make suggestions to your government?
Where's the "Ron Paul Should Be President" +75,496 idea?
I hate to say it but this might almost not work for a population the size of America.
I know on a smaller scale (like in Hennepin County, Minnesota) they get useful ideas from the populace with very realistic goals.
I dare say the only way this could work on a national level is to require the user to put in their SSN &amp; birthdate for verification and banning for repeated abuse.
But I don't like information going through IdeaScale one bit.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194825</id>
	<title>Re:The marijuana crowd is retarded</title>
	<author>ikefox</author>
	<datestamp>1244039760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>And you're using TOBACCO as an example? You do realize tobacco is a plant that grows anywhere, right? But how many people are growing it themselves to make their own cigarettes?

The price of cannabis is directly linked to its illegality. After 10 years of it being legal, an quarter ounce of marijuana will cost as much as a six pack of beer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And you 're using TOBACCO as an example ?
You do realize tobacco is a plant that grows anywhere , right ?
But how many people are growing it themselves to make their own cigarettes ?
The price of cannabis is directly linked to its illegality .
After 10 years of it being legal , an quarter ounce of marijuana will cost as much as a six pack of beer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you're using TOBACCO as an example?
You do realize tobacco is a plant that grows anywhere, right?
But how many people are growing it themselves to make their own cigarettes?
The price of cannabis is directly linked to its illegality.
After 10 years of it being legal, an quarter ounce of marijuana will cost as much as a six pack of beer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28204697</id>
	<title>No it  doesn't, it's a stupid idea</title>
	<author>NotSoHeavyD3</author>
	<datestamp>1244040000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if you don't count how blantantly unfair it is. (I mean I was under the impression once you're an adult your life is your life to make your own decisions.) However even not considering that and even spotting you that you meant to say only people who vote for it have to have their kids go. I know, you were too busy with one of your liberal mental masturbations to actually think this one through but you have to look at the other side, you're basically affecting what people will run for office. Of course if someone doesn't have any kids this is a non issue so figure quite a few of the childless will run. Unfortunately what are they going to think about issues involving children. Gee, that will be great for education issues.(I'm sure they give a shit about your kids' high school.)</p><p>

But of course that wasn't your point, it was about people who do have kids. Now it's not just a decision about his life, he's definitely going to think about his kids.(And possibly screwing his kids over) At this point you're probably wacking off or something, completely sweaty figuring nobody will vote for a war since his kids will pay and that gets you all hot or something. However I actually see this playing out one of 2 ways. The first group will just say fuck it and not even run or anything. Even if they agree with a war they don't know if their kids do and their kids are adults with lives of their own, why screw them over. It's just easier to not run in the first place and never have to risk it. Even if you ran and got in now you have to weight how badly your kids get screwed over.(And then make a decision that may or may not have more to do with what your kid is doing now.) You might vote no even on what might be a reasonable war and then get creamed in the next election when you get figuratively raped by your opponent.</p><p>

However there is a group that could make this decision fairly easily and you're giving them a huge advantage by holding this over everybody's heads. That would be people who have a family tradition of military service to begin with. Think about it, if I'm in a family where everybody joins up anyway then this is nothing. Hell, in that case my kids can join up early, I could pull a few strings and get them a commission or something and all of a sudden that being on the front line isn't the hard slog you want it to be.(When the war isn't on they'd have a better pay grade, better quarters, possibly be in the reserves, etc.) The kids would get any advantage they could and since they'd have generations of service they'd get the best the military has to offer.(Especially since daddy's an important politician.) Then if they wanted to they could use that advantage to run for office since now they have a history in the military and a family that does politics. Even when a war was on I could use my military and political connections to make sure the "front" they're at isn't the super dangerous one you were hoping for. (The front can cover quite a bit of area and wouldn't you know it, maybe my kids division is going to be in a defensive position and not storm anything.) That reminds me, who exactly makes the determination of what the most dangerous thing is? Gee, maybe it'd be somebody in the military or politics. If I'm a politician with a military back ground can you say "pull a few fucking strings" to get something ranked as "dangerous" that might not be the most dangerous thing around.(You really haven't thought this one through have you?)</p><p>

Anyway this should worry you for a couple of reasons. First off last I checked military people tend to vote Republican. (I'm probably not far off thinking you're not one.) However the part that should really worry you is you're basically setting up an old boys network of military politicians. I would expect that they probably arn't as opposed to using military force as you would want them to be. Furthermore that old "chicken-hawk" canard won't be so effective when you throw it at someone who's got generations of military experience. I mean hell, you're basically crea</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if you do n't count how blantantly unfair it is .
( I mean I was under the impression once you 're an adult your life is your life to make your own decisions .
) However even not considering that and even spotting you that you meant to say only people who vote for it have to have their kids go .
I know , you were too busy with one of your liberal mental masturbations to actually think this one through but you have to look at the other side , you 're basically affecting what people will run for office .
Of course if someone does n't have any kids this is a non issue so figure quite a few of the childless will run .
Unfortunately what are they going to think about issues involving children .
Gee , that will be great for education issues .
( I 'm sure they give a shit about your kids ' high school .
) But of course that was n't your point , it was about people who do have kids .
Now it 's not just a decision about his life , he 's definitely going to think about his kids .
( And possibly screwing his kids over ) At this point you 're probably wacking off or something , completely sweaty figuring nobody will vote for a war since his kids will pay and that gets you all hot or something .
However I actually see this playing out one of 2 ways .
The first group will just say fuck it and not even run or anything .
Even if they agree with a war they do n't know if their kids do and their kids are adults with lives of their own , why screw them over .
It 's just easier to not run in the first place and never have to risk it .
Even if you ran and got in now you have to weight how badly your kids get screwed over .
( And then make a decision that may or may not have more to do with what your kid is doing now .
) You might vote no even on what might be a reasonable war and then get creamed in the next election when you get figuratively raped by your opponent .
However there is a group that could make this decision fairly easily and you 're giving them a huge advantage by holding this over everybody 's heads .
That would be people who have a family tradition of military service to begin with .
Think about it , if I 'm in a family where everybody joins up anyway then this is nothing .
Hell , in that case my kids can join up early , I could pull a few strings and get them a commission or something and all of a sudden that being on the front line is n't the hard slog you want it to be .
( When the war is n't on they 'd have a better pay grade , better quarters , possibly be in the reserves , etc .
) The kids would get any advantage they could and since they 'd have generations of service they 'd get the best the military has to offer .
( Especially since daddy 's an important politician .
) Then if they wanted to they could use that advantage to run for office since now they have a history in the military and a family that does politics .
Even when a war was on I could use my military and political connections to make sure the " front " they 're at is n't the super dangerous one you were hoping for .
( The front can cover quite a bit of area and would n't you know it , maybe my kids division is going to be in a defensive position and not storm anything .
) That reminds me , who exactly makes the determination of what the most dangerous thing is ?
Gee , maybe it 'd be somebody in the military or politics .
If I 'm a politician with a military back ground can you say " pull a few fucking strings " to get something ranked as " dangerous " that might not be the most dangerous thing around .
( You really have n't thought this one through have you ?
) Anyway this should worry you for a couple of reasons .
First off last I checked military people tend to vote Republican .
( I 'm probably not far off thinking you 're not one .
) However the part that should really worry you is you 're basically setting up an old boys network of military politicians .
I would expect that they probably ar n't as opposed to using military force as you would want them to be .
Furthermore that old " chicken-hawk " canard wo n't be so effective when you throw it at someone who 's got generations of military experience .
I mean hell , you 're basically crea</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if you don't count how blantantly unfair it is.
(I mean I was under the impression once you're an adult your life is your life to make your own decisions.
) However even not considering that and even spotting you that you meant to say only people who vote for it have to have their kids go.
I know, you were too busy with one of your liberal mental masturbations to actually think this one through but you have to look at the other side, you're basically affecting what people will run for office.
Of course if someone doesn't have any kids this is a non issue so figure quite a few of the childless will run.
Unfortunately what are they going to think about issues involving children.
Gee, that will be great for education issues.
(I'm sure they give a shit about your kids' high school.
)

But of course that wasn't your point, it was about people who do have kids.
Now it's not just a decision about his life, he's definitely going to think about his kids.
(And possibly screwing his kids over) At this point you're probably wacking off or something, completely sweaty figuring nobody will vote for a war since his kids will pay and that gets you all hot or something.
However I actually see this playing out one of 2 ways.
The first group will just say fuck it and not even run or anything.
Even if they agree with a war they don't know if their kids do and their kids are adults with lives of their own, why screw them over.
It's just easier to not run in the first place and never have to risk it.
Even if you ran and got in now you have to weight how badly your kids get screwed over.
(And then make a decision that may or may not have more to do with what your kid is doing now.
) You might vote no even on what might be a reasonable war and then get creamed in the next election when you get figuratively raped by your opponent.
However there is a group that could make this decision fairly easily and you're giving them a huge advantage by holding this over everybody's heads.
That would be people who have a family tradition of military service to begin with.
Think about it, if I'm in a family where everybody joins up anyway then this is nothing.
Hell, in that case my kids can join up early, I could pull a few strings and get them a commission or something and all of a sudden that being on the front line isn't the hard slog you want it to be.
(When the war isn't on they'd have a better pay grade, better quarters, possibly be in the reserves, etc.
) The kids would get any advantage they could and since they'd have generations of service they'd get the best the military has to offer.
(Especially since daddy's an important politician.
) Then if they wanted to they could use that advantage to run for office since now they have a history in the military and a family that does politics.
Even when a war was on I could use my military and political connections to make sure the "front" they're at isn't the super dangerous one you were hoping for.
(The front can cover quite a bit of area and wouldn't you know it, maybe my kids division is going to be in a defensive position and not storm anything.
) That reminds me, who exactly makes the determination of what the most dangerous thing is?
Gee, maybe it'd be somebody in the military or politics.
If I'm a politician with a military back ground can you say "pull a few fucking strings" to get something ranked as "dangerous" that might not be the most dangerous thing around.
(You really haven't thought this one through have you?
)

Anyway this should worry you for a couple of reasons.
First off last I checked military people tend to vote Republican.
(I'm probably not far off thinking you're not one.
) However the part that should really worry you is you're basically setting up an old boys network of military politicians.
I would expect that they probably arn't as opposed to using military force as you would want them to be.
Furthermore that old "chicken-hawk" canard won't be so effective when you throw it at someone who's got generations of military experience.
I mean hell, you're basically crea</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194645</id>
	<title>Re:Hey, wait a minute...</title>
	<author>ynohoo</author>
	<datestamp>1244038980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>if all the candidates are already bought and paid for by corporate interests, then the election is a sham, just like in single party states.

The single party in US elections is the Corporate Party, which seeks to hide its own existence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>if all the candidates are already bought and paid for by corporate interests , then the election is a sham , just like in single party states .
The single party in US elections is the Corporate Party , which seeks to hide its own existence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if all the candidates are already bought and paid for by corporate interests, then the election is a sham, just like in single party states.
The single party in US elections is the Corporate Party, which seeks to hide its own existence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28197387</id>
	<title>Re:Related, in a way</title>
	<author>GooberToo</author>
	<datestamp>1244050560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>heavily criticizing Bush's presidency and calling out what happened in Iraq as war crimes, as they should be called. That is a serious one, and I for one am glad that it got voted up top.</i></p><p>People who vote for this only show they are complete idiots and have no clue what the hell the word, "war", means in the first place. Attempting to hold Bush and others as war criminals only means the world is full of war criminals. Furthermore, the famed legends of WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam are also war criminals - as are all supporters of the "War On Drugs". Not to mention everyone behind every other conflict which has ever occurred in the world to date.</p><p>The simple truth is, the "crimes" Bush committed pale in comparison to those committed during every other significant world conflict. Now grow up and realize the world is not just and this course of action is nothing but a waste of time, money, and resources when there are so many other important issues which really matter. Hell, by extension, Obama is now a "war criminal." You willing to after him too?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>heavily criticizing Bush 's presidency and calling out what happened in Iraq as war crimes , as they should be called .
That is a serious one , and I for one am glad that it got voted up top.People who vote for this only show they are complete idiots and have no clue what the hell the word , " war " , means in the first place .
Attempting to hold Bush and others as war criminals only means the world is full of war criminals .
Furthermore , the famed legends of WWI , WWII , Korea , and Vietnam are also war criminals - as are all supporters of the " War On Drugs " .
Not to mention everyone behind every other conflict which has ever occurred in the world to date.The simple truth is , the " crimes " Bush committed pale in comparison to those committed during every other significant world conflict .
Now grow up and realize the world is not just and this course of action is nothing but a waste of time , money , and resources when there are so many other important issues which really matter .
Hell , by extension , Obama is now a " war criminal .
" You willing to after him too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>heavily criticizing Bush's presidency and calling out what happened in Iraq as war crimes, as they should be called.
That is a serious one, and I for one am glad that it got voted up top.People who vote for this only show they are complete idiots and have no clue what the hell the word, "war", means in the first place.
Attempting to hold Bush and others as war criminals only means the world is full of war criminals.
Furthermore, the famed legends of WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam are also war criminals - as are all supporters of the "War On Drugs".
Not to mention everyone behind every other conflict which has ever occurred in the world to date.The simple truth is, the "crimes" Bush committed pale in comparison to those committed during every other significant world conflict.
Now grow up and realize the world is not just and this course of action is nothing but a waste of time, money, and resources when there are so many other important issues which really matter.
Hell, by extension, Obama is now a "war criminal.
" You willing to after him too?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195863</id>
	<title>Drugs and cold cases</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244044260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Norway, a country of almost five million people, there are 17 unsolved murder cases. Major cities in USA of comparative sizes generally have thousands of unsolved murder cases. I am wondering if part of the reason could be that the police in USA is wasting money on the "War on Drugs" and putting stoners in jail rather than solving actual criminial cases. Note that this is the number of unsolved cases. USA only has a few times more murder than Norway, but the cases are much more likely to turn cold in USA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Norway , a country of almost five million people , there are 17 unsolved murder cases .
Major cities in USA of comparative sizes generally have thousands of unsolved murder cases .
I am wondering if part of the reason could be that the police in USA is wasting money on the " War on Drugs " and putting stoners in jail rather than solving actual criminial cases .
Note that this is the number of unsolved cases .
USA only has a few times more murder than Norway , but the cases are much more likely to turn cold in USA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Norway, a country of almost five million people, there are 17 unsolved murder cases.
Major cities in USA of comparative sizes generally have thousands of unsolved murder cases.
I am wondering if part of the reason could be that the police in USA is wasting money on the "War on Drugs" and putting stoners in jail rather than solving actual criminial cases.
Note that this is the number of unsolved cases.
USA only has a few times more murder than Norway, but the cases are much more likely to turn cold in USA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195701</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong Idea Form</title>
	<author>morgan\_greywolf</author>
	<datestamp>1244043660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's not coherent, it's not helping, it's nothing but internet drivel.</p></div><p>Hey!  I resemble that remark!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not coherent , it 's not helping , it 's nothing but internet drivel.Hey !
I resemble that remark !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not coherent, it's not helping, it's nothing but internet drivel.Hey!
I resemble that remark!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194319</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196439</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy is the problem</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1244046780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Democracy means if you have a group of a hundred people, fifty one can vote to piss in the Corn Flakes of the other forty nine and if everyone believes in Democracy there can't be any objections if the votes were counted properly.</p></div><p>Even though I am an outspoken critic of our current democratic systems, that is a very simplified view.</p><p>You have to view a democracy as an entity that exists in time, and - like a game of Nomic - can change its own rules. As such, it is likely that someone has thought of this problem before, and proposed to add a rule to the record that says something like "votes of pissing into other people's corn flakes need a 2/3 majority to pass".</p><p>Now you'd counter that then 2/3 of the people will vote "yes" and piss into the other 1/3rds breakfast. However, then you forgot that the acting entities are human beings, and there are fairly well-established thresholds of ethical behaviour. There's a fairly good chance that more than 1/3rd of the voting people here would vote "no" for moral reasons.</p><p>But, they can be fooled, tricked, manipulated, etc.</p><p>The main problem of modern society is <b>not</b> that half the people vote to take the other half's stuff. The main problem is that over and over again, 3/4 or so of the people vote for things that they<br>a) don't understand<br>b) misjudge<br>c) have been misinformed about</p><p>And this happens both at the base and in the parliaments. We just had a law defeated here in Germany. It was a lucky and narrow defeat, in a case where <b>everyone</b> who is even remotely an expert on the topic in question strongly opposed it.</p><p>Economic theory doesn't cover democracy because people are seldom <b>less</b> rational than in decision making. There's a great <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/dan\_ariely\_asks\_are\_we\_in\_control\_of\_our\_own\_decisions.html" title="ted.com">TED video</a> [ted.com] about that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Democracy means if you have a group of a hundred people , fifty one can vote to piss in the Corn Flakes of the other forty nine and if everyone believes in Democracy there ca n't be any objections if the votes were counted properly.Even though I am an outspoken critic of our current democratic systems , that is a very simplified view.You have to view a democracy as an entity that exists in time , and - like a game of Nomic - can change its own rules .
As such , it is likely that someone has thought of this problem before , and proposed to add a rule to the record that says something like " votes of pissing into other people 's corn flakes need a 2/3 majority to pass " .Now you 'd counter that then 2/3 of the people will vote " yes " and piss into the other 1/3rds breakfast .
However , then you forgot that the acting entities are human beings , and there are fairly well-established thresholds of ethical behaviour .
There 's a fairly good chance that more than 1/3rd of the voting people here would vote " no " for moral reasons.But , they can be fooled , tricked , manipulated , etc.The main problem of modern society is not that half the people vote to take the other half 's stuff .
The main problem is that over and over again , 3/4 or so of the people vote for things that theya ) do n't understandb ) misjudgec ) have been misinformed aboutAnd this happens both at the base and in the parliaments .
We just had a law defeated here in Germany .
It was a lucky and narrow defeat , in a case where everyone who is even remotely an expert on the topic in question strongly opposed it.Economic theory does n't cover democracy because people are seldom less rational than in decision making .
There 's a great TED video [ ted.com ] about that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Democracy means if you have a group of a hundred people, fifty one can vote to piss in the Corn Flakes of the other forty nine and if everyone believes in Democracy there can't be any objections if the votes were counted properly.Even though I am an outspoken critic of our current democratic systems, that is a very simplified view.You have to view a democracy as an entity that exists in time, and - like a game of Nomic - can change its own rules.
As such, it is likely that someone has thought of this problem before, and proposed to add a rule to the record that says something like "votes of pissing into other people's corn flakes need a 2/3 majority to pass".Now you'd counter that then 2/3 of the people will vote "yes" and piss into the other 1/3rds breakfast.
However, then you forgot that the acting entities are human beings, and there are fairly well-established thresholds of ethical behaviour.
There's a fairly good chance that more than 1/3rd of the voting people here would vote "no" for moral reasons.But, they can be fooled, tricked, manipulated, etc.The main problem of modern society is not that half the people vote to take the other half's stuff.
The main problem is that over and over again, 3/4 or so of the people vote for things that theya) don't understandb) misjudgec) have been misinformed aboutAnd this happens both at the base and in the parliaments.
We just had a law defeated here in Germany.
It was a lucky and narrow defeat, in a case where everyone who is even remotely an expert on the topic in question strongly opposed it.Economic theory doesn't cover democracy because people are seldom less rational than in decision making.
There's a great TED video [ted.com] about that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28198433</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy is the problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244054580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Democracy means if you have a group of a hundred people, fifty one can vote to piss in the Corn Flakes of the other forty nine and if everyone believes in Democracy there can't be any objections if the votes were counted properly.</p></div><p>No, that would be a tyranny of the majority.  Democracy is majority rules with respect for the rights of the minority.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Democracy means if you have a group of a hundred people , fifty one can vote to piss in the Corn Flakes of the other forty nine and if everyone believes in Democracy there ca n't be any objections if the votes were counted properly.No , that would be a tyranny of the majority .
Democracy is majority rules with respect for the rights of the minority .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Democracy means if you have a group of a hundred people, fifty one can vote to piss in the Corn Flakes of the other forty nine and if everyone believes in Democracy there can't be any objections if the votes were counted properly.No, that would be a tyranny of the majority.
Democracy is majority rules with respect for the rights of the minority.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195337</id>
	<title>Re:Related, in a way</title>
	<author>stdarg</author>
	<datestamp>1244042040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I used to think that all drugs were bad, and all that stuff. But after reading the second linked thread, the Schedule I thread [...] I'm reconsidering that stance.</p></div><p>I agree, I've changed my mind in the last 5 years or so.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Also, I'd like to point out that #1 is End Imperial Presidency [ideascale.com] -- with 755 votes against #2's 351 --, heavily criticizing Bush's presidency and calling out what happened in Iraq as war crimes, as they should be called.</p></div><p>Yes that's just what we need! It's definitely the #1 idea out of all of the ones posted! Come on. This just shows that the people voting don't care about the intent of the site ("Phase I was designed to elicit a wide array of actionable suggestions for creating a more transparent, participatory, and collaborative government") and are just using it as a platform for their own childish, vengeful viewpoints.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to think that all drugs were bad , and all that stuff .
But after reading the second linked thread , the Schedule I thread [ ... ] I 'm reconsidering that stance.I agree , I 've changed my mind in the last 5 years or so.Also , I 'd like to point out that # 1 is End Imperial Presidency [ ideascale.com ] -- with 755 votes against # 2 's 351 -- , heavily criticizing Bush 's presidency and calling out what happened in Iraq as war crimes , as they should be called.Yes that 's just what we need !
It 's definitely the # 1 idea out of all of the ones posted !
Come on .
This just shows that the people voting do n't care about the intent of the site ( " Phase I was designed to elicit a wide array of actionable suggestions for creating a more transparent , participatory , and collaborative government " ) and are just using it as a platform for their own childish , vengeful viewpoints .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to think that all drugs were bad, and all that stuff.
But after reading the second linked thread, the Schedule I thread [...] I'm reconsidering that stance.I agree, I've changed my mind in the last 5 years or so.Also, I'd like to point out that #1 is End Imperial Presidency [ideascale.com] -- with 755 votes against #2's 351 --, heavily criticizing Bush's presidency and calling out what happened in Iraq as war crimes, as they should be called.Yes that's just what we need!
It's definitely the #1 idea out of all of the ones posted!
Come on.
This just shows that the people voting don't care about the intent of the site ("Phase I was designed to elicit a wide array of actionable suggestions for creating a more transparent, participatory, and collaborative government") and are just using it as a platform for their own childish, vengeful viewpoints.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195883</id>
	<title>Re:Gov't logic reguarding the risk of legalization</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244044380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Congrats - you've hit on the real issue. How about we provide \%100 percent extended unemployment for all who loose thier jobs as the prisons and jails begin to empty. (It would still be cheaper for the tax payer than continuing the drug war). It won't take very long for a new economy, and new jobs, to rise around the new Hemp and marijuana industries.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Congrats - you 've hit on the real issue .
How about we provide \ % 100 percent extended unemployment for all who loose thier jobs as the prisons and jails begin to empty .
( It would still be cheaper for the tax payer than continuing the drug war ) .
It wo n't take very long for a new economy , and new jobs , to rise around the new Hemp and marijuana industries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congrats - you've hit on the real issue.
How about we provide \%100 percent extended unemployment for all who loose thier jobs as the prisons and jails begin to empty.
(It would still be cheaper for the tax payer than continuing the drug war).
It won't take very long for a new economy, and new jobs, to rise around the new Hemp and marijuana industries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28204405</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy isn't perfect.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244037540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...huge swaths of the users that frequent these sites really deep down just want to be ruled by kings.</p></div><p>Ruled by?  We want to <b>be</b> kings.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...huge swaths of the users that frequent these sites really deep down just want to be ruled by kings.Ruled by ?
We want to be kings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...huge swaths of the users that frequent these sites really deep down just want to be ruled by kings.Ruled by?
We want to be kings.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28199131</id>
	<title>Re:Related, in a way</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244057820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Re: Memory issues with THC</p><p>THC stimulates the retrograde signaling pathway associated with the potentialization of LONG TERM memory, at the expense of coherent SHORT TERM memory.</p><p>It is being explored as an experimental medication in people with long term memory deficits, such as people with Alzheimers disease with surprising results.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4286435.stm</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocannabinoid\_system</p><p>http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/003641.html</p><p>This alone should strike down MJ as a class I narcotic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Re : Memory issues with THCTHC stimulates the retrograde signaling pathway associated with the potentialization of LONG TERM memory , at the expense of coherent SHORT TERM memory.It is being explored as an experimental medication in people with long term memory deficits , such as people with Alzheimers disease with surprising results.http : //news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4286435.stmhttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocannabinoid \ _systemhttp : //www.futurepundit.com/archives/003641.htmlThis alone should strike down MJ as a class I narcotic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Re: Memory issues with THCTHC stimulates the retrograde signaling pathway associated with the potentialization of LONG TERM memory, at the expense of coherent SHORT TERM memory.It is being explored as an experimental medication in people with long term memory deficits, such as people with Alzheimers disease with surprising results.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4286435.stmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocannabinoid\_systemhttp://www.futurepundit.com/archives/003641.htmlThis alone should strike down MJ as a class I narcotic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194439</id>
	<title>Re:We all laugh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244037960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Polls are showing around half of the people in the US could go for completely legalization, and more than 70\% are in favor of medicinal legalization.</p><p>Hell, the numbers in favor of legalization are *much* larger than the numbers in favor of gun control</p></div><p>your proof, sir?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Polls are showing around half of the people in the US could go for completely legalization , and more than 70 \ % are in favor of medicinal legalization.Hell , the numbers in favor of legalization are * much * larger than the numbers in favor of gun controlyour proof , sir ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Polls are showing around half of the people in the US could go for completely legalization, and more than 70\% are in favor of medicinal legalization.Hell, the numbers in favor of legalization are *much* larger than the numbers in favor of gun controlyour proof, sir?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196491</id>
	<title>Re:Think about it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244047080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The marijuana you can buy today has been scientifically proved that its 56,820 times stronger than the natural product, which was bad enough, and can and does cause almost instant irrevocable and permanent psychosis, paranoia and schizophrenia to name but a few of it's deadly effects.</p></div><p>Flashback to 1920 - the psychosis argument has been around since the incarnation of the marijuana prohibition. The reason it got dropped is that numerous cop-killers and thieves used the defence that, since they had smoked some reefer, they were criminally insane and could not be held directly responsible for their actions while intoxicated. Anyone who has any idea about why the DEA Drug Schedules are set up the way they are knows that this has everything to do with pharmaceutical interest and control over minority populations (in the 20s and 30s it was blacks and Mexicans). Wake up! How is it that I can get a prescription for a drug like Celebrex which is VERY dangerous and potentially deadly, but pot (which has never killed a person directly) is illegal for me to possess unless I live in a rational state like California where medicinal marijuana is legitimate and accessible .</p><p>Dear SIR, I pray every day that God-fearing people like you wake up and hear their own hearts -- find some compassion and focus on the real evils in the world. Forget marijuana, focus on feeding and housing the poor in America and overseas. The DEA is pissing away taxpayer money to eradicate ditchweed... Dear SIR - get the facts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The marijuana you can buy today has been scientifically proved that its 56,820 times stronger than the natural product , which was bad enough , and can and does cause almost instant irrevocable and permanent psychosis , paranoia and schizophrenia to name but a few of it 's deadly effects.Flashback to 1920 - the psychosis argument has been around since the incarnation of the marijuana prohibition .
The reason it got dropped is that numerous cop-killers and thieves used the defence that , since they had smoked some reefer , they were criminally insane and could not be held directly responsible for their actions while intoxicated .
Anyone who has any idea about why the DEA Drug Schedules are set up the way they are knows that this has everything to do with pharmaceutical interest and control over minority populations ( in the 20s and 30s it was blacks and Mexicans ) .
Wake up !
How is it that I can get a prescription for a drug like Celebrex which is VERY dangerous and potentially deadly , but pot ( which has never killed a person directly ) is illegal for me to possess unless I live in a rational state like California where medicinal marijuana is legitimate and accessible .Dear SIR , I pray every day that God-fearing people like you wake up and hear their own hearts -- find some compassion and focus on the real evils in the world .
Forget marijuana , focus on feeding and housing the poor in America and overseas .
The DEA is pissing away taxpayer money to eradicate ditchweed... Dear SIR - get the facts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The marijuana you can buy today has been scientifically proved that its 56,820 times stronger than the natural product, which was bad enough, and can and does cause almost instant irrevocable and permanent psychosis, paranoia and schizophrenia to name but a few of it's deadly effects.Flashback to 1920 - the psychosis argument has been around since the incarnation of the marijuana prohibition.
The reason it got dropped is that numerous cop-killers and thieves used the defence that, since they had smoked some reefer, they were criminally insane and could not be held directly responsible for their actions while intoxicated.
Anyone who has any idea about why the DEA Drug Schedules are set up the way they are knows that this has everything to do with pharmaceutical interest and control over minority populations (in the 20s and 30s it was blacks and Mexicans).
Wake up!
How is it that I can get a prescription for a drug like Celebrex which is VERY dangerous and potentially deadly, but pot (which has never killed a person directly) is illegal for me to possess unless I live in a rational state like California where medicinal marijuana is legitimate and accessible .Dear SIR, I pray every day that God-fearing people like you wake up and hear their own hearts -- find some compassion and focus on the real evils in the world.
Forget marijuana, focus on feeding and housing the poor in America and overseas.
The DEA is pissing away taxpayer money to eradicate ditchweed... Dear SIR - get the facts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195085</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195299</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy is the problem</title>
	<author>BarryJacobsen</author>
	<datestamp>1244041920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You are wrong. A bunch of dead white men from several hundred years ago don't know what's best for 2009.</p></div><p>And what makes you think a bunch of living (white, or any color for that mattter) men from 2009 know what's best for 2009?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are wrong .
A bunch of dead white men from several hundred years ago do n't know what 's best for 2009.And what makes you think a bunch of living ( white , or any color for that mattter ) men from 2009 know what 's best for 2009 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are wrong.
A bunch of dead white men from several hundred years ago don't know what's best for 2009.And what makes you think a bunch of living (white, or any color for that mattter) men from 2009 know what's best for 2009?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28205795</id>
	<title>Re:What does Marijuana have to do with this?</title>
	<author>psykotrol</author>
	<datestamp>1244051160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The fact that they'll do something the majority of their constituents supports sounds more like democracy than what we have now. Just how often has government truly done something beneficial to our expectations? How long have we not had single-payer healthcare, which the majority of Americans support?

Does the fact that your friends did nothing but getting high and sitting around tell more about them or the drug? When I ingest cannabis, I read on agorist class theory, or on the success of the CNT during the Spanish civil war, or the latests posts on ProPublica or AlterNet, or I may even exercise to get my fat ass into shape. An inanimate substance doesn't make you do anything, but it may influence your decisions. The decision still solely lies with you, though (at least from my experience with cannabis).

Honestly, I think if some politicians smoked some weed, they'd guilt trip themselves into not lying so damn much. I feel horrible whenever I lie when I'm high, most of the time I recant my statements and tell people outright that I lied, because I know that telling the truth is a lot easier than keeping up a lie. I think the substance has an incredibly humbling effect, even on the coldest people it seems to inspire empathy. Watch a FRONTLINE documentary while under the influence of cannabis and just try, TRY not to cry. Its pretty damn difficult.

And from what Ive seen, people are far more collaborative and creative when they're high than when they aren't. The fact that you're rambling on and on about fuck-all with your friends is more collaborative than going to a movie or other entertainment venue and commencing in trivial small talk of no consequence to anybody besides the distributors of said entertainment. Maybe its just me, but at least people that smoke weed sometimes get inspired to take action about injustice or poverty or racism or whatever. Had it not been for my experimenting, Id probably be not too different from your run-of-the-mill Fox or CNN viewer. I cant imagine what my life would be like if I didn't start watching PBS and Democracy Now! at a young age.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that they 'll do something the majority of their constituents supports sounds more like democracy than what we have now .
Just how often has government truly done something beneficial to our expectations ?
How long have we not had single-payer healthcare , which the majority of Americans support ?
Does the fact that your friends did nothing but getting high and sitting around tell more about them or the drug ?
When I ingest cannabis , I read on agorist class theory , or on the success of the CNT during the Spanish civil war , or the latests posts on ProPublica or AlterNet , or I may even exercise to get my fat ass into shape .
An inanimate substance does n't make you do anything , but it may influence your decisions .
The decision still solely lies with you , though ( at least from my experience with cannabis ) .
Honestly , I think if some politicians smoked some weed , they 'd guilt trip themselves into not lying so damn much .
I feel horrible whenever I lie when I 'm high , most of the time I recant my statements and tell people outright that I lied , because I know that telling the truth is a lot easier than keeping up a lie .
I think the substance has an incredibly humbling effect , even on the coldest people it seems to inspire empathy .
Watch a FRONTLINE documentary while under the influence of cannabis and just try , TRY not to cry .
Its pretty damn difficult .
And from what Ive seen , people are far more collaborative and creative when they 're high than when they are n't .
The fact that you 're rambling on and on about fuck-all with your friends is more collaborative than going to a movie or other entertainment venue and commencing in trivial small talk of no consequence to anybody besides the distributors of said entertainment .
Maybe its just me , but at least people that smoke weed sometimes get inspired to take action about injustice or poverty or racism or whatever .
Had it not been for my experimenting , Id probably be not too different from your run-of-the-mill Fox or CNN viewer .
I cant imagine what my life would be like if I did n't start watching PBS and Democracy Now !
at a young age .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that they'll do something the majority of their constituents supports sounds more like democracy than what we have now.
Just how often has government truly done something beneficial to our expectations?
How long have we not had single-payer healthcare, which the majority of Americans support?
Does the fact that your friends did nothing but getting high and sitting around tell more about them or the drug?
When I ingest cannabis, I read on agorist class theory, or on the success of the CNT during the Spanish civil war, or the latests posts on ProPublica or AlterNet, or I may even exercise to get my fat ass into shape.
An inanimate substance doesn't make you do anything, but it may influence your decisions.
The decision still solely lies with you, though (at least from my experience with cannabis).
Honestly, I think if some politicians smoked some weed, they'd guilt trip themselves into not lying so damn much.
I feel horrible whenever I lie when I'm high, most of the time I recant my statements and tell people outright that I lied, because I know that telling the truth is a lot easier than keeping up a lie.
I think the substance has an incredibly humbling effect, even on the coldest people it seems to inspire empathy.
Watch a FRONTLINE documentary while under the influence of cannabis and just try, TRY not to cry.
Its pretty damn difficult.
And from what Ive seen, people are far more collaborative and creative when they're high than when they aren't.
The fact that you're rambling on and on about fuck-all with your friends is more collaborative than going to a movie or other entertainment venue and commencing in trivial small talk of no consequence to anybody besides the distributors of said entertainment.
Maybe its just me, but at least people that smoke weed sometimes get inspired to take action about injustice or poverty or racism or whatever.
Had it not been for my experimenting, Id probably be not too different from your run-of-the-mill Fox or CNN viewer.
I cant imagine what my life would be like if I didn't start watching PBS and Democracy Now!
at a young age.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195549</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194603</id>
	<title>Think about it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244038680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These are useful ideas, and they should be seriously considered.  Read The Emperor Where's No Clothes by Jack Herer and learn why and how cannabis was made illegal in the first place.  It's not any more harmful than beer or cigarettes, and it could be extremely helpful if used in the right ways.  Aside from medicinal use it can be used to make paper, food, FUEL, and more.  It would be an a huge cash crop if it was legalized, and would create an entire new industry.  Lots of jobs, lots of tax revenue.  Everyone is smoking the shit anyway.  Legalize it and the money stays here instead of going to thugs in Mexico.  The war drugs does more damage than the drugs themselves.  Do the research.  Think about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These are useful ideas , and they should be seriously considered .
Read The Emperor Where 's No Clothes by Jack Herer and learn why and how cannabis was made illegal in the first place .
It 's not any more harmful than beer or cigarettes , and it could be extremely helpful if used in the right ways .
Aside from medicinal use it can be used to make paper , food , FUEL , and more .
It would be an a huge cash crop if it was legalized , and would create an entire new industry .
Lots of jobs , lots of tax revenue .
Everyone is smoking the shit anyway .
Legalize it and the money stays here instead of going to thugs in Mexico .
The war drugs does more damage than the drugs themselves .
Do the research .
Think about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These are useful ideas, and they should be seriously considered.
Read The Emperor Where's No Clothes by Jack Herer and learn why and how cannabis was made illegal in the first place.
It's not any more harmful than beer or cigarettes, and it could be extremely helpful if used in the right ways.
Aside from medicinal use it can be used to make paper, food, FUEL, and more.
It would be an a huge cash crop if it was legalized, and would create an entire new industry.
Lots of jobs, lots of tax revenue.
Everyone is smoking the shit anyway.
Legalize it and the money stays here instead of going to thugs in Mexico.
The war drugs does more damage than the drugs themselves.
Do the research.
Think about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194683</id>
	<title>Think again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244039160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is ridiculous to assume that because the crowd opinion does not match your own that the crowd is wrong.  Perhaps legalization is the correct course of action, and you are blinded by your own puny intellect.</p><p>Legalization would save tens of billions of dollars in law enforcement and prison system fees.  This money could easily be redirected to proping up companies that make cars that no one wants, making the world a better place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is ridiculous to assume that because the crowd opinion does not match your own that the crowd is wrong .
Perhaps legalization is the correct course of action , and you are blinded by your own puny intellect.Legalization would save tens of billions of dollars in law enforcement and prison system fees .
This money could easily be redirected to proping up companies that make cars that no one wants , making the world a better place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is ridiculous to assume that because the crowd opinion does not match your own that the crowd is wrong.
Perhaps legalization is the correct course of action, and you are blinded by your own puny intellect.Legalization would save tens of billions of dollars in law enforcement and prison system fees.
This money could easily be redirected to proping up companies that make cars that no one wants, making the world a better place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195491</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy isn't perfect.</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1244042760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another reason we don't have democracy is because we're ruled by laws, which protect the individual's basic rights, not a 51\% majority which would trample the individual underfoot.  (Just ask Socrates whose life was taken by a simple 50\%+1 vote in Democratic Athens.  Why?  Because they didn't like him.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another reason we do n't have democracy is because we 're ruled by laws , which protect the individual 's basic rights , not a 51 \ % majority which would trample the individual underfoot .
( Just ask Socrates whose life was taken by a simple 50 \ % + 1 vote in Democratic Athens .
Why ? Because they did n't like him .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another reason we don't have democracy is because we're ruled by laws, which protect the individual's basic rights, not a 51\% majority which would trample the individual underfoot.
(Just ask Socrates whose life was taken by a simple 50\%+1 vote in Democratic Athens.
Why?  Because they didn't like him.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28197119</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy is the problem</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1244049480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Democracy is a fine tool. Better than most of the alternatives.</p><p>The problem is that it gets idealized. Liberty for all makes for a much better ideal, with necessary compromises being done democratically (because it is the least worst).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Democracy is a fine tool .
Better than most of the alternatives.The problem is that it gets idealized .
Liberty for all makes for a much better ideal , with necessary compromises being done democratically ( because it is the least worst ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Democracy is a fine tool.
Better than most of the alternatives.The problem is that it gets idealized.
Liberty for all makes for a much better ideal, with necessary compromises being done democratically (because it is the least worst).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194817</id>
	<title>I really think that Tommy Lee Jones</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244039700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>said it best in Men in Black:</p><p>"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>said it best in Men in Black : " A person is smart .
People are dumb , panicky , dangerous animals and you know it .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>said it best in Men in Black:"A person is smart.
People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28198141</id>
	<title>Re:deja vu</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244053440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It makes the speaker sound like a 'tard.<br>I guess that may be a desirable thing in places where stupidity is revered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It makes the speaker sound like a 'tard.I guess that may be a desirable thing in places where stupidity is revered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It makes the speaker sound like a 'tard.I guess that may be a desirable thing in places where stupidity is revered.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195763</id>
	<title>Re:The marijuana crowd is retarded</title>
	<author>Kehvarl</author>
	<datestamp>1244043900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You know, if I can just grow the shit, I'm not paying $3500 for it</p></div><p>The counterpoint to that argument would be: if would-be users of marijuana are no longer spending 1 billion dollars a year on it, then they will spend that billion elsewhere.  If that elsewhere is industries that are taxed then, regardless of the feasibility of taxing marijuana sales, there should be a net increase in state and federal tax dollars.  If, on the other hand, people continue to chose to purchase their marijuana and those sales are taxed as would be any other industry then we will see an increase in tax dollars from that source.</p><p>So yes; if you can just grow it you won't pay $3500/lb for it.  Instead you'll take the money that used to go to your purchases of marijuana and spend it on snacks or big screen TVs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , if I can just grow the shit , I 'm not paying $ 3500 for itThe counterpoint to that argument would be : if would-be users of marijuana are no longer spending 1 billion dollars a year on it , then they will spend that billion elsewhere .
If that elsewhere is industries that are taxed then , regardless of the feasibility of taxing marijuana sales , there should be a net increase in state and federal tax dollars .
If , on the other hand , people continue to chose to purchase their marijuana and those sales are taxed as would be any other industry then we will see an increase in tax dollars from that source.So yes ; if you can just grow it you wo n't pay $ 3500/lb for it .
Instead you 'll take the money that used to go to your purchases of marijuana and spend it on snacks or big screen TVs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, if I can just grow the shit, I'm not paying $3500 for itThe counterpoint to that argument would be: if would-be users of marijuana are no longer spending 1 billion dollars a year on it, then they will spend that billion elsewhere.
If that elsewhere is industries that are taxed then, regardless of the feasibility of taxing marijuana sales, there should be a net increase in state and federal tax dollars.
If, on the other hand, people continue to chose to purchase their marijuana and those sales are taxed as would be any other industry then we will see an increase in tax dollars from that source.So yes; if you can just grow it you won't pay $3500/lb for it.
Instead you'll take the money that used to go to your purchases of marijuana and spend it on snacks or big screen TVs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194961</id>
	<title>Re:We all laugh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244040300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>65\% of Massachusetts voters disagree with you.  Possession was decriminalized by voters in the last state election.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts\_Sensible\_Marijuana\_Policy\_Initiative" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts\_Sensible\_Marijuana\_Policy\_Initiative</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>65 \ % of Massachusetts voters disagree with you .
Possession was decriminalized by voters in the last state election.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts \ _Sensible \ _Marijuana \ _Policy \ _Initiative [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>65\% of Massachusetts voters disagree with you.
Possession was decriminalized by voters in the last state election.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts\_Sensible\_Marijuana\_Policy\_Initiative [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195831</id>
	<title>Re:The marijuana crowd is retarded</title>
	<author>Ozlanthos</author>
	<datestamp>1244044140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Next time you hear about a large bust, try this little equation to find out how much it is really worth. Take the tonnage and multiply it by 2000 (number of pounds per ton), take the resulting figure and multiply it by 16 (the number of ounces per pound), take the resulting number of ounces and multiply it by 8 (the average quantity purchased by an end-user per transaction is 1/8th of an ounce). Then take the number of 1/8th units and divide the "estimated street value" of the seizure by it. The last time I did this, the average "cost" per eighth was $3. If the Fed bought it from Mexico at the same price they charge their first level distributors ($3 an eighth) and taxed it 100\% the price to the states would be $6. If the state were then to tax it 100\% the price would come to $12, add to that 50\% profit for the liquor store, and state sales tax (where it applies) and you are paying about $20 an eighth. If it were grown domestically you could expect the price to drop further. In my mind $8 to $15 an eighth would be more than enough to keep everyone and his brother to forgo their basement or closet crop to go buy it at the liquor store. If you allow "licensed" producers on the market, you'd increase the average quality while keeping the price low enough to keep the rest of us from flooding the market.
<br>
<br>
-Oz</htmltext>
<tokenext>Next time you hear about a large bust , try this little equation to find out how much it is really worth .
Take the tonnage and multiply it by 2000 ( number of pounds per ton ) , take the resulting figure and multiply it by 16 ( the number of ounces per pound ) , take the resulting number of ounces and multiply it by 8 ( the average quantity purchased by an end-user per transaction is 1/8th of an ounce ) .
Then take the number of 1/8th units and divide the " estimated street value " of the seizure by it .
The last time I did this , the average " cost " per eighth was $ 3 .
If the Fed bought it from Mexico at the same price they charge their first level distributors ( $ 3 an eighth ) and taxed it 100 \ % the price to the states would be $ 6 .
If the state were then to tax it 100 \ % the price would come to $ 12 , add to that 50 \ % profit for the liquor store , and state sales tax ( where it applies ) and you are paying about $ 20 an eighth .
If it were grown domestically you could expect the price to drop further .
In my mind $ 8 to $ 15 an eighth would be more than enough to keep everyone and his brother to forgo their basement or closet crop to go buy it at the liquor store .
If you allow " licensed " producers on the market , you 'd increase the average quality while keeping the price low enough to keep the rest of us from flooding the market .
-Oz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Next time you hear about a large bust, try this little equation to find out how much it is really worth.
Take the tonnage and multiply it by 2000 (number of pounds per ton), take the resulting figure and multiply it by 16 (the number of ounces per pound), take the resulting number of ounces and multiply it by 8 (the average quantity purchased by an end-user per transaction is 1/8th of an ounce).
Then take the number of 1/8th units and divide the "estimated street value" of the seizure by it.
The last time I did this, the average "cost" per eighth was $3.
If the Fed bought it from Mexico at the same price they charge their first level distributors ($3 an eighth) and taxed it 100\% the price to the states would be $6.
If the state were then to tax it 100\% the price would come to $12, add to that 50\% profit for the liquor store, and state sales tax (where it applies) and you are paying about $20 an eighth.
If it were grown domestically you could expect the price to drop further.
In my mind $8 to $15 an eighth would be more than enough to keep everyone and his brother to forgo their basement or closet crop to go buy it at the liquor store.
If you allow "licensed" producers on the market, you'd increase the average quality while keeping the price low enough to keep the rest of us from flooding the market.
-Oz</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194319</id>
	<title>Wrong Idea Form</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244037120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>

Here's what you're prompted with when you author a new idea: Title/Subject, Why Is This Idea Important?, Category &amp; Tags.  <br> <br>

That's not going to help people articulate ideas let alone produce anything usable.  Half these things read sort of like a rant.  IdeaScale should implement sections like the following:

<ul> <li>Title/Subject</li><li>Problem You Are Addressing (Be Specific)</li><li>Solution (Include people involved, milestones, goals and how to measure success)</li><li>Foreseen Risks and Costs</li><li>Mitigation Plan to Risks &amp; Failure</li><li>Category</li><li>Tags</li></ul><p>

Go to corporate America and ask any CEO what he expects to see in an idea presented to him from an underling.  Then you'll get an idea of what kind of data we should be seeking from people with ideas.  <br> <br>

I mean, this site should <i>at least try</i> to help people from making asses of themselves and instead 90\% of these posts sound like people thinking they have the floor to say whatever they want about whatever they feel like.  It's not coherent, it's not helping, it's nothing but internet drivel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's what you 're prompted with when you author a new idea : Title/Subject , Why Is This Idea Important ? , Category &amp; Tags .
That 's not going to help people articulate ideas let alone produce anything usable .
Half these things read sort of like a rant .
IdeaScale should implement sections like the following : Title/SubjectProblem You Are Addressing ( Be Specific ) Solution ( Include people involved , milestones , goals and how to measure success ) Foreseen Risks and CostsMitigation Plan to Risks &amp; FailureCategoryTags Go to corporate America and ask any CEO what he expects to see in an idea presented to him from an underling .
Then you 'll get an idea of what kind of data we should be seeking from people with ideas .
I mean , this site should at least try to help people from making asses of themselves and instead 90 \ % of these posts sound like people thinking they have the floor to say whatever they want about whatever they feel like .
It 's not coherent , it 's not helping , it 's nothing but internet drivel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

Here's what you're prompted with when you author a new idea: Title/Subject, Why Is This Idea Important?, Category &amp; Tags.
That's not going to help people articulate ideas let alone produce anything usable.
Half these things read sort of like a rant.
IdeaScale should implement sections like the following:

 Title/SubjectProblem You Are Addressing (Be Specific)Solution (Include people involved, milestones, goals and how to measure success)Foreseen Risks and CostsMitigation Plan to Risks &amp; FailureCategoryTags

Go to corporate America and ask any CEO what he expects to see in an idea presented to him from an underling.
Then you'll get an idea of what kind of data we should be seeking from people with ideas.
I mean, this site should at least try to help people from making asses of themselves and instead 90\% of these posts sound like people thinking they have the floor to say whatever they want about whatever they feel like.
It's not coherent, it's not helping, it's nothing but internet drivel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195257</id>
	<title>No system is perfect, but it's the best we've got</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244041740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clive James doesn't know what's best for society either, and nor do you.</p><p>The "suitably educated experts" you refer to have succeeded in dragging us into a pointless war in Iraq, brought the world's economy to its knees, and contrived over several centuries to keep the bulk of the world's population in poverty. Clive James and others who push their elitist view may be 'eloquent' but that doesn't stop what they have to say being drivel.</p><p>There is a huge difference between understanding how to achieve an end, and deciding which end you want to achieve. By allowing politicians a free rein, you are giving them the opportunity to decide both of these. By all means allow someone else to think on your behalf if you don't feel up to it, but the rest of us can think for ourselves thank you.</p><p>Democracy is not perfect, but in a true democracy, those who do loose out will tend to be a minority. Some people want to fix it, and to some extent have succeeded, so that it is the majority who loose out. we need more democracy not less.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clive James does n't know what 's best for society either , and nor do you.The " suitably educated experts " you refer to have succeeded in dragging us into a pointless war in Iraq , brought the world 's economy to its knees , and contrived over several centuries to keep the bulk of the world 's population in poverty .
Clive James and others who push their elitist view may be 'eloquent ' but that does n't stop what they have to say being drivel.There is a huge difference between understanding how to achieve an end , and deciding which end you want to achieve .
By allowing politicians a free rein , you are giving them the opportunity to decide both of these .
By all means allow someone else to think on your behalf if you do n't feel up to it , but the rest of us can think for ourselves thank you.Democracy is not perfect , but in a true democracy , those who do loose out will tend to be a minority .
Some people want to fix it , and to some extent have succeeded , so that it is the majority who loose out .
we need more democracy not less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clive James doesn't know what's best for society either, and nor do you.The "suitably educated experts" you refer to have succeeded in dragging us into a pointless war in Iraq, brought the world's economy to its knees, and contrived over several centuries to keep the bulk of the world's population in poverty.
Clive James and others who push their elitist view may be 'eloquent' but that doesn't stop what they have to say being drivel.There is a huge difference between understanding how to achieve an end, and deciding which end you want to achieve.
By allowing politicians a free rein, you are giving them the opportunity to decide both of these.
By all means allow someone else to think on your behalf if you don't feel up to it, but the rest of us can think for ourselves thank you.Democracy is not perfect, but in a true democracy, those who do loose out will tend to be a minority.
Some people want to fix it, and to some extent have succeeded, so that it is the majority who loose out.
we need more democracy not less.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194463</id>
	<title>The marijuana crowd is retarded</title>
	<author>bluefoxlucid</author>
	<datestamp>1244038080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/vis/975628171.html" title="craigslist.org" rel="nofollow">Check this out</a> [craigslist.org] <p><div class="quote"><p>
Cannabis intended for recreational consumption comes in several different grades ranging in price from $10 a pound for compressed bricks of seedy Mexican hemp flowers purchased near the source up to $3,500 a pound for manicured colas grown indoors by farmers who produce small crops. That same $3,500 pound can be sold to consumers for up to $25 a gram, meaning that pound's street value if sold by the gram is in the neighborhood of $11,000.
</p><p>
But, the case in point is the series of raids this summer, which authorities claimed netted 138 pounds of cannabis from 340,000 plants. Since they raided in August, the plants they took were immature [...] and at least half would have been male plants that produce nothing. Had those plants, which represent less than 10 percent of the county's entire crop, survived to maturity they would have yielded somewhere in the neighborhood of three-quarters to one pound per plant or about 150,000 total pounds of low- to mid-grade cannabis which would have been valued at something like $500 to $1,000 a pound [...] for an estimated net sale price of conservatively $75,000,000. Factor in the percentage of undetected crops and we see the county's illicit outdoor cannabis crop can conservatively be valued at $750 million in initial sales. [...] it would not be unreasonable to place a value of Tulare County's current cannabis industry at $1 billion, all of it untaxed.
</p><p>
Let me isolate that statement for effect: Tulare County is currently home to a $1,000,000,000 unregulated, untaxed industry that our elected officials are actively and ineffectually attempting to eradicate at the taxpayers' expense, thus depriving the county and state of at least $80,000,000 in annual sales-tax revenues while they charge us for the privilege.
</p><p>
Think about that when you read we cannot afford to fund rural health clinics or that our schools are in need of repair or that we can't afford rural fire stations or if you live along or must drive ill-maintained county roads or if you're one of the thousands of unemployed or are affected by that unemployment or if you or one of your family members is considered an outlaw because they use cannabis or if you think it's wrong to destroy Yokohl Valley in the hopes of generating a tenth the revenue cannabis could provide the moment it is legalized.
</p></div><p>
You know, if I can just grow the shit, I'm not paying $3500 for it.  Let's say cigarettes (which are legal, and a huge industry) cost $25 a gram for tobacco.  A cigarette contains about 0.8 grams of tobacco (a bit less); a pack contains about 20 grams.  So that's like $500/pack.  Now, I don't smoke; but if a trip to the gas station for a pack of cigs cost me $20 to fill my tank and $500 for a pack of Malboros?  I'd grow my own tobacco.
</p><p>
The whole argument for marijuana tax hinges on artificial scarcity.  Marijuana is a weed, literally.  It grows anywhere, it's the easiest shit to grow, and everyone already knows how to grow it.  Seeds are easy to find.  If you legalize it <em>everybody will grow it</em>; growing plants are harder to hide than a pocket-sized bag full of mulch, but nobody cares if the plant's now legal!
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Check this out [ craigslist.org ] Cannabis intended for recreational consumption comes in several different grades ranging in price from $ 10 a pound for compressed bricks of seedy Mexican hemp flowers purchased near the source up to $ 3,500 a pound for manicured colas grown indoors by farmers who produce small crops .
That same $ 3,500 pound can be sold to consumers for up to $ 25 a gram , meaning that pound 's street value if sold by the gram is in the neighborhood of $ 11,000 .
But , the case in point is the series of raids this summer , which authorities claimed netted 138 pounds of cannabis from 340,000 plants .
Since they raided in August , the plants they took were immature [ ... ] and at least half would have been male plants that produce nothing .
Had those plants , which represent less than 10 percent of the county 's entire crop , survived to maturity they would have yielded somewhere in the neighborhood of three-quarters to one pound per plant or about 150,000 total pounds of low- to mid-grade cannabis which would have been valued at something like $ 500 to $ 1,000 a pound [ ... ] for an estimated net sale price of conservatively $ 75,000,000 .
Factor in the percentage of undetected crops and we see the county 's illicit outdoor cannabis crop can conservatively be valued at $ 750 million in initial sales .
[ ... ] it would not be unreasonable to place a value of Tulare County 's current cannabis industry at $ 1 billion , all of it untaxed .
Let me isolate that statement for effect : Tulare County is currently home to a $ 1,000,000,000 unregulated , untaxed industry that our elected officials are actively and ineffectually attempting to eradicate at the taxpayers ' expense , thus depriving the county and state of at least $ 80,000,000 in annual sales-tax revenues while they charge us for the privilege .
Think about that when you read we can not afford to fund rural health clinics or that our schools are in need of repair or that we ca n't afford rural fire stations or if you live along or must drive ill-maintained county roads or if you 're one of the thousands of unemployed or are affected by that unemployment or if you or one of your family members is considered an outlaw because they use cannabis or if you think it 's wrong to destroy Yokohl Valley in the hopes of generating a tenth the revenue cannabis could provide the moment it is legalized .
You know , if I can just grow the shit , I 'm not paying $ 3500 for it .
Let 's say cigarettes ( which are legal , and a huge industry ) cost $ 25 a gram for tobacco .
A cigarette contains about 0.8 grams of tobacco ( a bit less ) ; a pack contains about 20 grams .
So that 's like $ 500/pack .
Now , I do n't smoke ; but if a trip to the gas station for a pack of cigs cost me $ 20 to fill my tank and $ 500 for a pack of Malboros ?
I 'd grow my own tobacco .
The whole argument for marijuana tax hinges on artificial scarcity .
Marijuana is a weed , literally .
It grows anywhere , it 's the easiest shit to grow , and everyone already knows how to grow it .
Seeds are easy to find .
If you legalize it everybody will grow it ; growing plants are harder to hide than a pocket-sized bag full of mulch , but nobody cares if the plant 's now legal !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check this out [craigslist.org] 
Cannabis intended for recreational consumption comes in several different grades ranging in price from $10 a pound for compressed bricks of seedy Mexican hemp flowers purchased near the source up to $3,500 a pound for manicured colas grown indoors by farmers who produce small crops.
That same $3,500 pound can be sold to consumers for up to $25 a gram, meaning that pound's street value if sold by the gram is in the neighborhood of $11,000.
But, the case in point is the series of raids this summer, which authorities claimed netted 138 pounds of cannabis from 340,000 plants.
Since they raided in August, the plants they took were immature [...] and at least half would have been male plants that produce nothing.
Had those plants, which represent less than 10 percent of the county's entire crop, survived to maturity they would have yielded somewhere in the neighborhood of three-quarters to one pound per plant or about 150,000 total pounds of low- to mid-grade cannabis which would have been valued at something like $500 to $1,000 a pound [...] for an estimated net sale price of conservatively $75,000,000.
Factor in the percentage of undetected crops and we see the county's illicit outdoor cannabis crop can conservatively be valued at $750 million in initial sales.
[...] it would not be unreasonable to place a value of Tulare County's current cannabis industry at $1 billion, all of it untaxed.
Let me isolate that statement for effect: Tulare County is currently home to a $1,000,000,000 unregulated, untaxed industry that our elected officials are actively and ineffectually attempting to eradicate at the taxpayers' expense, thus depriving the county and state of at least $80,000,000 in annual sales-tax revenues while they charge us for the privilege.
Think about that when you read we cannot afford to fund rural health clinics or that our schools are in need of repair or that we can't afford rural fire stations or if you live along or must drive ill-maintained county roads or if you're one of the thousands of unemployed or are affected by that unemployment or if you or one of your family members is considered an outlaw because they use cannabis or if you think it's wrong to destroy Yokohl Valley in the hopes of generating a tenth the revenue cannabis could provide the moment it is legalized.
You know, if I can just grow the shit, I'm not paying $3500 for it.
Let's say cigarettes (which are legal, and a huge industry) cost $25 a gram for tobacco.
A cigarette contains about 0.8 grams of tobacco (a bit less); a pack contains about 20 grams.
So that's like $500/pack.
Now, I don't smoke; but if a trip to the gas station for a pack of cigs cost me $20 to fill my tank and $500 for a pack of Malboros?
I'd grow my own tobacco.
The whole argument for marijuana tax hinges on artificial scarcity.
Marijuana is a weed, literally.
It grows anywhere, it's the easiest shit to grow, and everyone already knows how to grow it.
Seeds are easy to find.
If you legalize it everybody will grow it; growing plants are harder to hide than a pocket-sized bag full of mulch, but nobody cares if the plant's now legal!

	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196313</id>
	<title>Re:Birth Cert</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244046120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, no intelligent response.  That's what I thought.  "Anonymous Coward" has never been more apt a name.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , no intelligent response .
That 's what I thought .
" Anonymous Coward " has never been more apt a name .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, no intelligent response.
That's what I thought.
"Anonymous Coward" has never been more apt a name.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195677</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195119</id>
	<title>Re:Hey, wait a minute...</title>
	<author>Mr. Slippery</author>
	<datestamp>1244041140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>The congress works for us</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>Congress works for megacorps and for the investment class.</p><blockquote><div><p> <i>and it is our job to use our vote and our voice with our local representatives to effect policy change.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>Most of us have no voice with our representatives. At the local level politics is all party machinery; at the federal level, Congressional districts are deliberately gerrymandered, and election laws rigged, to keep representatives in office. It works very well: <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php" title="opensecrets.org" rel="nofollow">re-election rates in the House usually top 90\%.</a> [opensecrets.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The congress works for us Congress works for megacorps and for the investment class .
and it is our job to use our vote and our voice with our local representatives to effect policy change .
Most of us have no voice with our representatives .
At the local level politics is all party machinery ; at the federal level , Congressional districts are deliberately gerrymandered , and election laws rigged , to keep representatives in office .
It works very well : re-election rates in the House usually top 90 \ % .
[ opensecrets.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The congress works for us Congress works for megacorps and for the investment class.
and it is our job to use our vote and our voice with our local representatives to effect policy change.
Most of us have no voice with our representatives.
At the local level politics is all party machinery; at the federal level, Congressional districts are deliberately gerrymandered, and election laws rigged, to keep representatives in office.
It works very well: re-election rates in the House usually top 90\%.
[opensecrets.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28197621</id>
	<title>Re:deja vu</title>
	<author>Ajaxamander</author>
	<datestamp>1244051520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pretty common expression, in reference to:<br> <br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogi\_Berra#Quotes" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogi\_Berra#Quotes</a> [wikipedia.org] <br> <br>
Bullet #6<br> <br>
So... yes. Er no?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty common expression , in reference to : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogi \ _Berra # Quotes [ wikipedia.org ] Bullet # 6 So... yes. Er no ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty common expression, in reference to: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogi\_Berra#Quotes [wikipedia.org]  
Bullet #6 
So... yes. Er no?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195567</id>
	<title>"Transparency" from Obama is a farce</title>
	<author>OTDR</author>
	<datestamp>1244043060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, I will admit I cannot stand Obama, but neither am I an extreme right-winger.  I'd like to consider myself a thoughtful centralist that considers the issues individually on merit rather than official party stance.  But I am <b>stunned</b> and <b>saddened</b> by the mad rush this country is showing to stick its head in the sand and ignore this lingering issue of eligibility for office and to brand those who dare question Jesus Hussein Obama, our Great Messiah, as crazy zealots.  Gaddamn, I bet the Shroud of Turin can't hold a candle to his Charmin.</p><p> 
The simple, undeniable fact is that there does exists two variations of birth certificates issued by the State of Hawaii which differ in which information is shown.  No one disputes that.  But Obama's adamant refusal to allow the public to see <b>both</b> is illogical and indefensible if there is <i>nothing to hide</i>.  Citizens of <b>both</b> parties deserve to see both Birth Certificates simply to put an end to any lingering doubts of eligibility -- the Republicans will either see the proof of what they suspect or the Democrats will see Obama vindicated and an end conclusively put to this mess once and for all.</p><p> I hate seeing politics dragged onto Slashdot but here, if anywhere, the logic of engineers should prevail (okay, maybe that's a *bit* of optimism).  Face it -- this site <b>removed</b> a great number of posts and votes of individuals simply expressing valid concerns over that other birth certificate.  Given that, it's clear that this poll of "what the public wants" <i>has been edited</i> and everything therein should be taken with a whole bag of salt.</p><p> Personally I'm not a smoker of anything but I think legalizing pot would solve a lot of problems.  However, highlighting these discussions as "topping" public responses is really nothing more than a diversionary tactic deflecting attention away from other important issues -- a tried and true tool of propagandists for centuries.  Don't be fools, don't be so easily side-tracked.  Yeah, let's legalize pot but let's also demand to know why "inconvenient" public inputs are being discarded.  And while we're at it, what exactly is on that <b>other</b> Birth Certificate that's so damned inconvenient?
</p><p> If you can't ask logical questions you might as well go back to writing Excel macros and stop calling yourselves programmers</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , I will admit I can not stand Obama , but neither am I an extreme right-winger .
I 'd like to consider myself a thoughtful centralist that considers the issues individually on merit rather than official party stance .
But I am stunned and saddened by the mad rush this country is showing to stick its head in the sand and ignore this lingering issue of eligibility for office and to brand those who dare question Jesus Hussein Obama , our Great Messiah , as crazy zealots .
Gaddamn , I bet the Shroud of Turin ca n't hold a candle to his Charmin .
The simple , undeniable fact is that there does exists two variations of birth certificates issued by the State of Hawaii which differ in which information is shown .
No one disputes that .
But Obama 's adamant refusal to allow the public to see both is illogical and indefensible if there is nothing to hide .
Citizens of both parties deserve to see both Birth Certificates simply to put an end to any lingering doubts of eligibility -- the Republicans will either see the proof of what they suspect or the Democrats will see Obama vindicated and an end conclusively put to this mess once and for all .
I hate seeing politics dragged onto Slashdot but here , if anywhere , the logic of engineers should prevail ( okay , maybe that 's a * bit * of optimism ) .
Face it -- this site removed a great number of posts and votes of individuals simply expressing valid concerns over that other birth certificate .
Given that , it 's clear that this poll of " what the public wants " has been edited and everything therein should be taken with a whole bag of salt .
Personally I 'm not a smoker of anything but I think legalizing pot would solve a lot of problems .
However , highlighting these discussions as " topping " public responses is really nothing more than a diversionary tactic deflecting attention away from other important issues -- a tried and true tool of propagandists for centuries .
Do n't be fools , do n't be so easily side-tracked .
Yeah , let 's legalize pot but let 's also demand to know why " inconvenient " public inputs are being discarded .
And while we 're at it , what exactly is on that other Birth Certificate that 's so damned inconvenient ?
If you ca n't ask logical questions you might as well go back to writing Excel macros and stop calling yourselves programmers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, I will admit I cannot stand Obama, but neither am I an extreme right-winger.
I'd like to consider myself a thoughtful centralist that considers the issues individually on merit rather than official party stance.
But I am stunned and saddened by the mad rush this country is showing to stick its head in the sand and ignore this lingering issue of eligibility for office and to brand those who dare question Jesus Hussein Obama, our Great Messiah, as crazy zealots.
Gaddamn, I bet the Shroud of Turin can't hold a candle to his Charmin.
The simple, undeniable fact is that there does exists two variations of birth certificates issued by the State of Hawaii which differ in which information is shown.
No one disputes that.
But Obama's adamant refusal to allow the public to see both is illogical and indefensible if there is nothing to hide.
Citizens of both parties deserve to see both Birth Certificates simply to put an end to any lingering doubts of eligibility -- the Republicans will either see the proof of what they suspect or the Democrats will see Obama vindicated and an end conclusively put to this mess once and for all.
I hate seeing politics dragged onto Slashdot but here, if anywhere, the logic of engineers should prevail (okay, maybe that's a *bit* of optimism).
Face it -- this site removed a great number of posts and votes of individuals simply expressing valid concerns over that other birth certificate.
Given that, it's clear that this poll of "what the public wants" has been edited and everything therein should be taken with a whole bag of salt.
Personally I'm not a smoker of anything but I think legalizing pot would solve a lot of problems.
However, highlighting these discussions as "topping" public responses is really nothing more than a diversionary tactic deflecting attention away from other important issues -- a tried and true tool of propagandists for centuries.
Don't be fools, don't be so easily side-tracked.
Yeah, let's legalize pot but let's also demand to know why "inconvenient" public inputs are being discarded.
And while we're at it, what exactly is on that other Birth Certificate that's so damned inconvenient?
If you can't ask logical questions you might as well go back to writing Excel macros and stop calling yourselves programmers</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195409</id>
	<title>wrong</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1244042340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"When dealing with complex issues such as law-making and governance, we need to locate and consult suitably educated experts to make these decisions."</p><p>"suitable educated" translates as "suitably indoctrinated into an agenda" in reality. there is no such thing as "education" on matters of social policy, only opinions. you can be educated in the hard sciences, say physics, but on the subject matter of say, states rights versus federal rights, you can only be indoctrinated into an agenda, right or left. you can't be educated in matters of social policy in the same way as say, how magnetism works</p><p>really, the problem with trusting some sort of elite over the general public should be self-apparent to you</p><p>what you do is retain your faith in the general public, you don't have any "experts" (aka, partisan hacks), but what protects your rights is that you have some laws which can be changed easily, and you have some laws which can be changed only with great difficulty</p><p>which should be easy and which should be hard? well, various legal concepts are enshrined at various levels in our legal system and its history. for example, the set of laws concerning equality have been reaffirmed going back to reconstruction. it would take a lot more effort than one simple vote or law to overturn them</p><p>in this way, our laws and principles and rights are not as fragile as you suppose, nor as subject to the vagarities of public opinion as so many anxiety-ridden types would believe</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" When dealing with complex issues such as law-making and governance , we need to locate and consult suitably educated experts to make these decisions .
" " suitable educated " translates as " suitably indoctrinated into an agenda " in reality .
there is no such thing as " education " on matters of social policy , only opinions .
you can be educated in the hard sciences , say physics , but on the subject matter of say , states rights versus federal rights , you can only be indoctrinated into an agenda , right or left .
you ca n't be educated in matters of social policy in the same way as say , how magnetism worksreally , the problem with trusting some sort of elite over the general public should be self-apparent to youwhat you do is retain your faith in the general public , you do n't have any " experts " ( aka , partisan hacks ) , but what protects your rights is that you have some laws which can be changed easily , and you have some laws which can be changed only with great difficultywhich should be easy and which should be hard ?
well , various legal concepts are enshrined at various levels in our legal system and its history .
for example , the set of laws concerning equality have been reaffirmed going back to reconstruction .
it would take a lot more effort than one simple vote or law to overturn themin this way , our laws and principles and rights are not as fragile as you suppose , nor as subject to the vagarities of public opinion as so many anxiety-ridden types would believe</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"When dealing with complex issues such as law-making and governance, we need to locate and consult suitably educated experts to make these decisions.
""suitable educated" translates as "suitably indoctrinated into an agenda" in reality.
there is no such thing as "education" on matters of social policy, only opinions.
you can be educated in the hard sciences, say physics, but on the subject matter of say, states rights versus federal rights, you can only be indoctrinated into an agenda, right or left.
you can't be educated in matters of social policy in the same way as say, how magnetism worksreally, the problem with trusting some sort of elite over the general public should be self-apparent to youwhat you do is retain your faith in the general public, you don't have any "experts" (aka, partisan hacks), but what protects your rights is that you have some laws which can be changed easily, and you have some laws which can be changed only with great difficultywhich should be easy and which should be hard?
well, various legal concepts are enshrined at various levels in our legal system and its history.
for example, the set of laws concerning equality have been reaffirmed going back to reconstruction.
it would take a lot more effort than one simple vote or law to overturn themin this way, our laws and principles and rights are not as fragile as you suppose, nor as subject to the vagarities of public opinion as so many anxiety-ridden types would believe</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28200211</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>oneTheory</author>
	<datestamp>1244062680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do not want! (don't feed)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do not want !
( do n't feed )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do not want!
(don't feed)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194473</id>
	<title>Democracy isn't perfect.</title>
	<author>tygerstripes</author>
	<datestamp>1244038080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All sorts of people wiser and more eloquent than I can help to explain why such decisions should not be left open to public vote. A good recent example is <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8073863.stm" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">Clive James' commentary on democracy</a> [bbc.co.uk] which just finished it's run over on the Beeb.
</p><p>It comes down to the fact that most people don't really know what's best for society, which is why we grant stints of power to those who (we hope) do. When dealing with complex issues such as law-making and governance, we need to locate and consult suitably educated experts to make these decisions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All sorts of people wiser and more eloquent than I can help to explain why such decisions should not be left open to public vote .
A good recent example is Clive James ' commentary on democracy [ bbc.co.uk ] which just finished it 's run over on the Beeb .
It comes down to the fact that most people do n't really know what 's best for society , which is why we grant stints of power to those who ( we hope ) do .
When dealing with complex issues such as law-making and governance , we need to locate and consult suitably educated experts to make these decisions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All sorts of people wiser and more eloquent than I can help to explain why such decisions should not be left open to public vote.
A good recent example is Clive James' commentary on democracy [bbc.co.uk] which just finished it's run over on the Beeb.
It comes down to the fact that most people don't really know what's best for society, which is why we grant stints of power to those who (we hope) do.
When dealing with complex issues such as law-making and governance, we need to locate and consult suitably educated experts to make these decisions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194847</id>
	<title>So let me get this straight..</title>
	<author>Strange Ranger</author>
	<datestamp>1244039760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
In Digg We Trust?</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Digg We Trust ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
In Digg We Trust?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196177</id>
	<title>Are you saying it doesn't fit the context?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244045580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Brainstorming was conducted in an effort to identify ways to 'strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness by making government more transparent, participatory, and collaborative.' So, what were some of the top vote-getters? Currently near the top of the list are Legalize Marijuana...</p></div></blockquote><p>
Look at it this way: <em>why</em> would anyone want to make government more transparent, participatory, and collaborative?  <em>Why</em> bother to strengthen democracy?
</p><p>
It's about fairness and being able to <strong>trust</strong> that your government is actually working to protect the rights of the people, and promote the peoples' interests rather than the interests of a small group.  Democracy and transparency are just means to the end of trustworthy government.
</p><p>
Marijuana prohibition flies in the face of the very goal.  The drug war may be just one bad thing government is doing among many, but nevertheless, as long as mariuana is illegal, you will know that you <em>don't</em> have a trustworthy government, and that its agend is something other than protecting rights.  If it's illegal for someone to grow a plant in their back yard and smoke it, then all your efforts to strengthen democracy, improve transparency etc will have proven themselves failures.
</p><p>
I don't really think politicians should be working <em>specifically</em> to legalize drugs; if you look at it <em>that</em> narrowly then I suppose maybe it really is a "special interest." I'd rather they wake up some morning and decide to <em>generally</em> use their government powers to make government less of an enemy of the people, and then drug legalization (among many other things) would just automatically flow from that.  But if drug legalization arguments are the thing that will enlighten them and make them think, "Hey wait, <em>what</em> are we doing?!? I've got this whole 'government vs the people' issue all backwards", then that's progress <em>exactly</em> within the scope of strengthening democracy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Brainstorming was conducted in an effort to identify ways to 'strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness by making government more transparent , participatory , and collaborative .
' So , what were some of the top vote-getters ?
Currently near the top of the list are Legalize Marijuana.. . Look at it this way : why would anyone want to make government more transparent , participatory , and collaborative ?
Why bother to strengthen democracy ?
It 's about fairness and being able to trust that your government is actually working to protect the rights of the people , and promote the peoples ' interests rather than the interests of a small group .
Democracy and transparency are just means to the end of trustworthy government .
Marijuana prohibition flies in the face of the very goal .
The drug war may be just one bad thing government is doing among many , but nevertheless , as long as mariuana is illegal , you will know that you do n't have a trustworthy government , and that its agend is something other than protecting rights .
If it 's illegal for someone to grow a plant in their back yard and smoke it , then all your efforts to strengthen democracy , improve transparency etc will have proven themselves failures .
I do n't really think politicians should be working specifically to legalize drugs ; if you look at it that narrowly then I suppose maybe it really is a " special interest .
" I 'd rather they wake up some morning and decide to generally use their government powers to make government less of an enemy of the people , and then drug legalization ( among many other things ) would just automatically flow from that .
But if drug legalization arguments are the thing that will enlighten them and make them think , " Hey wait , what are we doing ? ! ?
I 've got this whole 'government vs the people ' issue all backwards " , then that 's progress exactly within the scope of strengthening democracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Brainstorming was conducted in an effort to identify ways to 'strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness by making government more transparent, participatory, and collaborative.
' So, what were some of the top vote-getters?
Currently near the top of the list are Legalize Marijuana...
Look at it this way: why would anyone want to make government more transparent, participatory, and collaborative?
Why bother to strengthen democracy?
It's about fairness and being able to trust that your government is actually working to protect the rights of the people, and promote the peoples' interests rather than the interests of a small group.
Democracy and transparency are just means to the end of trustworthy government.
Marijuana prohibition flies in the face of the very goal.
The drug war may be just one bad thing government is doing among many, but nevertheless, as long as mariuana is illegal, you will know that you don't have a trustworthy government, and that its agend is something other than protecting rights.
If it's illegal for someone to grow a plant in their back yard and smoke it, then all your efforts to strengthen democracy, improve transparency etc will have proven themselves failures.
I don't really think politicians should be working specifically to legalize drugs; if you look at it that narrowly then I suppose maybe it really is a "special interest.
" I'd rather they wake up some morning and decide to generally use their government powers to make government less of an enemy of the people, and then drug legalization (among many other things) would just automatically flow from that.
But if drug legalization arguments are the thing that will enlighten them and make them think, "Hey wait, what are we doing?!?
I've got this whole 'government vs the people' issue all backwards", then that's progress exactly within the scope of strengthening democracy.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196401</id>
	<title>Re:Related, in a way</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1244046600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is it about rules that makes you love them so much?</p><p>I've known plenty of people who had a perfectly manageable marijuana habit, they smoked varying amounts, but most of them limited their activity to some extent because of the side effects. For those people, all the bad effects you mention are going to be mitigated by lower street prices, not increased. For the people that bake their lives away, I don't find it particularly likely that the law is going to have much impact on their behavior.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is it about rules that makes you love them so much ? I 've known plenty of people who had a perfectly manageable marijuana habit , they smoked varying amounts , but most of them limited their activity to some extent because of the side effects .
For those people , all the bad effects you mention are going to be mitigated by lower street prices , not increased .
For the people that bake their lives away , I do n't find it particularly likely that the law is going to have much impact on their behavior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is it about rules that makes you love them so much?I've known plenty of people who had a perfectly manageable marijuana habit, they smoked varying amounts, but most of them limited their activity to some extent because of the side effects.
For those people, all the bad effects you mention are going to be mitigated by lower street prices, not increased.
For the people that bake their lives away, I don't find it particularly likely that the law is going to have much impact on their behavior.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196163</id>
	<title>Re:Hey, wait a minute...</title>
	<author>david\_thornley</author>
	<datestamp>1244045580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
That's another process for public engagement, and also an important one.  It's also really clumsy as a way of forwarding my views.
</p><p>
There's generally two candidates to vote for that have any chance of winning, so I vote for the one of the two that I think will most effectively promote my views.  This means that the candidate I vote for almost certainly will work for somewhat different things than I'd like him or her to.
</p><p>
Note that the plurality system means that, if I don't vote for one of the two viable candidates, I've exerted no influence on who actually gets elected.  I want some sort of improved voting system.  None of them can be perfect, but there's a whole lot that are better than what we have.
</p><p>
Another way to influence government is to get my representatives to act more to my liking on issues by telling them what I want directly.  This also has its problems, but using the two together is, I think, much more useful than either one alone.  If more people would do this, I think government would work better.  As it is, it's easy for a small group to determine to swamp the system.
</p><p>
Setting up a forum for national input on national issues is a good idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's another process for public engagement , and also an important one .
It 's also really clumsy as a way of forwarding my views .
There 's generally two candidates to vote for that have any chance of winning , so I vote for the one of the two that I think will most effectively promote my views .
This means that the candidate I vote for almost certainly will work for somewhat different things than I 'd like him or her to .
Note that the plurality system means that , if I do n't vote for one of the two viable candidates , I 've exerted no influence on who actually gets elected .
I want some sort of improved voting system .
None of them can be perfect , but there 's a whole lot that are better than what we have .
Another way to influence government is to get my representatives to act more to my liking on issues by telling them what I want directly .
This also has its problems , but using the two together is , I think , much more useful than either one alone .
If more people would do this , I think government would work better .
As it is , it 's easy for a small group to determine to swamp the system .
Setting up a forum for national input on national issues is a good idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
That's another process for public engagement, and also an important one.
It's also really clumsy as a way of forwarding my views.
There's generally two candidates to vote for that have any chance of winning, so I vote for the one of the two that I think will most effectively promote my views.
This means that the candidate I vote for almost certainly will work for somewhat different things than I'd like him or her to.
Note that the plurality system means that, if I don't vote for one of the two viable candidates, I've exerted no influence on who actually gets elected.
I want some sort of improved voting system.
None of them can be perfect, but there's a whole lot that are better than what we have.
Another way to influence government is to get my representatives to act more to my liking on issues by telling them what I want directly.
This also has its problems, but using the two together is, I think, much more useful than either one alone.
If more people would do this, I think government would work better.
As it is, it's easy for a small group to determine to swamp the system.
Setting up a forum for national input on national issues is a good idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194709</id>
	<title>Re:We all laugh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244039280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not a matter of life experience to find out that drugs aren't the answer to society's problems, that eschews the entire issue. It's a question of morality and liberty: If you believe that the government should get its hands out of your body/bedroom/bank account/business then it is inane that the state is allowed to tell you that you aren't allowed to ingest something into your own body. If on the other hand, you're one of the people who don't believe in liberty, and believe that the state should be allowed to tell you what you are allowed to do with your body / who you can sleep with / how much money you can have, how you spend it, and can seize it forcibly / what your business can and can't do, then you would have forfeited any claim to make decisions for yourself, so it doesn't matter what you believe anymore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a matter of life experience to find out that drugs are n't the answer to society 's problems , that eschews the entire issue .
It 's a question of morality and liberty : If you believe that the government should get its hands out of your body/bedroom/bank account/business then it is inane that the state is allowed to tell you that you are n't allowed to ingest something into your own body .
If on the other hand , you 're one of the people who do n't believe in liberty , and believe that the state should be allowed to tell you what you are allowed to do with your body / who you can sleep with / how much money you can have , how you spend it , and can seize it forcibly / what your business can and ca n't do , then you would have forfeited any claim to make decisions for yourself , so it does n't matter what you believe anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a matter of life experience to find out that drugs aren't the answer to society's problems, that eschews the entire issue.
It's a question of morality and liberty: If you believe that the government should get its hands out of your body/bedroom/bank account/business then it is inane that the state is allowed to tell you that you aren't allowed to ingest something into your own body.
If on the other hand, you're one of the people who don't believe in liberty, and believe that the state should be allowed to tell you what you are allowed to do with your body / who you can sleep with / how much money you can have, how you spend it, and can seize it forcibly / what your business can and can't do, then you would have forfeited any claim to make decisions for yourself, so it doesn't matter what you believe anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194779</id>
	<title>another few (100) billions 'vaporize'?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244039580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>JPMorgan to break up unit's hedge fund business</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * On Wednesday June 3, 2009, 8:07 am EDT</p><p>NEW YORK (Reuters) - JPMorgan Chase &amp; Co (NYSE:JPM - News) is disbanding its stand-alone Principal Investment Management Group's hedge-fund business and private-equity division and shifting staff from this unit to sit within existing businesses, according to a person familiar with the reorganization.</p><p>The main goal is to better align principal investing with JPMorgan's traditional investment banking business lines, the person said.</p><p>JPMorgan's commodities group, for example, already has a principal investment management team attached to it -- and more businesses will be set up this way after the reorganization.</p><p>The bank's Asia-based private equity team will be incorporated into its global emerging markets and credit trading unit, the person said.</p><p>JPMorgan declined comment.</p><p>(Reporting by Elinor Comlay in New York, with additional reporting by Ajay Kamalakaran in Bangalore; editing by Simon Jessop and Gerald E. McCormick)</p><p>Copyright &#194;&#169; 2008 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republican sponsorship of this debacle is not acknowledged. redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.<br>Copyright &#194;&#169; 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Copyright Policy - Send Feedback</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>JPMorgan to break up unit 's hedge fund business         * On Wednesday June 3 , 2009 , 8 : 07 am EDTNEW YORK ( Reuters ) - JPMorgan Chase &amp; Co ( NYSE : JPM - News ) is disbanding its stand-alone Principal Investment Management Group 's hedge-fund business and private-equity division and shifting staff from this unit to sit within existing businesses , according to a person familiar with the reorganization.The main goal is to better align principal investing with JPMorgan 's traditional investment banking business lines , the person said.JPMorgan 's commodities group , for example , already has a principal investment management team attached to it -- and more businesses will be set up this way after the reorganization.The bank 's Asia-based private equity team will be incorporated into its global emerging markets and credit trading unit , the person said.JPMorgan declined comment .
( Reporting by Elinor Comlay in New York , with additional reporting by Ajay Kamalakaran in Bangalore ; editing by Simon Jessop and Gerald E. McCormick ) Copyright     2008 Reuters Limited .
All rights reserved .
Republican sponsorship of this debacle is not acknowledged .
redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters .
Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content , or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.Copyright     2009 Yahoo !
Inc. All rights reserved .
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Copyright Policy - Send Feedback</tokentext>
<sentencetext>JPMorgan to break up unit's hedge fund business
        * On Wednesday June 3, 2009, 8:07 am EDTNEW YORK (Reuters) - JPMorgan Chase &amp; Co (NYSE:JPM - News) is disbanding its stand-alone Principal Investment Management Group's hedge-fund business and private-equity division and shifting staff from this unit to sit within existing businesses, according to a person familiar with the reorganization.The main goal is to better align principal investing with JPMorgan's traditional investment banking business lines, the person said.JPMorgan's commodities group, for example, already has a principal investment management team attached to it -- and more businesses will be set up this way after the reorganization.The bank's Asia-based private equity team will be incorporated into its global emerging markets and credit trading unit, the person said.JPMorgan declined comment.
(Reporting by Elinor Comlay in New York, with additional reporting by Ajay Kamalakaran in Bangalore; editing by Simon Jessop and Gerald E. McCormick)Copyright Â© 2008 Reuters Limited.
All rights reserved.
Republican sponsorship of this debacle is not acknowledged.
redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.
Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.Copyright Â© 2009 Yahoo!
Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Copyright Policy - Send Feedback</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28198021</id>
	<title>Re:Gov't logic reguarding the risk of legalization</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244052960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of them can be transferred to work on combating the illegal immigrants that are everywhere in the U.S.</p><p>This strategy would also make the idea of drug legalization more appealing to the more conservative section of the populace and the politicians.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of them can be transferred to work on combating the illegal immigrants that are everywhere in the U.S.This strategy would also make the idea of drug legalization more appealing to the more conservative section of the populace and the politicians .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of them can be transferred to work on combating the illegal immigrants that are everywhere in the U.S.This strategy would also make the idea of drug legalization more appealing to the more conservative section of the populace and the politicians.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194641</id>
	<title>Re:We all laugh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244038980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Online polls and these forums are not representative of the population, I probably don't need to remind you of the fervor Ron Paul generated during the last election. All of the online social aggregators had him picked as the best choice for america, and we all know where that got him.</p><p>The truth is that what goes on online, is not in sync with the rest of the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Online polls and these forums are not representative of the population , I probably do n't need to remind you of the fervor Ron Paul generated during the last election .
All of the online social aggregators had him picked as the best choice for america , and we all know where that got him.The truth is that what goes on online , is not in sync with the rest of the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Online polls and these forums are not representative of the population, I probably don't need to remind you of the fervor Ron Paul generated during the last election.
All of the online social aggregators had him picked as the best choice for america, and we all know where that got him.The truth is that what goes on online, is not in sync with the rest of the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194765</id>
	<title>Re:Hey, wait a minute...</title>
	<author>locallyunscene</author>
	<datestamp>1244039580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except what if you only get a choice between two drivers each time? I see nothing wrong with having a forum to voice concerns that is open directly to the public.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except what if you only get a choice between two drivers each time ?
I see nothing wrong with having a forum to voice concerns that is open directly to the public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except what if you only get a choice between two drivers each time?
I see nothing wrong with having a forum to voice concerns that is open directly to the public.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195323</id>
	<title>Re:Related, in a way</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244041980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My favorite is:<br>"Legislate a requirement that, in any war, the military aged children and grandchildren of the president, the vice president, all cabinet officials, and all Congress members serve on the front lines in the most dangerous combat positions -- no exceptions, no exemptions."</p><p>This actually make sense</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My favorite is : " Legislate a requirement that , in any war , the military aged children and grandchildren of the president , the vice president , all cabinet officials , and all Congress members serve on the front lines in the most dangerous combat positions -- no exceptions , no exemptions .
" This actually make sense</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My favorite is:"Legislate a requirement that, in any war, the military aged children and grandchildren of the president, the vice president, all cabinet officials, and all Congress members serve on the front lines in the most dangerous combat positions -- no exceptions, no exemptions.
"This actually make sense</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28199215</id>
	<title>Re:Related, in a way</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244058240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to the seperation of powers clauses in the US constitution, the executive branch (the presidency) does not have legislative or judicial powers, excepting the power of veto in the production of new federal laws.</p><p>Compare this with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive\_order\_(United\_States)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">"Executive Orders" (modern "homeland security" versions that is.)</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>I am all for the removal of this flagrant misuse of executive branch powers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the seperation of powers clauses in the US constitution , the executive branch ( the presidency ) does not have legislative or judicial powers , excepting the power of veto in the production of new federal laws.Compare this with " Executive Orders " ( modern " homeland security " versions that is .
) [ wikipedia.org ] I am all for the removal of this flagrant misuse of executive branch powers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the seperation of powers clauses in the US constitution, the executive branch (the presidency) does not have legislative or judicial powers, excepting the power of veto in the production of new federal laws.Compare this with "Executive Orders" (modern "homeland security" versions that is.
) [wikipedia.org]I am all for the removal of this flagrant misuse of executive branch powers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195735</id>
	<title>Re:The marijuana crowd is retarded</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244043780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You've never tried growing weed, have you. Good weed at least.<br>You don't just throw a seed in the ground with some miracle gro.<br>Equipment is expensive. Lights, pumps, fans, CO2 generators, pH/EC/TDS meters, nutrients... it all adds up.<br>Not only that, but it takes a good amount of dedication. Fungus, pests, and diseases are a constant threat.<br>You have to be vigilant to eliminate male plants early enough to prevent pollination of the females.<br>The legal risk issue, is not the only reason good pot is expensive.<br>After all, Mexican schwag is probably more illegal than true headies if you take into account all the state/national borders it's crossed, but sells for a tiny fraction of the price.<br>I would definitely grow my own weed if it were legalized, much like I grow my own tomatoes. But much like with tomatoes, it would be more a hobby than subsistence farming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've never tried growing weed , have you .
Good weed at least.You do n't just throw a seed in the ground with some miracle gro.Equipment is expensive .
Lights , pumps , fans , CO2 generators , pH/EC/TDS meters , nutrients... it all adds up.Not only that , but it takes a good amount of dedication .
Fungus , pests , and diseases are a constant threat.You have to be vigilant to eliminate male plants early enough to prevent pollination of the females.The legal risk issue , is not the only reason good pot is expensive.After all , Mexican schwag is probably more illegal than true headies if you take into account all the state/national borders it 's crossed , but sells for a tiny fraction of the price.I would definitely grow my own weed if it were legalized , much like I grow my own tomatoes .
But much like with tomatoes , it would be more a hobby than subsistence farming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've never tried growing weed, have you.
Good weed at least.You don't just throw a seed in the ground with some miracle gro.Equipment is expensive.
Lights, pumps, fans, CO2 generators, pH/EC/TDS meters, nutrients... it all adds up.Not only that, but it takes a good amount of dedication.
Fungus, pests, and diseases are a constant threat.You have to be vigilant to eliminate male plants early enough to prevent pollination of the females.The legal risk issue, is not the only reason good pot is expensive.After all, Mexican schwag is probably more illegal than true headies if you take into account all the state/national borders it's crossed, but sells for a tiny fraction of the price.I would definitely grow my own weed if it were legalized, much like I grow my own tomatoes.
But much like with tomatoes, it would be more a hobby than subsistence farming.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195677</id>
	<title>Birth Cert</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244043540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The guy ranting about the birth certificate obviously doesn't know how to use Google search:<br>http://www.politifact.com/media/img/graphics/birthCertObama.jpg</p><p>I think it's interesting that a lot of the top ideas involve legalizing pot, reducing bribes (ie lobbying) and cleaning up the process of law-making.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The guy ranting about the birth certificate obviously does n't know how to use Google search : http : //www.politifact.com/media/img/graphics/birthCertObama.jpgI think it 's interesting that a lot of the top ideas involve legalizing pot , reducing bribes ( ie lobbying ) and cleaning up the process of law-making .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The guy ranting about the birth certificate obviously doesn't know how to use Google search:http://www.politifact.com/media/img/graphics/birthCertObama.jpgI think it's interesting that a lot of the top ideas involve legalizing pot, reducing bribes (ie lobbying) and cleaning up the process of law-making.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195047</id>
	<title>But...</title>
	<author>Nathrael</author>
	<datestamp>1244040660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Aren't alcohol and cigarettes alone not already enough of a problem? I'm not saying Marijuana intoxication is worse than Alcohol intoxication, but frankly said, I don't think we need more stuff that allows people getting high on it at all. We've got more than enough troubles, do we need another drug causing them?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are n't alcohol and cigarettes alone not already enough of a problem ?
I 'm not saying Marijuana intoxication is worse than Alcohol intoxication , but frankly said , I do n't think we need more stuff that allows people getting high on it at all .
We 've got more than enough troubles , do we need another drug causing them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aren't alcohol and cigarettes alone not already enough of a problem?
I'm not saying Marijuana intoxication is worse than Alcohol intoxication, but frankly said, I don't think we need more stuff that allows people getting high on it at all.
We've got more than enough troubles, do we need another drug causing them?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28197529</id>
	<title>Re:Related, in a way</title>
	<author>Dhalka226</author>
	<datestamp>1244051160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I used to think that all drugs were bad [. .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.] I'm reconsidering that stance.</p></div></blockquote><p>It's worth noting that the two positions are not incompatible.  I think drugs are bad.  I see nothing of value to altering my mental state, particularly if there is ANY chance of ANY long-term damages whatsoever.  I've never smoked (cigarettes, marijuana or otherwise), I've never been drunk (my all-time record is 3 beers over the course of about 6 hours), I certainly have never injected any narcotics.  I don't abuse prescription pills.  I don't particularly care, from a personal perspective, if "you" go to jail for doing any of those things.

</p><p>And yet I still see the BS and the failures in our drug laws.  As you stated, even if we want to keep weed illegal, classifying it as a Schedule I narcotic is ridiculous.  Moreover I think keeping it illegal costs more than it's worth in enforcement, treatment and prison usage, and the vast majority of the crime surrounding it would disappear if it were legalized.  That doesn't, for the record, mean I wouldn't think people smoking it up are idiots even if it was legal.

</p><p>In other words, don't think of it as an either-or.  Law shouldn't be attempts to enforce our own brand of morality on others; laws should be about your interactions with other people.  Recognizing that doesn't mean we forfeit that morality.  Just that we have to live with more visible signs of disagreement.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to think that all drugs were bad [ .
. .
] I 'm reconsidering that stance.It 's worth noting that the two positions are not incompatible .
I think drugs are bad .
I see nothing of value to altering my mental state , particularly if there is ANY chance of ANY long-term damages whatsoever .
I 've never smoked ( cigarettes , marijuana or otherwise ) , I 've never been drunk ( my all-time record is 3 beers over the course of about 6 hours ) , I certainly have never injected any narcotics .
I do n't abuse prescription pills .
I do n't particularly care , from a personal perspective , if " you " go to jail for doing any of those things .
And yet I still see the BS and the failures in our drug laws .
As you stated , even if we want to keep weed illegal , classifying it as a Schedule I narcotic is ridiculous .
Moreover I think keeping it illegal costs more than it 's worth in enforcement , treatment and prison usage , and the vast majority of the crime surrounding it would disappear if it were legalized .
That does n't , for the record , mean I would n't think people smoking it up are idiots even if it was legal .
In other words , do n't think of it as an either-or .
Law should n't be attempts to enforce our own brand of morality on others ; laws should be about your interactions with other people .
Recognizing that does n't mean we forfeit that morality .
Just that we have to live with more visible signs of disagreement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to think that all drugs were bad [.
. .
] I'm reconsidering that stance.It's worth noting that the two positions are not incompatible.
I think drugs are bad.
I see nothing of value to altering my mental state, particularly if there is ANY chance of ANY long-term damages whatsoever.
I've never smoked (cigarettes, marijuana or otherwise), I've never been drunk (my all-time record is 3 beers over the course of about 6 hours), I certainly have never injected any narcotics.
I don't abuse prescription pills.
I don't particularly care, from a personal perspective, if "you" go to jail for doing any of those things.
And yet I still see the BS and the failures in our drug laws.
As you stated, even if we want to keep weed illegal, classifying it as a Schedule I narcotic is ridiculous.
Moreover I think keeping it illegal costs more than it's worth in enforcement, treatment and prison usage, and the vast majority of the crime surrounding it would disappear if it were legalized.
That doesn't, for the record, mean I wouldn't think people smoking it up are idiots even if it was legal.
In other words, don't think of it as an either-or.
Law shouldn't be attempts to enforce our own brand of morality on others; laws should be about your interactions with other people.
Recognizing that doesn't mean we forfeit that morality.
Just that we have to live with more visible signs of disagreement.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28198389</id>
	<title>Re:Related, in a way</title>
	<author>Enigma2175</author>
	<datestamp>1244054400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Also, I'd like to point out that #1 is End Imperial Presidency [ideascale.com] -- with 755 votes against #2's 351 --, heavily criticizing Bush's presidency and calling out what happened in Iraq as war crimes, as they should be called. That is a serious one</p></div><p>
&nbsp; </p><p>Serious? <i>Really?</i> Like the clause that states:</p><p>
&nbsp; </p><p>"Legislate a requirement that, in any war, the military aged children and grandchildren of the president, the vice president, all cabinet officials, and all Congress members serve on the front lines in the most dangerous combat positions -- no exceptions, no exemptions."</p><p>
&nbsp; </p><p>So we should make a law that adults are forced into the most dangerous military service possible because of the political positions of their relatives?  A possible death sentence because a relative was elected to public office?  Such a proposal seems like a non-starter.</p><p>Like many Americans I believe the bounds of executive power have been pushed too far and need to be reined back to reasonable limits.  However, if your proposal for doing so includes idiocy like the above quote it won't get far.  Something needs to be reasonable before it is doable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , I 'd like to point out that # 1 is End Imperial Presidency [ ideascale.com ] -- with 755 votes against # 2 's 351 -- , heavily criticizing Bush 's presidency and calling out what happened in Iraq as war crimes , as they should be called .
That is a serious one   Serious ?
Really ? Like the clause that states :   " Legislate a requirement that , in any war , the military aged children and grandchildren of the president , the vice president , all cabinet officials , and all Congress members serve on the front lines in the most dangerous combat positions -- no exceptions , no exemptions .
"   So we should make a law that adults are forced into the most dangerous military service possible because of the political positions of their relatives ?
A possible death sentence because a relative was elected to public office ?
Such a proposal seems like a non-starter.Like many Americans I believe the bounds of executive power have been pushed too far and need to be reined back to reasonable limits .
However , if your proposal for doing so includes idiocy like the above quote it wo n't get far .
Something needs to be reasonable before it is doable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, I'd like to point out that #1 is End Imperial Presidency [ideascale.com] -- with 755 votes against #2's 351 --, heavily criticizing Bush's presidency and calling out what happened in Iraq as war crimes, as they should be called.
That is a serious one
  Serious?
Really? Like the clause that states:
  "Legislate a requirement that, in any war, the military aged children and grandchildren of the president, the vice president, all cabinet officials, and all Congress members serve on the front lines in the most dangerous combat positions -- no exceptions, no exemptions.
"
  So we should make a law that adults are forced into the most dangerous military service possible because of the political positions of their relatives?
A possible death sentence because a relative was elected to public office?
Such a proposal seems like a non-starter.Like many Americans I believe the bounds of executive power have been pushed too far and need to be reined back to reasonable limits.
However, if your proposal for doing so includes idiocy like the above quote it won't get far.
Something needs to be reasonable before it is doable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194931</id>
	<title>Re:Hey, wait a minute...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244040180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Either you are using it wrong, or you are too stupid to use it correctly. Either way, don't blame the car; get a new driver.</p></div><p>The red or the blue driver? They both drive backwards, but at least you get to choose who will wreck your car!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Either you are using it wrong , or you are too stupid to use it correctly .
Either way , do n't blame the car ; get a new driver.The red or the blue driver ?
They both drive backwards , but at least you get to choose who will wreck your car !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Either you are using it wrong, or you are too stupid to use it correctly.
Either way, don't blame the car; get a new driver.The red or the blue driver?
They both drive backwards, but at least you get to choose who will wreck your car!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28198319</id>
	<title>Re:What does Marijuana have to do with this?</title>
	<author>Ezrymyrh</author>
	<datestamp>1244054100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness by making government more transparent, participatory, and collaborative.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Say what? Let me analyse this point by point...</p><p>

<b>Strengthen our democracy:</b> How, by making people sit around their bong every night discussing the problems of the world? Like.. "Man... link um.. why do they fold those papers around those little sticks of gum? Can't they see we need to save some trees? Besides they taste terrible when folding a joint, their just disgusting."</p><p>


WHAT??? MAKE people sit around a bong....Stupid----------


<b>Promote efficiency:</b> Get real, Marijuana and efficiency in the same sentence? Last I knew all my childhood friends were doing nothing with their lives. Just sitting around getting high with no aspirations in life. Several are dead from accidents, suicide, some perpetually in rehab clinics, and all living life day-t-day. Efficiency is not the first word on my mind. </p><p>


Your PERSONAL opinion i will respect but do not assume all people who smoke do nothing,achieve nothing, many of the founding fathers of this country smoked weed......


<b>Making government more transparent:</b> Ok, Marijuana is hallucinogenic for some people, but I doubt that the Government is going to get any more transparent that way. </p><p>

Can you say straw man...

<b>Collaborative:</b> Ok, lets get this one definition straight. We are talking about the Government being more collaborative, not people sitting around talking about fantasies while smoking joints. How is legalizing Marijuana going to get the Government to improve on their collaboration skills?</p><p>

Again....Stupid

I know I'll get flamed, and I'm not trying to argue that it should or should not be legalized, but what the study is for and the conclusions being stated about Marijuana are just not related from my viewpoint. But as I remember back to 'hanging out' with my childhood friends, they usually were not thinking all so coherently about much of anything, and no doubt they were the ones 'brainstorming' here. So why would I think this study would be any different? Go figure.</p><p>

You want it legalized? Good for you, go for it. This is a democracy after all. But, with the next study trying to 'fix the Government', please try to come up with ideas on topic and that actually solve the issues that the study is supposed to discuss. If you want to change the law there are already ways to do that. Go for it. </p></div><p>The legalization of weed will NOT fix the gov, it will however add a much needed tax base, jobs from farming,industy uses,bio fuel and save many man hours in this futile war.

If this is your idea of a brainstorm...Well then you need to lay of the booze</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness by making government more transparent , participatory , and collaborative .
Say what ?
Let me analyse this point by point.. . Strengthen our democracy : How , by making people sit around their bong every night discussing the problems of the world ?
Like.. " Man... link um.. why do they fold those papers around those little sticks of gum ?
Ca n't they see we need to save some trees ?
Besides they taste terrible when folding a joint , their just disgusting .
" WHAT ? ? ?
MAKE people sit around a bong....Stupid---------- Promote efficiency : Get real , Marijuana and efficiency in the same sentence ?
Last I knew all my childhood friends were doing nothing with their lives .
Just sitting around getting high with no aspirations in life .
Several are dead from accidents , suicide , some perpetually in rehab clinics , and all living life day-t-day .
Efficiency is not the first word on my mind .
Your PERSONAL opinion i will respect but do not assume all people who smoke do nothing,achieve nothing , many of the founding fathers of this country smoked weed..... . Making government more transparent : Ok , Marijuana is hallucinogenic for some people , but I doubt that the Government is going to get any more transparent that way .
Can you say straw man.. . Collaborative : Ok , lets get this one definition straight .
We are talking about the Government being more collaborative , not people sitting around talking about fantasies while smoking joints .
How is legalizing Marijuana going to get the Government to improve on their collaboration skills ?
Again....Stupid I know I 'll get flamed , and I 'm not trying to argue that it should or should not be legalized , but what the study is for and the conclusions being stated about Marijuana are just not related from my viewpoint .
But as I remember back to 'hanging out ' with my childhood friends , they usually were not thinking all so coherently about much of anything , and no doubt they were the ones 'brainstorming ' here .
So why would I think this study would be any different ?
Go figure .
You want it legalized ?
Good for you , go for it .
This is a democracy after all .
But , with the next study trying to 'fix the Government ' , please try to come up with ideas on topic and that actually solve the issues that the study is supposed to discuss .
If you want to change the law there are already ways to do that .
Go for it .
The legalization of weed will NOT fix the gov , it will however add a much needed tax base , jobs from farming,industy uses,bio fuel and save many man hours in this futile war .
If this is your idea of a brainstorm...Well then you need to lay of the booze</tokentext>
<sentencetext>strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness by making government more transparent, participatory, and collaborative.
Say what?
Let me analyse this point by point...

Strengthen our democracy: How, by making people sit around their bong every night discussing the problems of the world?
Like.. "Man... link um.. why do they fold those papers around those little sticks of gum?
Can't they see we need to save some trees?
Besides they taste terrible when folding a joint, their just disgusting.
"


WHAT???
MAKE people sit around a bong....Stupid----------


Promote efficiency: Get real, Marijuana and efficiency in the same sentence?
Last I knew all my childhood friends were doing nothing with their lives.
Just sitting around getting high with no aspirations in life.
Several are dead from accidents, suicide, some perpetually in rehab clinics, and all living life day-t-day.
Efficiency is not the first word on my mind.
Your PERSONAL opinion i will respect but do not assume all people who smoke do nothing,achieve nothing, many of the founding fathers of this country smoked weed......


Making government more transparent: Ok, Marijuana is hallucinogenic for some people, but I doubt that the Government is going to get any more transparent that way.
Can you say straw man...

Collaborative: Ok, lets get this one definition straight.
We are talking about the Government being more collaborative, not people sitting around talking about fantasies while smoking joints.
How is legalizing Marijuana going to get the Government to improve on their collaboration skills?
Again....Stupid

I know I'll get flamed, and I'm not trying to argue that it should or should not be legalized, but what the study is for and the conclusions being stated about Marijuana are just not related from my viewpoint.
But as I remember back to 'hanging out' with my childhood friends, they usually were not thinking all so coherently about much of anything, and no doubt they were the ones 'brainstorming' here.
So why would I think this study would be any different?
Go figure.
You want it legalized?
Good for you, go for it.
This is a democracy after all.
But, with the next study trying to 'fix the Government', please try to come up with ideas on topic and that actually solve the issues that the study is supposed to discuss.
If you want to change the law there are already ways to do that.
Go for it.
The legalization of weed will NOT fix the gov, it will however add a much needed tax base, jobs from farming,industy uses,bio fuel and save many man hours in this futile war.
If this is your idea of a brainstorm...Well then you need to lay of the booze
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195549</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194449</id>
	<title>Re:We all laugh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244038020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>the reason is because the VOTING public don't want it. once the students and younger generation become old enough that they actually turn up to cast their vote, they've had enough life experience that they've figured out more drugs isn't the answer to society's problems</htmltext>
<tokenext>the reason is because the VOTING public do n't want it .
once the students and younger generation become old enough that they actually turn up to cast their vote , they 've had enough life experience that they 've figured out more drugs is n't the answer to society 's problems</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the reason is because the VOTING public don't want it.
once the students and younger generation become old enough that they actually turn up to cast their vote, they've had enough life experience that they've figured out more drugs isn't the answer to society's problems</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194681</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong Idea Form</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244039160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The website serves its purpose perfectly.</p><p>The administration is able to "reach out to the people" and "foster new communication channels". 'Only with open discussion will we bring about change'. Blah blah blah.</p><p>What really happens is that it keeps the plebs busy expressing their ideas and hopes. While "the people" are pouring their hearts into the bit bucket, the government is busy doing whatever it wants without the scrutiny or hindrance of the populace.</p><p>Did you really ever think that any national government would take advice from "the people". Especially when "the people" are anonymous trolls of any age, possibly from anywhere in the world.</p><p>This is the change that you all wanted so much! Are you still too naive to realize when you are being pandered to and when you are being ignored. How long before he actually comes out and says STFU? Oh yea, second term.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The website serves its purpose perfectly.The administration is able to " reach out to the people " and " foster new communication channels " .
'Only with open discussion will we bring about change' .
Blah blah blah.What really happens is that it keeps the plebs busy expressing their ideas and hopes .
While " the people " are pouring their hearts into the bit bucket , the government is busy doing whatever it wants without the scrutiny or hindrance of the populace.Did you really ever think that any national government would take advice from " the people " .
Especially when " the people " are anonymous trolls of any age , possibly from anywhere in the world.This is the change that you all wanted so much !
Are you still too naive to realize when you are being pandered to and when you are being ignored .
How long before he actually comes out and says STFU ?
Oh yea , second term .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The website serves its purpose perfectly.The administration is able to "reach out to the people" and "foster new communication channels".
'Only with open discussion will we bring about change'.
Blah blah blah.What really happens is that it keeps the plebs busy expressing their ideas and hopes.
While "the people" are pouring their hearts into the bit bucket, the government is busy doing whatever it wants without the scrutiny or hindrance of the populace.Did you really ever think that any national government would take advice from "the people".
Especially when "the people" are anonymous trolls of any age, possibly from anywhere in the world.This is the change that you all wanted so much!
Are you still too naive to realize when you are being pandered to and when you are being ignored.
How long before he actually comes out and says STFU?
Oh yea, second term.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194319</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195157</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy is the problem</title>
	<author>geminidomino</author>
	<datestamp>1244041260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You are wrong. A bunch of dead white men from several hundred years ago don't know what's best for 2009.</p></div><p>True.</p><p>Of course, that in no way implies that a bunch of living mostly-white mostly-men do.</p><p>AFAIC, the government can only be trusted to do three things:<br>Fuck off<br>Fuck up<br>Fuck us.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are wrong .
A bunch of dead white men from several hundred years ago do n't know what 's best for 2009.True.Of course , that in no way implies that a bunch of living mostly-white mostly-men do.AFAIC , the government can only be trusted to do three things : Fuck offFuck upFuck us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are wrong.
A bunch of dead white men from several hundred years ago don't know what's best for 2009.True.Of course, that in no way implies that a bunch of living mostly-white mostly-men do.AFAIC, the government can only be trusted to do three things:Fuck offFuck upFuck us.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194793</id>
	<title>Re:deja vu</title>
	<author>Mr. Slippery</author>
	<datestamp>1244039640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>So this is the second time we're experiencing deja vu?</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>"This is like deja vu all over again." --  Yogi Berra

</p><p>It's become <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=deja+vu+all+over+again" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">an idiom in American English</a> [google.com].

</p><p>HTH. HAND.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So this is the second time we 're experiencing deja vu ?
" This is like deja vu all over again .
" -- Yogi Berra It 's become an idiom in American English [ google.com ] .
HTH. HAND .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> So this is the second time we're experiencing deja vu?
"This is like deja vu all over again.
" --  Yogi Berra

It's become an idiom in American English [google.com].
HTH. HAND.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28198061</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong Idea Form</title>
	<author>GuloGulo2</author>
	<datestamp>1244053080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You really have time to not only care about something so trivial, but actually write a post about it?</p><p>AFTER you write a post asking why people aren't being censored to your satisfaction?</p><p>Why haven't you killed your loser self yet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You really have time to not only care about something so trivial , but actually write a post about it ? AFTER you write a post asking why people are n't being censored to your satisfaction ? Why have n't you killed your loser self yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You really have time to not only care about something so trivial, but actually write a post about it?AFTER you write a post asking why people aren't being censored to your satisfaction?Why haven't you killed your loser self yet?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194319</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195221</id>
	<title>Re:We all laugh</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1244041500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>isn't the answer to society's problems</i></p><p>And putting people in prison is?</p><p>This isn't about them being good or bad. You can think drugs are bad, and still not support putting people in prison for doing something that should be none of your business. Views and laws regarding tobacco would be an obvious example of this (it's harmful, there are laws that control its sale and use in public, but no one is put in prison for smoking in their own homes, or possessing cigarettes).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is n't the answer to society 's problemsAnd putting people in prison is ? This is n't about them being good or bad .
You can think drugs are bad , and still not support putting people in prison for doing something that should be none of your business .
Views and laws regarding tobacco would be an obvious example of this ( it 's harmful , there are laws that control its sale and use in public , but no one is put in prison for smoking in their own homes , or possessing cigarettes ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>isn't the answer to society's problemsAnd putting people in prison is?This isn't about them being good or bad.
You can think drugs are bad, and still not support putting people in prison for doing something that should be none of your business.
Views and laws regarding tobacco would be an obvious example of this (it's harmful, there are laws that control its sale and use in public, but no one is put in prison for smoking in their own homes, or possessing cigarettes).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194559</id>
	<title>Democracy is the problem</title>
	<author>jmorris42</author>
	<datestamp>1244038500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem being illustrated is with the concept of 'democracy', an idea our Founding Fathers was aware of and not only discarded it was a notion they took great measures to prevent.  Instead we were given a Republic, if we could keep it.  Epic Fail.</p><p>Democracy means if you have a group of a hundred people, fifty one can vote to piss in the Corn Flakes of the other forty nine and if everyone believes in Democracy there can't be any objections if the votes were counted properly.  Because that is what Democracy IS, the People can have anything they vote for.  We had a Republic with a written Constituition that laid down hard limits that while changable, were intentionally difficult.  This created the Rule of Laws instead of the Rule of Men.  We had divided and limited government.  But we threw that away and now have the Rule of Men and our civilization is declining.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem being illustrated is with the concept of 'democracy ' , an idea our Founding Fathers was aware of and not only discarded it was a notion they took great measures to prevent .
Instead we were given a Republic , if we could keep it .
Epic Fail.Democracy means if you have a group of a hundred people , fifty one can vote to piss in the Corn Flakes of the other forty nine and if everyone believes in Democracy there ca n't be any objections if the votes were counted properly .
Because that is what Democracy IS , the People can have anything they vote for .
We had a Republic with a written Constituition that laid down hard limits that while changable , were intentionally difficult .
This created the Rule of Laws instead of the Rule of Men .
We had divided and limited government .
But we threw that away and now have the Rule of Men and our civilization is declining .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem being illustrated is with the concept of 'democracy', an idea our Founding Fathers was aware of and not only discarded it was a notion they took great measures to prevent.
Instead we were given a Republic, if we could keep it.
Epic Fail.Democracy means if you have a group of a hundred people, fifty one can vote to piss in the Corn Flakes of the other forty nine and if everyone believes in Democracy there can't be any objections if the votes were counted properly.
Because that is what Democracy IS, the People can have anything they vote for.
We had a Republic with a written Constituition that laid down hard limits that while changable, were intentionally difficult.
This created the Rule of Laws instead of the Rule of Men.
We had divided and limited government.
But we threw that away and now have the Rule of Men and our civilization is declining.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28198085</id>
	<title>Re:What does Marijuana have to do with this?</title>
	<author>careysub</author>
	<datestamp>1244053200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Addressing this from the standpoint of having a proper controlled substance rescheduling of cannabis down from Schedule I to Schedule V (the DEA itself lists 100\% pure THC at only Schedule III !), in accordance with the actual regulations and science:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Say what? Let me analyse this point by point...</p><p>
<b>Strengthen our democracy:</b> How, by making people sit around their bong every night discussing the problems of the world? Like.. "Man... link um.. why do they fold those papers around those little sticks of gum? Can't they see we need to save some trees? Besides they taste terrible when folding a joint, their just disgusting."</p></div><p>When government regulations are flagrantly abused to maintain the power and budget of one organization (the DEA) this clearly undermines the meaning of democratic government. If the government writes regulations, it should follow them.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>Promote efficiency:</b> Get real, Marijuana and efficiency in the same sentence? Last I knew all my childhood friends were doing nothing with their lives. Just sitting around getting high with no aspirations in life. Several are dead from accidents, suicide, some perpetually in rehab clinics, and all living life day-t-day. Efficiency is not the first word on my mind. </p></div><p>When I consider pouring billions of dollars into a bottomless pit based on abuse of regulations and scorn of scientific evidence, efficiency is the FIRST word on my mind!</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>Making government more transparent:</b> Ok, Marijuana is hallucinogenic for some people, but I doubt that the Government is going to get any more transparent that way. </p></div><p>Obeying regulations and enforcing them in a logical evidence-based manner is essential to transparent government.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>Collaborative:</b> Ok, lets get this one definition straight. We are talking about the Government being more collaborative, not people sitting around talking about fantasies while smoking joints. How is legalizing Marijuana going to get the Government to improve on their collaboration skills?</p></div><p>Recent polls on medical marijuana show nation public support at the level of 72\% in favor and 21\% opposed. Paying attention to the overwhelming majority of Americans today is the essence of collaborative (as opposed to imperial or authoritarian) federal government.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Addressing this from the standpoint of having a proper controlled substance rescheduling of cannabis down from Schedule I to Schedule V ( the DEA itself lists 100 \ % pure THC at only Schedule III !
) , in accordance with the actual regulations and science : Say what ?
Let me analyse this point by point.. . Strengthen our democracy : How , by making people sit around their bong every night discussing the problems of the world ?
Like.. " Man... link um.. why do they fold those papers around those little sticks of gum ?
Ca n't they see we need to save some trees ?
Besides they taste terrible when folding a joint , their just disgusting .
" When government regulations are flagrantly abused to maintain the power and budget of one organization ( the DEA ) this clearly undermines the meaning of democratic government .
If the government writes regulations , it should follow them .
Promote efficiency : Get real , Marijuana and efficiency in the same sentence ?
Last I knew all my childhood friends were doing nothing with their lives .
Just sitting around getting high with no aspirations in life .
Several are dead from accidents , suicide , some perpetually in rehab clinics , and all living life day-t-day .
Efficiency is not the first word on my mind .
When I consider pouring billions of dollars into a bottomless pit based on abuse of regulations and scorn of scientific evidence , efficiency is the FIRST word on my mind !
Making government more transparent : Ok , Marijuana is hallucinogenic for some people , but I doubt that the Government is going to get any more transparent that way .
Obeying regulations and enforcing them in a logical evidence-based manner is essential to transparent government .
Collaborative : Ok , lets get this one definition straight .
We are talking about the Government being more collaborative , not people sitting around talking about fantasies while smoking joints .
How is legalizing Marijuana going to get the Government to improve on their collaboration skills ? Recent polls on medical marijuana show nation public support at the level of 72 \ % in favor and 21 \ % opposed .
Paying attention to the overwhelming majority of Americans today is the essence of collaborative ( as opposed to imperial or authoritarian ) federal government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Addressing this from the standpoint of having a proper controlled substance rescheduling of cannabis down from Schedule I to Schedule V (the DEA itself lists 100\% pure THC at only Schedule III !
), in accordance with the actual regulations and science:Say what?
Let me analyse this point by point...
Strengthen our democracy: How, by making people sit around their bong every night discussing the problems of the world?
Like.. "Man... link um.. why do they fold those papers around those little sticks of gum?
Can't they see we need to save some trees?
Besides they taste terrible when folding a joint, their just disgusting.
"When government regulations are flagrantly abused to maintain the power and budget of one organization (the DEA) this clearly undermines the meaning of democratic government.
If the government writes regulations, it should follow them.
Promote efficiency: Get real, Marijuana and efficiency in the same sentence?
Last I knew all my childhood friends were doing nothing with their lives.
Just sitting around getting high with no aspirations in life.
Several are dead from accidents, suicide, some perpetually in rehab clinics, and all living life day-t-day.
Efficiency is not the first word on my mind.
When I consider pouring billions of dollars into a bottomless pit based on abuse of regulations and scorn of scientific evidence, efficiency is the FIRST word on my mind!
Making government more transparent: Ok, Marijuana is hallucinogenic for some people, but I doubt that the Government is going to get any more transparent that way.
Obeying regulations and enforcing them in a logical evidence-based manner is essential to transparent government.
Collaborative: Ok, lets get this one definition straight.
We are talking about the Government being more collaborative, not people sitting around talking about fantasies while smoking joints.
How is legalizing Marijuana going to get the Government to improve on their collaboration skills?Recent polls on medical marijuana show nation public support at the level of 72\% in favor and 21\% opposed.
Paying attention to the overwhelming majority of Americans today is the essence of collaborative (as opposed to imperial or authoritarian) federal government.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195549</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196329</id>
	<title>Re:We all laugh</title>
	<author>mdarksbane</author>
	<datestamp>1244046180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, there's a fairly strong argument that pot was banned because industrial hemp was a competition to wood pulp as a source for paper.</p><p><a href="http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html" title="salon.com">http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html</a> [salon.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , there 's a fairly strong argument that pot was banned because industrial hemp was a competition to wood pulp as a source for paper.http : //blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html [ salon.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, there's a fairly strong argument that pot was banned because industrial hemp was a competition to wood pulp as a source for paper.http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html [salon.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28209445</id>
	<title>Proof geeks smoke pot</title>
	<author>akayani</author>
	<datestamp>1244129580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Proof that geeks smoke pot. If they can't deal with the bullshite of pot laws then they have no chance of dealing with the rest of the crap. Funny but the governments that don't give a shit about pot are also the ones that have faced up to the challenge of global warming.<br><br>It could be a valid litmus test of an ability to face reality and deal with it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Proof that geeks smoke pot .
If they ca n't deal with the bullshite of pot laws then they have no chance of dealing with the rest of the crap .
Funny but the governments that do n't give a shit about pot are also the ones that have faced up to the challenge of global warming.It could be a valid litmus test of an ability to face reality and deal with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Proof that geeks smoke pot.
If they can't deal with the bullshite of pot laws then they have no chance of dealing with the rest of the crap.
Funny but the governments that don't give a shit about pot are also the ones that have faced up to the challenge of global warming.It could be a valid litmus test of an ability to face reality and deal with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195309</id>
	<title>Re:The marijuana crowd is retarded</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1244041920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firstly, even if no tax can be made from it, the taxpayer is still better off due to not having to pay for enforcement of laws (nevermind that "we can't tax it" is a ludicrous argument for criminalising something).</p><p>Secondly, even if everyone did grow their own at home, that doesn't mean it can't be taxed (even if it's harder to enforce).</p><p>Thirdly, your claim is ludicrous - plenty of people spend extra money to save making something themselves (especially those with no gardens). There's no end of examples. Do people make their own beer and wine, in order to escape taxes? And you'd seriously put that as a reason to therefore criminalise alcohol?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firstly , even if no tax can be made from it , the taxpayer is still better off due to not having to pay for enforcement of laws ( nevermind that " we ca n't tax it " is a ludicrous argument for criminalising something ) .Secondly , even if everyone did grow their own at home , that does n't mean it ca n't be taxed ( even if it 's harder to enforce ) .Thirdly , your claim is ludicrous - plenty of people spend extra money to save making something themselves ( especially those with no gardens ) .
There 's no end of examples .
Do people make their own beer and wine , in order to escape taxes ?
And you 'd seriously put that as a reason to therefore criminalise alcohol ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firstly, even if no tax can be made from it, the taxpayer is still better off due to not having to pay for enforcement of laws (nevermind that "we can't tax it" is a ludicrous argument for criminalising something).Secondly, even if everyone did grow their own at home, that doesn't mean it can't be taxed (even if it's harder to enforce).Thirdly, your claim is ludicrous - plenty of people spend extra money to save making something themselves (especially those with no gardens).
There's no end of examples.
Do people make their own beer and wine, in order to escape taxes?
And you'd seriously put that as a reason to therefore criminalise alcohol?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28203493</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy isn't perfect.</title>
	<author>jafac</author>
	<datestamp>1244032020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that crowdsourcing (and ELECTIONS) suffer from selection bias.<br>The squeaky wheels will go out of their way to drown out every other voice.<br>And no moderation system is perfect.  (Except slashdot's!  Please don't ban me!)</p><p>But a demographic survey *IS* a scientifically rigorous way to obtain, not only "popular opinion" (however you'd like to define it) but also, how an election might turn out.</p><p>The problem with surveys is: the surveyor chooses the topic.<br>The problem with crowdsourced surveys is: the subjects choose the topic. (but the loudest voices win).</p><p>I think either suffers from sort of a Heisenberg's Indeterminacy problem. You can observe the zeitgeist, or you can observe a particular topic.  But you poison the results by looking at both.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that crowdsourcing ( and ELECTIONS ) suffer from selection bias.The squeaky wheels will go out of their way to drown out every other voice.And no moderation system is perfect .
( Except slashdot 's !
Please do n't ban me !
) But a demographic survey * IS * a scientifically rigorous way to obtain , not only " popular opinion " ( however you 'd like to define it ) but also , how an election might turn out.The problem with surveys is : the surveyor chooses the topic.The problem with crowdsourced surveys is : the subjects choose the topic .
( but the loudest voices win ) .I think either suffers from sort of a Heisenberg 's Indeterminacy problem .
You can observe the zeitgeist , or you can observe a particular topic .
But you poison the results by looking at both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that crowdsourcing (and ELECTIONS) suffer from selection bias.The squeaky wheels will go out of their way to drown out every other voice.And no moderation system is perfect.
(Except slashdot's!
Please don't ban me!
)But a demographic survey *IS* a scientifically rigorous way to obtain, not only "popular opinion" (however you'd like to define it) but also, how an election might turn out.The problem with surveys is: the surveyor chooses the topic.The problem with crowdsourced surveys is: the subjects choose the topic.
(but the loudest voices win).I think either suffers from sort of a Heisenberg's Indeterminacy problem.
You can observe the zeitgeist, or you can observe a particular topic.
But you poison the results by looking at both.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195855</id>
	<title>Re:We all laugh</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1244044200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>once the students and younger generation become old enough that they actually turn up to cast their vote</p></div><p>You mean like 18-29 year olds did just last year at around a 50-55\% rate, only a few percentage points shy of the overall turnout? Your stereotyping of young people as disinterested in politics may have been true 10 years ago, but isn't now. And they aren't necessarily going to change their views on the pot issue: there's good reason to think that much of the shift in older voters' views on this had a lot to do with the 1980's cultural backlash against hippies, not just simply getting older.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>once the students and younger generation become old enough that they actually turn up to cast their voteYou mean like 18-29 year olds did just last year at around a 50-55 \ % rate , only a few percentage points shy of the overall turnout ?
Your stereotyping of young people as disinterested in politics may have been true 10 years ago , but is n't now .
And they are n't necessarily going to change their views on the pot issue : there 's good reason to think that much of the shift in older voters ' views on this had a lot to do with the 1980 's cultural backlash against hippies , not just simply getting older .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>once the students and younger generation become old enough that they actually turn up to cast their voteYou mean like 18-29 year olds did just last year at around a 50-55\% rate, only a few percentage points shy of the overall turnout?
Your stereotyping of young people as disinterested in politics may have been true 10 years ago, but isn't now.
And they aren't necessarily going to change their views on the pot issue: there's good reason to think that much of the shift in older voters' views on this had a lot to do with the 1980's cultural backlash against hippies, not just simply getting older.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194647</id>
	<title>Re:We all laugh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244038980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The experience of the pharmaceutical industry is that Americans LOVE drugs, especially the old folks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The experience of the pharmaceutical industry is that Americans LOVE drugs , especially the old folks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The experience of the pharmaceutical industry is that Americans LOVE drugs, especially the old folks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194489</id>
	<title>Hey, wait a minute...</title>
	<author>thedonger</author>
	<datestamp>1244038200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>[from TFS]<blockquote><div><p>In May, the White House launched what it called an 'unprecedented online process for public engagement in policymaking.'</p></div> </blockquote><p>Don't we already have this? It's called voting. The congress works <em>for us</em>, and it is our job to use our vote and our voice with our local representatives to effect policy change. This idea sounds more like the equivalent of inviting the entire country to a 'town hall' meeting.</p><p>I get the feeling that people think our government is broken. It is no more broken than your car is if you drive to work backwards. Either you are using it wrong, or you are too stupid to use it correctly. Either way, don't blame the car; get a new driver.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ from TFS ] In May , the White House launched what it called an 'unprecedented online process for public engagement in policymaking .
' Do n't we already have this ?
It 's called voting .
The congress works for us , and it is our job to use our vote and our voice with our local representatives to effect policy change .
This idea sounds more like the equivalent of inviting the entire country to a 'town hall ' meeting.I get the feeling that people think our government is broken .
It is no more broken than your car is if you drive to work backwards .
Either you are using it wrong , or you are too stupid to use it correctly .
Either way , do n't blame the car ; get a new driver .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[from TFS]In May, the White House launched what it called an 'unprecedented online process for public engagement in policymaking.
' Don't we already have this?
It's called voting.
The congress works for us, and it is our job to use our vote and our voice with our local representatives to effect policy change.
This idea sounds more like the equivalent of inviting the entire country to a 'town hall' meeting.I get the feeling that people think our government is broken.
It is no more broken than your car is if you drive to work backwards.
Either you are using it wrong, or you are too stupid to use it correctly.
Either way, don't blame the car; get a new driver.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194461</id>
	<title>Re:We all laugh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244038080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not? If the Gov can smoke through our money, we should be allowed to smoke through our problems they cause.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not ?
If the Gov can smoke through our money , we should be allowed to smoke through our problems they cause .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not?
If the Gov can smoke through our money, we should be allowed to smoke through our problems they cause.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28197139</id>
	<title>Re:What does Marijuana have to do with this?</title>
	<author>DAtkins</author>
	<datestamp>1244049600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My analysis seems to be a bit different from yours...<br>

<b>Strengthen our democracy:</b> This is obviously an important issue for a number of American citizens, one that it being ignored by our elected representatives due to it's perceived negative political consequences.  When we focus on problems that are politically expedient, we dismiss the problems for which genuine debate would be the most helpful.<br>

<b>Promote efficiency:</b> Given the choice between pot being managed by the IRS or the judicial system - I have to give the efficiency card to the IRS.  While comparing the relative efficiencies of teenage stoners is a clever image - it has no bearing on the efficiency of government or the efficiency of the people to interact with the government.<br>

<b>Making government more transparent:</b> It would certainly help to show that the government will address issues that the common people find important.  Currently, it has the reputation of being run in closed door meetings over issues that corporate sponsors find important.  Certainly marijuana isn't an end-all-be-all issue that would prove anything, but it would show that politicians are willing to at least consider ideas that come from the people - and debate them openly.<br>

<b>Collaborative:</b> The marijuana question is actually quite collaborative, as it's one of the few issues that not only brings to debate the problem - but actively proposes various solutions.  Unlike other important issues like transportation (traffic sucks, fix it!), health care (we need insurance!), or foreign policy (rabble, rabble, rabble!) - marijuana legalization actually proposes methods of taxing, earmarking tax revenue, continued regulation, possible international consequences, etc. all based on concrete historical data.<br>

I fully understand and respect that marijuana legalization is not important to you.  To many people however, legalization is important to them - and perhaps more importantly represents the low-hanging fruit of governmental reform.  For people who see it as a problem, the solution seems to obvious that they can't help but insist that it be debated rationally long before complex reorganization reaches the halls of congress - who seems more interested in talking about useless matters like gay marriage.<br>

Finally, your recollections of childhood stoners has little bearing on pot smokers in general - just like your recollections of childhood drinkers has little bearing on adult drinkers.  Responsibility is required in both instances, and is the genuine problem that you friends had.  Sir Richard Branson smokes pot, and what a lazy asshole he is!  Yeah, anecdotal evidence is practically useless.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My analysis seems to be a bit different from yours.. . Strengthen our democracy : This is obviously an important issue for a number of American citizens , one that it being ignored by our elected representatives due to it 's perceived negative political consequences .
When we focus on problems that are politically expedient , we dismiss the problems for which genuine debate would be the most helpful .
Promote efficiency : Given the choice between pot being managed by the IRS or the judicial system - I have to give the efficiency card to the IRS .
While comparing the relative efficiencies of teenage stoners is a clever image - it has no bearing on the efficiency of government or the efficiency of the people to interact with the government .
Making government more transparent : It would certainly help to show that the government will address issues that the common people find important .
Currently , it has the reputation of being run in closed door meetings over issues that corporate sponsors find important .
Certainly marijuana is n't an end-all-be-all issue that would prove anything , but it would show that politicians are willing to at least consider ideas that come from the people - and debate them openly .
Collaborative : The marijuana question is actually quite collaborative , as it 's one of the few issues that not only brings to debate the problem - but actively proposes various solutions .
Unlike other important issues like transportation ( traffic sucks , fix it !
) , health care ( we need insurance !
) , or foreign policy ( rabble , rabble , rabble !
) - marijuana legalization actually proposes methods of taxing , earmarking tax revenue , continued regulation , possible international consequences , etc .
all based on concrete historical data .
I fully understand and respect that marijuana legalization is not important to you .
To many people however , legalization is important to them - and perhaps more importantly represents the low-hanging fruit of governmental reform .
For people who see it as a problem , the solution seems to obvious that they ca n't help but insist that it be debated rationally long before complex reorganization reaches the halls of congress - who seems more interested in talking about useless matters like gay marriage .
Finally , your recollections of childhood stoners has little bearing on pot smokers in general - just like your recollections of childhood drinkers has little bearing on adult drinkers .
Responsibility is required in both instances , and is the genuine problem that you friends had .
Sir Richard Branson smokes pot , and what a lazy asshole he is !
Yeah , anecdotal evidence is practically useless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My analysis seems to be a bit different from yours...

Strengthen our democracy: This is obviously an important issue for a number of American citizens, one that it being ignored by our elected representatives due to it's perceived negative political consequences.
When we focus on problems that are politically expedient, we dismiss the problems for which genuine debate would be the most helpful.
Promote efficiency: Given the choice between pot being managed by the IRS or the judicial system - I have to give the efficiency card to the IRS.
While comparing the relative efficiencies of teenage stoners is a clever image - it has no bearing on the efficiency of government or the efficiency of the people to interact with the government.
Making government more transparent: It would certainly help to show that the government will address issues that the common people find important.
Currently, it has the reputation of being run in closed door meetings over issues that corporate sponsors find important.
Certainly marijuana isn't an end-all-be-all issue that would prove anything, but it would show that politicians are willing to at least consider ideas that come from the people - and debate them openly.
Collaborative: The marijuana question is actually quite collaborative, as it's one of the few issues that not only brings to debate the problem - but actively proposes various solutions.
Unlike other important issues like transportation (traffic sucks, fix it!
), health care (we need insurance!
), or foreign policy (rabble, rabble, rabble!
) - marijuana legalization actually proposes methods of taxing, earmarking tax revenue, continued regulation, possible international consequences, etc.
all based on concrete historical data.
I fully understand and respect that marijuana legalization is not important to you.
To many people however, legalization is important to them - and perhaps more importantly represents the low-hanging fruit of governmental reform.
For people who see it as a problem, the solution seems to obvious that they can't help but insist that it be debated rationally long before complex reorganization reaches the halls of congress - who seems more interested in talking about useless matters like gay marriage.
Finally, your recollections of childhood stoners has little bearing on pot smokers in general - just like your recollections of childhood drinkers has little bearing on adult drinkers.
Responsibility is required in both instances, and is the genuine problem that you friends had.
Sir Richard Branson smokes pot, and what a lazy asshole he is!
Yeah, anecdotal evidence is practically useless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195549</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28202835</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy is the problem</title>
	<author>alexo</author>
	<datestamp>1244029140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Democracy means if you have a group of a hundred people, fifty one can vote to piss in the Corn Flakes of the other forty nine and if everyone believes in Democracy there can't be any objections if the votes were counted properly. Because that is what Democracy IS, the People can have anything they vote for.</p></div></blockquote><p>Incorrect.<br>These days "Democracy" is an umbrella term describing a group of government systems with population participation to some extent.  What you describe is -a- democracy (specifically: a direct and unlimited democracy) but it is by no means the only possible one.<br>Incidentally, a republic is also -a- democracy (a representative one).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Democracy means if you have a group of a hundred people , fifty one can vote to piss in the Corn Flakes of the other forty nine and if everyone believes in Democracy there ca n't be any objections if the votes were counted properly .
Because that is what Democracy IS , the People can have anything they vote for.Incorrect.These days " Democracy " is an umbrella term describing a group of government systems with population participation to some extent .
What you describe is -a- democracy ( specifically : a direct and unlimited democracy ) but it is by no means the only possible one.Incidentally , a republic is also -a- democracy ( a representative one ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Democracy means if you have a group of a hundred people, fifty one can vote to piss in the Corn Flakes of the other forty nine and if everyone believes in Democracy there can't be any objections if the votes were counted properly.
Because that is what Democracy IS, the People can have anything they vote for.Incorrect.These days "Democracy" is an umbrella term describing a group of government systems with population participation to some extent.
What you describe is -a- democracy (specifically: a direct and unlimited democracy) but it is by no means the only possible one.Incidentally, a republic is also -a- democracy (a representative one).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195861</id>
	<title>Lack of democracy is the problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244044260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The same old tired argument is pushed forward time and time again. Let's say there is a group of sheep and a majority of wovles - they say. Surely it wouldn't be fair to let the majority rule in those circumstances?</p><p>Well, you've missed the point. There is no right way or wrong way. All there are, are competing views.Democracy wasn't intended to get the right answer...l because there is no right answer, only different answers preferred by different people.</p><p>Democracy is merely the best mechanism we have for maximising the likelihood that a majority of individuals will be contented with the outcome. It does not guarantee contentment, but then nor does monarchy, oligarchy, dictatorship etc.</p><p>Using your own daft example, if there were a hundred people, the majority would, in all probability, not vote to piss in the cornflakes of the minority, even if the idea quite appealed to them. The contstitution was intended to prevent democracy being undermined. It is, if you like, a description of the way in which this democracy will be run. Others have tried other ways and have failed, witness Germany, where the voters voted away their own rights to a dictator.</p><p>It isn't right to take your clothes off and streak through Time Square, and it isn't wrong either. Some people will like it, some will be horrified. Democracy allows us to gauge whether those who are horrified are greater in number than those who are amused and make things so that the majority are at ease.<br>The minority will loose out, but in truth, we usually end up compromising (that's why there are naturist areas) and we can all be happy. There will inevitably be a sad few individuals who are always in a minority and their lives will be miserable. They would exist in greater numbers under a dictatorship.</p><p>One last point. Don't kid yourself that any rule is anything other than the rule of man. If it is written down, a man (or woman) wrote it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The same old tired argument is pushed forward time and time again .
Let 's say there is a group of sheep and a majority of wovles - they say .
Surely it would n't be fair to let the majority rule in those circumstances ? Well , you 've missed the point .
There is no right way or wrong way .
All there are , are competing views.Democracy was n't intended to get the right answer...l because there is no right answer , only different answers preferred by different people.Democracy is merely the best mechanism we have for maximising the likelihood that a majority of individuals will be contented with the outcome .
It does not guarantee contentment , but then nor does monarchy , oligarchy , dictatorship etc.Using your own daft example , if there were a hundred people , the majority would , in all probability , not vote to piss in the cornflakes of the minority , even if the idea quite appealed to them .
The contstitution was intended to prevent democracy being undermined .
It is , if you like , a description of the way in which this democracy will be run .
Others have tried other ways and have failed , witness Germany , where the voters voted away their own rights to a dictator.It is n't right to take your clothes off and streak through Time Square , and it is n't wrong either .
Some people will like it , some will be horrified .
Democracy allows us to gauge whether those who are horrified are greater in number than those who are amused and make things so that the majority are at ease.The minority will loose out , but in truth , we usually end up compromising ( that 's why there are naturist areas ) and we can all be happy .
There will inevitably be a sad few individuals who are always in a minority and their lives will be miserable .
They would exist in greater numbers under a dictatorship.One last point .
Do n't kid yourself that any rule is anything other than the rule of man .
If it is written down , a man ( or woman ) wrote it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same old tired argument is pushed forward time and time again.
Let's say there is a group of sheep and a majority of wovles - they say.
Surely it wouldn't be fair to let the majority rule in those circumstances?Well, you've missed the point.
There is no right way or wrong way.
All there are, are competing views.Democracy wasn't intended to get the right answer...l because there is no right answer, only different answers preferred by different people.Democracy is merely the best mechanism we have for maximising the likelihood that a majority of individuals will be contented with the outcome.
It does not guarantee contentment, but then nor does monarchy, oligarchy, dictatorship etc.Using your own daft example, if there were a hundred people, the majority would, in all probability, not vote to piss in the cornflakes of the minority, even if the idea quite appealed to them.
The contstitution was intended to prevent democracy being undermined.
It is, if you like, a description of the way in which this democracy will be run.
Others have tried other ways and have failed, witness Germany, where the voters voted away their own rights to a dictator.It isn't right to take your clothes off and streak through Time Square, and it isn't wrong either.
Some people will like it, some will be horrified.
Democracy allows us to gauge whether those who are horrified are greater in number than those who are amused and make things so that the majority are at ease.The minority will loose out, but in truth, we usually end up compromising (that's why there are naturist areas) and we can all be happy.
There will inevitably be a sad few individuals who are always in a minority and their lives will be miserable.
They would exist in greater numbers under a dictatorship.One last point.
Don't kid yourself that any rule is anything other than the rule of man.
If it is written down, a man (or woman) wrote it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195129</id>
	<title>Re:The marijuana crowd is retarded</title>
	<author>krzy123</author>
	<datestamp>1244041140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wouldn't the better comparison would be to check the cost difference between alcohol after the prohibition era and bootleg alcohol during the period?

Regardless, it should still net some sort of income (as opposed to currently $0), as it would be commercialized like cigarettes and alcohol, therefore probably have some sort of special tax.  But you cannot use the current valuation of the product as an indicator of how much money you're losing out on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't the better comparison would be to check the cost difference between alcohol after the prohibition era and bootleg alcohol during the period ?
Regardless , it should still net some sort of income ( as opposed to currently $ 0 ) , as it would be commercialized like cigarettes and alcohol , therefore probably have some sort of special tax .
But you can not use the current valuation of the product as an indicator of how much money you 're losing out on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't the better comparison would be to check the cost difference between alcohol after the prohibition era and bootleg alcohol during the period?
Regardless, it should still net some sort of income (as opposed to currently $0), as it would be commercialized like cigarettes and alcohol, therefore probably have some sort of special tax.
But you cannot use the current valuation of the product as an indicator of how much money you're losing out on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195885</id>
	<title>I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>NiceGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1244044380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pot smokers and conspiracy theorists have a lot of time on their hands.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pot smokers and conspiracy theorists have a lot of time on their hands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pot smokers and conspiracy theorists have a lot of time on their hands.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28197713</id>
	<title>Rescheduling Cannabis is Just Science and Logic</title>
	<author>careysub</author>
	<datestamp>1244051820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a simple matter of paying attention to science and obeying the law as written. </p><p>The rules for Schedule I are:<br>
A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.<br>
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.<br>
C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.</p><p>The best available scientific and medical evidence and opinion clearly shows that criteria B and C do not apply (the US Institute of Medicine refuted B a decade ago, for example). The only way one can claim A applies is via a circular argument: all cannabis use DEFINED as abuse, therefore it has a high potential for abuse.</p><p>If the rules of classification are objectively and scientifically applied the it would rank no higher than Schedule IV!</p><p>The logic of scheduling Cannabis at Schedule IV (or V) is further shown by the DEA itself - by scheduling pure 100\% THC at Schedule III. Clearly a preparation that is only about 10\% as potent should have a lower ranking. One should note that Schedule V consists entirely of drugs with higher rankings (from I down to III) in reduced potency preparations. </p><p>This is simply a matter of getting science and reason back into regulation. Regrettably the DEA has been given a pass on these by both parties form the very beginning.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a simple matter of paying attention to science and obeying the law as written .
The rules for Schedule I are : A ) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse .
( B ) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States .
C ) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.The best available scientific and medical evidence and opinion clearly shows that criteria B and C do not apply ( the US Institute of Medicine refuted B a decade ago , for example ) .
The only way one can claim A applies is via a circular argument : all cannabis use DEFINED as abuse , therefore it has a high potential for abuse.If the rules of classification are objectively and scientifically applied the it would rank no higher than Schedule IV ! The logic of scheduling Cannabis at Schedule IV ( or V ) is further shown by the DEA itself - by scheduling pure 100 \ % THC at Schedule III .
Clearly a preparation that is only about 10 \ % as potent should have a lower ranking .
One should note that Schedule V consists entirely of drugs with higher rankings ( from I down to III ) in reduced potency preparations .
This is simply a matter of getting science and reason back into regulation .
Regrettably the DEA has been given a pass on these by both parties form the very beginning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a simple matter of paying attention to science and obeying the law as written.
The rules for Schedule I are:
A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.The best available scientific and medical evidence and opinion clearly shows that criteria B and C do not apply (the US Institute of Medicine refuted B a decade ago, for example).
The only way one can claim A applies is via a circular argument: all cannabis use DEFINED as abuse, therefore it has a high potential for abuse.If the rules of classification are objectively and scientifically applied the it would rank no higher than Schedule IV!The logic of scheduling Cannabis at Schedule IV (or V) is further shown by the DEA itself - by scheduling pure 100\% THC at Schedule III.
Clearly a preparation that is only about 10\% as potent should have a lower ranking.
One should note that Schedule V consists entirely of drugs with higher rankings (from I down to III) in reduced potency preparations.
This is simply a matter of getting science and reason back into regulation.
Regrettably the DEA has been given a pass on these by both parties form the very beginning.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28204137</id>
	<title>Re:marijuana legalization issue was Painful to Wat</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1244035800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><strong>DARE is not drug education. That is a horrific bad drug scare that leaves emotional damage and bigoted views about drug users, or it's an advertisement to a curious young moderately rebellious child.</strong></htmltext>
<tokenext>DARE is not drug education .
That is a horrific bad drug scare that leaves emotional damage and bigoted views about drug users , or it 's an advertisement to a curious young moderately rebellious child .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DARE is not drug education.
That is a horrific bad drug scare that leaves emotional damage and bigoted views about drug users, or it's an advertisement to a curious young moderately rebellious child.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28201389</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy isn't perfect.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244023980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>After spending 9 years reading this site and other various sites like it kuro5hin, digg, reddit, etc. I truly have come to the disturbing conclusion that despite much of the fawning over libertarian ideals (which have a nice appeal in many ways), huge swaths of the users that frequent these sites really deep down just want to be ruled by kings.</p></div><p>Case in point: Ron Paul.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>After spending 9 years reading this site and other various sites like it kuro5hin , digg , reddit , etc .
I truly have come to the disturbing conclusion that despite much of the fawning over libertarian ideals ( which have a nice appeal in many ways ) , huge swaths of the users that frequent these sites really deep down just want to be ruled by kings.Case in point : Ron Paul .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After spending 9 years reading this site and other various sites like it kuro5hin, digg, reddit, etc.
I truly have come to the disturbing conclusion that despite much of the fawning over libertarian ideals (which have a nice appeal in many ways), huge swaths of the users that frequent these sites really deep down just want to be ruled by kings.Case in point: Ron Paul.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28205047</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1244043000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>There already is.  I have no idea how much it costs, but a Navy recruiter was in my house yesterday.  Took out this little handy dandy plastic thing, similar to but larger than a blood sugar test strip.  My son put a drop of blood on the thing, waited for a few minutes, and his prescreen for drugs was finished.  They photocopied the strip, the son and the recruiter put their signatures on the paper, and that paper becomes a part of the kid's permanent record.Quick and easy, it tested for several common drug</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>There already is .
I have no idea how much it costs , but a Navy recruiter was in my house yesterday .
Took out this little handy dandy plastic thing , similar to but larger than a blood sugar test strip .
My son put a drop of blood on the thing , waited for a few minutes , and his prescreen for drugs was finished .
They photocopied the strip , the son and the recruiter put their signatures on the paper , and that paper becomes a part of the kid 's permanent record.Quick and easy , it tested for several common drug</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There already is.
I have no idea how much it costs, but a Navy recruiter was in my house yesterday.
Took out this little handy dandy plastic thing, similar to but larger than a blood sugar test strip.
My son put a drop of blood on the thing, waited for a few minutes, and his prescreen for drugs was finished.
They photocopied the strip, the son and the recruiter put their signatures on the paper, and that paper becomes a part of the kid's permanent record.Quick and easy, it tested for several common drug</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195829</id>
	<title>duh!  that's the whole point</title>
	<author>Weezul</author>
	<datestamp>1244044080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your dead wrong, many many people will happily buy pot &amp; pay the tax simply because they are too lazy to grow their own.  It's more socially beneficial if growing &amp; smoking are legal while selling is illegal.  A "grow your own" policy reduces government spending by eliminating enforcement, but the lost revenue from asset forfeiture makes these gains less spectacular.  A "tax it" policy means you both cut enforcement costs and still get revenue.</p><p>Long version :</p><p>A countries that wants to control usage, like say Spain, keeps marijuana illegal to sell, but allows growing &amp; smoking in limited quantities.  It's basically clear now that this is the best way to limit usage because legit smokers must physically work for their weed.  Of course, you can still buy marijuana on the street, but the supply is now limited and erratic, which pushes the users to grow.  A paradoxical benefit of the "grow it yourself" Spanish approach is that prices don't really support organized crime either.  Why?  Easy, any grower who decides he needs extra cash more than his stash may become a dealer.  So we've got the perfect environment where smokers smoke in moderation and organized crime is driven out.</p><p>U.S. drug policy totally fails to control usage, but nets high profits for the "prison industrial complex", so many government groups &amp; powerful people continue to support it.  I think the "tax it" proposals won't control usage quite as effectively as the "grow it yourself" approach, but "tax it" will maintain part of the asset forfeiture revenue stream, while drastically cutting government enforcement costs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your dead wrong , many many people will happily buy pot &amp; pay the tax simply because they are too lazy to grow their own .
It 's more socially beneficial if growing &amp; smoking are legal while selling is illegal .
A " grow your own " policy reduces government spending by eliminating enforcement , but the lost revenue from asset forfeiture makes these gains less spectacular .
A " tax it " policy means you both cut enforcement costs and still get revenue.Long version : A countries that wants to control usage , like say Spain , keeps marijuana illegal to sell , but allows growing &amp; smoking in limited quantities .
It 's basically clear now that this is the best way to limit usage because legit smokers must physically work for their weed .
Of course , you can still buy marijuana on the street , but the supply is now limited and erratic , which pushes the users to grow .
A paradoxical benefit of the " grow it yourself " Spanish approach is that prices do n't really support organized crime either .
Why ? Easy , any grower who decides he needs extra cash more than his stash may become a dealer .
So we 've got the perfect environment where smokers smoke in moderation and organized crime is driven out.U.S .
drug policy totally fails to control usage , but nets high profits for the " prison industrial complex " , so many government groups &amp; powerful people continue to support it .
I think the " tax it " proposals wo n't control usage quite as effectively as the " grow it yourself " approach , but " tax it " will maintain part of the asset forfeiture revenue stream , while drastically cutting government enforcement costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your dead wrong, many many people will happily buy pot &amp; pay the tax simply because they are too lazy to grow their own.
It's more socially beneficial if growing &amp; smoking are legal while selling is illegal.
A "grow your own" policy reduces government spending by eliminating enforcement, but the lost revenue from asset forfeiture makes these gains less spectacular.
A "tax it" policy means you both cut enforcement costs and still get revenue.Long version :A countries that wants to control usage, like say Spain, keeps marijuana illegal to sell, but allows growing &amp; smoking in limited quantities.
It's basically clear now that this is the best way to limit usage because legit smokers must physically work for their weed.
Of course, you can still buy marijuana on the street, but the supply is now limited and erratic, which pushes the users to grow.
A paradoxical benefit of the "grow it yourself" Spanish approach is that prices don't really support organized crime either.
Why?  Easy, any grower who decides he needs extra cash more than his stash may become a dealer.
So we've got the perfect environment where smokers smoke in moderation and organized crime is driven out.U.S.
drug policy totally fails to control usage, but nets high profits for the "prison industrial complex", so many government groups &amp; powerful people continue to support it.
I think the "tax it" proposals won't control usage quite as effectively as the "grow it yourself" approach, but "tax it" will maintain part of the asset forfeiture revenue stream, while drastically cutting government enforcement costs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194843</id>
	<title>Re:deja vu</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244039760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Deja vu all over again" was once said by Yogi Berra.  It became a sort of cultural anecdote in America.  As used here it's not an accident due to bad grammatical skills.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Deja vu all over again " was once said by Yogi Berra .
It became a sort of cultural anecdote in America .
As used here it 's not an accident due to bad grammatical skills .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Deja vu all over again" was once said by Yogi Berra.
It became a sort of cultural anecdote in America.
As used here it's not an accident due to bad grammatical skills.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195961</id>
	<title>Re:We all laugh</title>
	<author>Prof.Phreak</author>
	<datestamp>1244044740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget the very profitable prison system!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget the very profitable prison system !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget the very profitable prison system!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194441</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28207529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196073
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28199215
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28198021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194645
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28197529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195549
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28197139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195221
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28197933
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28201791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195549
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28205795
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28204697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195129
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195289
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28200093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195099
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28200179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28198389
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28197387
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194593
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195491
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194439
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28198235
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28198461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28198141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195245
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195857
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195883
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28197621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195549
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28198319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28199685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195481
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28199131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28200211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195679
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195157
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196361
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28200609
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28201431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28197849
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196491
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28198349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195309
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28201389
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28197119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196465
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28197629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28201013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195861
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28204405
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194709
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28198433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196163
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194931
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195549
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28198085
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195549
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28200295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195579
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28203493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28199773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28198061
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195549
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196713
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28199995
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28198691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194647
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28202005
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28202835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196329
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196439
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195701
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28197739
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1155221_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28204751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1155221.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194357
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194461
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194495
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194439
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194441
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28198235
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195961
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195025
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196377
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196329
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196111
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195245
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194449
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28199773
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195843
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194961
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195555
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194943
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194709
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195855
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194593
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194809
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195221
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194647
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194433
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195579
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1155221.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194319
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195701
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28200609
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194681
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28198061
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1155221.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196767
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1155221.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194291
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1155221.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194559
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194863
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195299
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195289
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195157
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28200093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28198433
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195679
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195057
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28202835
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28197119
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196455
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196961
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195861
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195497
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196439
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1155221.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194817
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1155221.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194795
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28199685
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1155221.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194463
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196211
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195129
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195831
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194973
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28201431
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195529
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195481
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194825
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28204751
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195763
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195735
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28197933
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195829
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195309
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195857
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195731
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1155221.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195677
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196313
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1155221.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194475
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195099
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196361
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28201013
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195337
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28199215
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195323
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28204697
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28202005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195377
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28199131
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195501
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196073
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196401
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28197529
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28198389
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28197387
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1155221.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194601
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1155221.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195047
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28198349
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28200211
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1155221.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194491
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194781
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194843
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28197621
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194793
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28198141
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1155221.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195549
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28205795
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28197139
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196713
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28198319
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28200295
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28198085
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1155221.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194489
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195119
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194931
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194765
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196163
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195681
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194645
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1155221.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194403
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196465
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28198021
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195883
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28201791
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28198461
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28197629
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28197849
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194749
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1155221.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194603
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195085
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28196491
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28197739
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1155221.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194473
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195257
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195409
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195159
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195943
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28207529
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28201389
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28200179
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28199995
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28204405
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28203493
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28195491
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1155221.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28194683
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1155221.28198691
</commentlist>
</conversation>
