PDA

View Full Version : Marijuana Possession Remains Illegal, Canada's ...



Ariel_001
12-24-2003, 02:47 AM
source: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/html/2...COURT_RULES.asp (http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/html/20031223T190000-0500_53426_OBS_MARIJUANA_POSSESSION_REMAINS_ILLEGAL__CANADA_S_HIGHEST_COURT_RULES.asp)

Marijuana possession remains illegal, Canada's highest court rules

Observer Reporter
Wednesday, December 24, 2003



TORONTO, Canada (AP) - Marijuana possession in Canada will remain illegal, the country's Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision yesterday, after three plaintiffs failed to convince the courts that laws banning the drug are unconstitutional.

The court's decision throws the issue back to Canada's federal government, which had been planning to change its marijuana laws.

Prime Minister Paul Martin is expected to reintroduce a bill, first proposed under former Prime Minister Jean Chretien, that would eliminate potential jail time and criminal records for those convicted of pot possession.

The bill would not legalise the drug, and would maintain or increase already stiff penalties for large-scale growers and traffickers. It would make possession of less than 15 grams (about half an ounce) of pot a minor offense punishable by fines of 100 Canadian dollars (US$75) to C$400 (US$300), much like traffic tickets.

The Supreme Court considered three cases involving two self-described marijuana activists and one man who was caught smoking marijuana. All three had failed to persuade lower courts that Canada's pot law is unconstitutional.

The judgment ignited reaction from all fronts of the country's ongoing marijuana debate.

''It's nice to see at least three of the Supreme Court justices have half a brain,'' said Dominic Kramer, a marijuana activist who runs a store selling hemp products and paraphernalia in Toronto. ''My huge patriotism may slowly be dissipating. I have a lot of faith in my country, in freedom and justice, but it doesn't seem like we have a whole lot of that left.''

Tony Cannavino, president of the Canadian Police Association, welcomed the decision cautiously but expressed concern over Martin's proposed bill.

balamm
12-24-2003, 04:46 AM
I take it you think this is a bad decision?

Have you smoked so much that you're incapable of personally forming a printable thought ?

I'm just a bit relieved that our supreme court has refused to pander to one more subculture.
Someone may lose a vote or 2 over this but, it lessens, to a very small degree, the ridicule Canada has been attracting lately.

When fags and stoners are in the majority, then maybe some of this whining shit will make sense. In the meanwhile, back to the closet with you all!! :D :lol:

chalice
12-24-2003, 04:55 AM
Balaam, if I wasn't so stoned I'd be insulted.

mrlessk
12-24-2003, 04:59 AM
bummer!! :smoke: + :nono: = :cry1:

vidcc
12-25-2003, 11:38 PM
i don't see the difference between soft drugs and alcohol (apart from one is legal) both affect the mind and don't try to tell me that alcohol isn't addictive because there are alcoholics.
i don't believe that soft drugs lead to hard drugs either..apart from the fact that in purchasing your pot you will come into contact with someone that wants to sell you hard drugs...perhaps if pot was controlled and sold by lisence as alcohol is then the duggies wouldn't come into contact with the hard drug peddler and the amount of addicts would decrease..perhaps not..who knows?

just playing devil's advocate...i don't drink as i can't stand the taste of alcohol (and boy have i tried to find a dink i like) and i have never wished to try drugs, but i do believe that AS LONG AS WE DON'T ADVERSLY AFFECT OTHERS we have the right to do what we want to ourselves (i can imagine the comments on that) and it's just a little bit hypocritical for someone that drinks to condem someone that does the weed. (not pointing to any individual)

J'Pol
12-26-2003, 02:14 AM
vidcc

I am enjoying the cut of your jib - well though out a presented posts ( even if I don't agree with everything you say).

There is currently a wee problem in that people see the whole drug culture as fitting into leagues (or divisions). As you probably know it doesn't really work that way.

Let me use a true example, from the North of Scotland. The kids were going to raves and taking speed, ecstacy etc - well known "uppers". When they were finished with the rave thing they wanted a "downer" to get back to normality. They looked for a bit of "blaw" to achieve that for them.

Unfortunately because of seizures there was nothing about. They had to take something so they took heroin instead. Not injecting or anything, just inhaling the fumes. This worked, however I am sure you will agree it is the start of a slippery slope.

The dealers loved it. Sorry I can't get you a wee bit of weed, but take this instead. It will do the same thing. Oh you are high just now and not thinking straight - so much the better.

There are huge differences between me buying a bottle of apple in ASDA and a 17 year old looking for some blaw at 04:00 hours on Saturday morning.

Turkeyboy
12-26-2003, 04:41 AM
Originally posted by J'Pol@26 December 2003 - 11:14
There are huge differences between me buying a bottle of apple in ASDA and a 17 year old looking for some blaw at 04:00 hours on Saturday morning.
yes, but there wouldnt be if it was controled as it is in holland. cider is a drug you take for the same reason people smoke grass. you also talk about it all the time like your clever for the amount you drink. your atitude seems to be that its ok for kids to drink alcohol and smoke cigs cause there legal. i dont think you should take any drugs there all bad for you and you dont need them.

junkyardking
12-26-2003, 09:14 AM
Originally posted by vidcc@25 December 2003 - 23:38


just playing devil's advocate...i don't drink as i can't stand the taste of alcohol (and boy have i tried to find a dink i like)
Try a Barcadi(Rum) and Coke, very easy to drink :beerchug: :guinesssmile:

vidcc
12-26-2003, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by junkyardking@26 December 2003 - 09:14


Try a Barcadi(Rum) and Coke, very easy to drink :beerchug: :guinesssmile:
tried that, tasted like yak urine (i imagine) :ghostface:

vidcc
12-26-2003, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by J'Pol@26 December 2003 - 02:14
( even if I don't agree with everything you say).


but i'm always right !!!!!!!!!!

can anyone else smell bull :shit: on this reply ? :gunsmile:

vidcc
12-26-2003, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by J'Pol@26 December 2003 - 02:14

There is currently a wee problem in that people see the whole drug culture as fitting into leagues (or divisions). As you probably know it doesn't really work that way.

Let me use a true example, from the North of Scotland. The kids were going to raves and taking speed, ecstacy etc - well known "uppers". When they were finished with the rave thing they wanted a "downer" to get back to normality. They looked for a bit of "blaw" to achieve that for them.

Unfortunately because of seizures there was nothing about. They had to take something so they took heroin instead. Not injecting or anything, just inhaling the fumes. This worked, however I am sure you will agree it is the start of a slippery slope.

The dealers loved it. Sorry I can't get you a wee bit of weed, but take this instead. It will do the same thing. Oh you are high just now and not thinking straight - so much the better.

There are huge differences between me buying a bottle of apple in ASDA and a 17 year old looking for some blaw at 04:00 hours on Saturday morning.
you are totally correct in your true life example of the problems with soft drugs and the dealers pushing hard drugs...which kind of stregthens what i actually wrote about it being the dealers leading to hard drugs and if the dealer contact was removed it might lessen the amount of hard drug users..removal of temptation.
it wouldn't stop it altogether, i think that would be impossible., however there is a problem and making the problem illegal doesn't seem to be solving it.
glad you enjoy my ramblings :D
now on a personel viewpoint...
let me make one thing absolutely clear...I AM ANTI DRUG... however i am a realist and feel that problems can never be solved by banning. If making something illegal stopped crime then we would have empty prisons.
the powers that be should be looking at ways to work with the problem instead of just saying "no you can't and i will punish you if you do".
it is possible that by making the use of these drugs a criminal offence the problem is being made worse..not saying it definatly is, just that it's possible.
drug usage is a fact of life and always will be no matter what we try to do to stop it.

imported_el-producto
12-26-2003, 06:53 PM
at least in canada they're not as harsh when you get caught with a gram or so. plus they got coffeeshops. plus canada has some of the best bud in the world (bc buuuud) so what the fuck...just go buy some bud from your dealer and smoke out in your house, i wouldnt give a fuck about it becoming legal if i was in canada hahaha :lol:

J'Pol
12-26-2003, 08:31 PM
The police in the UK have absolutely no interest in user quantities of cannabis. This is stated policy, they will not prosecute people for it, simply confiscate the drug. I believe that for herbal and grass it may also have been re-classified as "C".

In effect the possession and use has been de-criminalised, however the Govt hasn't got the bottle to got the whole hog. To politically sensitive.

I agree with those who take the position that it should be treated in the same way as tobacco and alcohol. However I suspect that, since a certain element of taking it is rebelliousness and youth, then people may have to find another outlet for these feelings.

balamm
12-26-2003, 11:02 PM
Originally posted by vidcc@26 December 2003 - 11:05
If making something illegal stopped crime then we would have empty prisons.


Stupid, overused cliché #1


the powers that be should be looking at ways to work with the problem instead of just saying "no you can't and i will punish you if you do".
Stupid, overused cliché #2


it is possible that by making the use of these drugs a criminal offence the problem is being made worse..not saying it definatly is, just that it's possible.

Stupid, overused cliché #3


drug usage is a fact of life and always will be no matter what we try to do to stop it.

Stupid, overused cliché #4



I think J'Pol's comments might have caused an unfortunate over inflation of your ego followed by a desperate urge for more.

Well, what will you do now? You need it badly don't you?

Having your ego stroked is perfectly legal of course, but can you supply the level of witty banter needed to keep it coming?

I suspect not.

In no time, you'll be ripping off other people and claiming their witty banter as your own.

You will be caught however and exposed for being a banter thief.

The stigma of this will haunt you so badly that you will likely turn to chronic plagiarism in an attempt to escape your own reality.

And so another life is ruined, if only witty banter theft had been de-stigmatized, none of this would have happened and skies would be blue, fields green, rainbows everywhere, blah blah blah.

J'Pol
12-27-2003, 12:16 AM
A bit harsh balamm, the chap seems like a decent spud.

Like I said I may not agree with the position he takes on some things, however he does post logical and coherent arguments. It is to be encouraged, this is the sort of thing we want here. People debating subjects on which they have opposing views. However doing it with logic and debate - not flaming and STFU tactics.

That is not to say it wasn't a very clever and funny post, nicely presented.

As an aside, I always love it when people speak of the low levels of certain crimes in Holland. No shit Sherlock, you stop things being illegal and there is less crime - go figure, how does that work.

That does not mean that the society is more or less moral, just that it is more liberal and as such less criminal. Less illegal things = less crime. I could have worked that out.

balamm
12-27-2003, 12:39 AM
:P Just adding a little colorful, "look at your self", "what if", "how does it compare" ,to the debate J'Pol.

I wouldn't be me if I didn't!

I don't support the abuse of alcohol either, but runaway alcohol abuse is no excuse to minimize the effects or consequences of some other substance abuse, as so many here would promote.

Let's just continue to do what we can before marijuana abuse gets to the level of public acceptance that alcohol abuse has.

I believe it's a close race already, promoted as it is by people with little to lose, or by those without the means to understand the butterfly effect.

clocker
12-27-2003, 01:00 AM
Balamm do you differentiate between use and abuse of marijuana, or no?

J'Pol
12-27-2003, 01:02 AM
Originally posted by balamm@27 December 2003 - 01:39
I don't support the abuse of alcohol either, but runaway alcohol abuse is no excuse  to minimize the effects or consequences of some other substance abuse, as so many here would promote.

Let's just continue to do what we can before marijuana abuse gets to the level of public acceptance that alcohol abuse has.

I believe it's a close race already, promoted as it is by people with little to lose, or by those without the means to understand the butterfly effect.
I think the point they attempt to make is a comparison of fairness and freedom of choice, rather than one of relative destructiveness.

Basically, if some people are allowed by society to abuse their drug of choice, then why shouldn't I be afforded the same right. If alcohol and tobacco are deemed acceptable (indeed taxed) then what is the difference with cannabis. I can see how this argument would be attractive to those who have the agenda of legalizing the substance.

It would seem to me that your position would be - let's not legalize this bad thing using that argument. Instead lets reduce the use of the other drugs. An equally compelling and persuasive position.

As stated previously, the British Government and Police forces have effectively de-criminalised personal use quantities. While this may not be a particularly impressive stance from the point of view of strong leadership, at least it is a practical solution.

Few people consider the butterfly effect, it makes one-issue politics too complex. So much easier to get what you want and forget the ramifications.

clocker
12-27-2003, 01:08 AM
Can someone please define the "butterfly effect"?

balamm
12-27-2003, 01:18 AM
Use and abuse I believe are no different in a substance that causes physical or mental impairment.
Only the level of abuse is a factor.


The butterfly effect,

somewhere in china or maybe japan, on a calm sunny day, a butterfly lifts it's wing and gently takes flight.
6 months later, half a world away, the ripple of air caused by the butterfly flapping it's wings has become the biggest hurricane of the century.

Quantum physics suggests this is possible, that something so small could change events on such a global level.

clocker
12-27-2003, 01:28 AM
Use and abuse I believe are no different in a substance that causes physical or mental impairment.
Only the level of abuse is a factor.
So JPaul is a alcohol abuser, perhaps even more reprehensible than a streetcorner drunk because he manages to disguise the fact that he "abuses" a drug.


somewhere in china or maybe japan, on a calm sunny day, a butterfly lifts it's wing and gently takes flight.
6 months later, half a world away, the ripple of air caused by the butterfly flapping it's wings has become the biggest hurricane of the century.
Physics being a science and thus not concerned with morality, would dictate that it is equally likely that the outcome of the butterfly's action would be the second coming of Christ.

You seem to believe that the inevitable outcome of "use" is disaster and ruin.
A trifle too Puritan for my taste.

J'Pol
12-27-2003, 01:47 AM
Originally posted by clocker@27 December 2003 - 02:28


Physics being a science and thus not concerned with morality, would dictate that it is equally likely that the outcome of the butterfly's action would be the second coming of Christ.


Clocker

What on earth does that even mean.

There is an obvious link between the movement of the wing of a butterfly and a hurricane.

However the movement of the wing of the same butterfly and the second coming of Christ, the Messiah, the Saviour, the One who will fulfill the prophecies. I really don't see your point here.

Have you ever made an appearance at speaker's corner.

Edit - I think you will find that I am an alcohol abuser, if you want to be pedantic. The yeast drowned in their own pish to make it for me. It would be churlish to refuse.

vidcc
12-27-2003, 01:48 AM
Originally posted by balamm@26 December 2003 - 23:02


Stupid, overused cliché #1

Stupid, overused cliché #2

Stupid, overused cliché #3

Stupid, overused cliché #4





Stupid, overused cliché # 5 :stupid: not too worried about overuse yourself huh ? you should stop that or you will go blind. Which hand do you have free to type with?

i have noticed many of your posts have just been immature attacks on people you don't know, were you bullied as a child ? or perhap your own inferiority complex has you thinking that everyone really is superior to you and you don't like it.
now if you feel that my views are similar or the same as someone elses perhaps you should ask yourself are those views really overused or are they the views of so many people that you yourself might just be in a minority ? in this particular case you seem to attack my post as if i was pro drug, but if you read the whole article you would see i am anti drug. however the point was that obviously being illegal hasn't stopped drug use and i was questioning if the approach was working. at no point have i suggested that making soft drugs legal actually would solve the problem of hard drug abuse, i simple poised the question " would it ?"
the ideas and views i express are designed to encourage debate..you know what debate is don't you?..well here is a challenge..could you put a pro soft drug legalising argument even though your beliefs are anti drug? (obviously you could do it without any "Stupid, overused clichés") just why are they stupid anyway? is it because they are not your own beliefs? if it is then perhaps you should let some air out of your own ego.
now i suspect that you will be trying to start a mud slinging contest with me on this forum for daring to question your damnation of my posts but life is too short to waste it on infantile bickering (other than my reply here) so to end.... NER NER BOO SUCKS TO YOU.
:wacko:

clocker
12-27-2003, 01:53 AM
Originally posted by J'Pol@26 December 2003 - 18:47

Clocker

What on earth does that even mean.

There is an obvious link between the movement of the wing of a butterfly and a hurricane.


Obvious to whom?
The butterfly effect is a fable, a parable to demonstrate causality, hardly a demonstration of physical reality.
Thus, my postulated outcome is just as likely as his.

I grieve for the yeast.

balamm
12-27-2003, 02:00 AM
A very emotional response!
I don't think there was any emotion in my post at all, only an observation that you hadn't taken the time to form an independant thought. Or if you had, you certainly didn't convey it well.

So who is the child now? The one who points out your hastiness to post repetitive drivel? or the one who posts repetitive drivel?

It doesn't matter what position you assumed, the position was weak and poorly presented.
Making me think that the mater isn't worthy enough for you to make an honest effort.

If in fact your views are similar to "everyone elses", then there is nothing more to discuss here. Marijuana has been fully legalised and the matter is closed.

I think we both know that is not the case.

Let's see if you can comment without the childish personal attacks and comments you know to be wrong, J'pol thinks you have it in you, I am not so convinced. ;)

J'Pol
12-27-2003, 02:07 AM
Originally posted by clocker+27 December 2003 - 02:53--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 27 December 2003 - 02:53)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@26 December 2003 - 18:47

Clocker

What on earth does that even mean.

There is an obvious link between the movement of the wing of a butterfly and a hurricane.


Obvious to whom?
The butterfly effect is a fable, a parable to demonstrate causality, hardly a demonstration of physical reality.
Thus, my postulated outcome is just as likely as his.

I grieve for the yeast.[/b][/quote]
The yeast have served their purpose, their life is complete. They are a one-issue body politic and they achieve their goal.

Good on them, I serve the simple purpose of justifying their existence and at the same time providing them with a fitting funeral.

This includes my bread as much as it does my apple. I make my own bread, I leave the apple production to others. That only seems fair.

Discuss whether physics is a science (or an art) and what it ultimately means with .... physicists.

I personally believe that this particular field has become more poetic and less prosaic in recent times. However I often read more into things than are really there.

clocker
12-27-2003, 02:31 AM
Sadly JP I am not qualified to discuss physics on any but the most basic level.
I don&#39;t have my finger on the pulse of current thinking in that area.

Is it germane to this particular topic?


Edit: My nieces are taking me to see The Lord of the Rings in about 5 minutes anyway...

bululues
12-27-2003, 02:39 AM
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM :beerchug:

hobbes
12-27-2003, 02:57 AM
Hurricaines are not created by additive wind forces, but rather variances in atmospheric pressure. I remember hearing of this "effect", but I forget the particulars.

The flapping of a butterflies wind may cause a transient breeze which causes a womans perfume to reach the nose of a man whom she would have never met.

He turns to locate the source of that smell and they become lovers. The Messiah is born, just as a hurricaine may potentially be born from said wing flap.

I think the legalization of marijuana undermines a hugely profitable criminal market. In the US the #1 cash crop is marijuana, simply because it is illegal and this drives up the price.

Apple/ pot same difference to me. I don&#39;t smoke because don&#39;t want my apartment, clothes and breath to smell like shit.


Abuse- the use of a drug to escape problems
Use- a source of enjoyment, an enhancement of "good times".

It is true that drugs do cause health problems, but I have so many great stories that occurred when drunk, I can&#39;t believe that drugs are simply bad.

vidcc
12-27-2003, 03:28 AM
Originally posted by vidcc+27 December 2003 - 01:48--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 27 December 2003 - 01:48)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-balamm@26 December 2003 - 23:02


now i suspect that you will be trying to start a mud slinging contest with me on this forum for daring to question your damnation of my posts [/b][/quote]
i called it :rolleyes:

balamm
12-27-2003, 04:04 AM
Sorry to disappoint you but there really is no contest. Feel free to imagine there is one though if it comforts you.

Billy_Dean
12-27-2003, 07:05 AM
Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@27 December 2003 - 09:16
As an aside, I always love it when people speak of the low levels of certain crimes in Holland. No shit Sherlock, you stop things being illegal and there is less crime - go figure, how does that work.

That does not mean that the society is more or less moral, just that it is more liberal and as such less criminal. Less illegal things = less crime. I could have worked that out.
I think you missed the point here JP. The crimes being talked about here are the ones associated with the purchase etc., of the drug. When you buy your grass from a cafe you don&#39;t come in contact with dealers; the supply is constant, so there isn&#39;t the temptation to try something else when supply is scarce. This means less people try harder drugs, which cuts down on crimes associated with hard drugs, for example, junkies looking for the sometimes &#036;100&#39;s a day for their next fix are responsible for huge numbers of crimes, especially burglaries.

As to your point about not going the whole way and legalising it, I think, but I&#39;m not sure, that it isn&#39;t possible to legalise something that is illegal under international law.

Balamn you really need to get a chip for the other shoulder too&#33; And then go read some of your posts about what drives people off this board. Or look in a mirror.


:)

balamm
12-27-2003, 07:16 AM
Would I see you staring back at me then?

Frightening prospect, but I suspect I wouldn&#39;t. I don&#39;t express my views on a subject only for sport, unlike yourself. You admitted as much several months ago.

You might want to take into consideration that the topic is "Canadian" leagalisation of pot&#33; Got that clearly planted in your head now?

Canadian = me&#33; Not you, not your aussie friends, me&#33;

If you don&#39;t like the "canadian" view on the continued illegality of pot, just hit your back button and paste another load of copied crap into world news and sit back and giggle like you normally do.

:) problem solved :)

james_bond_rulez
12-27-2003, 07:21 AM
i mean wtf? just legalize the use of pot for medical purposes. our health system is going crap anyways so why should ppl be left in pain?

I dont care much about junkies, they got a life to waste not me.

but consider those in pain.....

balamm
12-27-2003, 07:25 AM
Prescription use? Why not. I think it&#39;s already done in some areas through very tight controls.

Somewhere in Ontario I think there is a research facility growing for this purpose.

Mr. Peabody
12-27-2003, 07:38 AM
Well the sad thing is alot of the people that smoked pot in the states,have chose to smoke crack instead.
It&#39;s out of your system quicker.

I can deal with a stoner but you better watch your shit around a crackhead.

Also Herion use is up too,reports of people paying &#036;4 for a all day high-Chicago area.

Not sure ,but the war on drugs seems to be making everthing worse.
It&#39;s never gonna end.

Billy_Dean
12-27-2003, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by balamm@27 December 2003 - 16:16
You might want to take into consideration that the topic is "Canadian" leagalisation of pot&#33; Got that clearly planted in your head now?

Canadian = me&#33; Not you, not your aussie friends, me&#33;


I take it you&#39;ll refrain from your usual vitriol in threads that don&#39;t concern Canadians then? Oh, goody&#33;

At least as an ordinary member you aren&#39;t able to abuse and ridicule posters with any authority. So now you&#39;re just bitter and twisted, much better than when you were a bitter and twisted mod&#33; How you ever became a mod in the first place is beyond me. Your reason for being on this board seems to be to find people to abuse.



:)

balamm
12-27-2003, 08:53 AM
Well your reason has so far escaped me other than the lame excuse you posted earlier.

I think it&#39;s probably true though. It&#39;s for opportunities like this that you return. To insult, to stir up shit, to try and shape yet another debate into a source of entertainment for yourself no matter how off topic or off color your remarks have to be.

Bitter? Who&#39;s biiter now BD? You&#39;ve been slapped son. It&#39;s understandable. Try not to act too much like a child though, it&#39;s very disruptive to the topic.

If you do have any knowledge of the workings of canadian society and politics as it relates to this subject though, now would be the time to redeem yourself. I mean real knowledge of course, not the usual google copy and paste routine.

Billy_Dean
12-27-2003, 09:02 AM
Originally posted by balamm@27 December 2003 - 17:53
Don&#39;t take any notice of me BD, I&#39;m just acting like a prick, it&#39;s a Canadian thing.
I know, people have been PM&#39;ing me the same info.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


:lol:

balamm
12-27-2003, 09:20 AM
Yeah, I didn&#39;t think you had anything intelligent to contribute.

Billy_Dean
12-27-2003, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by balamm@27 December 2003 - 18:20
Yeah, I didn&#39;t think you had anything intelligent to contribute.
I bet my dad can beat your dad&#33; :01:


:)

Mr. Peabody
12-27-2003, 10:02 AM
Ha Ha this is great :lol:

J'Pol
12-27-2003, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@27 December 2003 - 08:05

As to your point about not going the whole way and legalising it, I think, but I&#39;m not sure, that it isn&#39;t possible to legalise something that is illegal under international law.


Which "International Law" makes the personal use of cannabis illegal. I genuinely have not got a clue what you are talking about when you post that.

I would imagine that, if the United Kingdom can reclassify the drug from Class B to Class C, therefore reducing any penalty for it&#39;s possession and use, then it can remove it from the list of proscribed drugs entirely.

If you have information to the contrary I would like to see it.

Similarly, if it is openly available in Holland, is it illegal - under this "International Law" you speak of. Any insight would be appreciated.

clocker
12-27-2003, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by Mr. Peabody@27 December 2003 - 00:38
Well the sad thing is alot of the people that smoked pot in the states,have chose to smoke crack instead.
It&#39;s out of your system quicker.


What?

Where did this factoid come from?

J'Pol
12-27-2003, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by clocker+27 December 2003 - 20:47--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 27 December 2003 - 20:47)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mr. Peabody@27 December 2003 - 00:38
Well the sad thing is alot of the people that smoked pot in the states,have chose to smoke crack instead.
It&#39;s out of your system quicker.


What?

Where did this factoid come from? [/b][/quote]
The Big Bumper Book of Factoids 2004.

Did you not receive yours at Christmas, perhaps it is a surprise present for the New Year ;)

clocker
12-28-2003, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@27 December 2003 - 14:19


Did you not receive yours at Christmas, perhaps it is a surprise present for the New Year ;)
Oh goodie.

Something to live for.

Billy_Dean
12-28-2003, 03:51 AM
Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+28 December 2003 - 02:47--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol &#064; 28 December 2003 - 02:47)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Billy_Dean@27 December 2003 - 08:05

As to your point about not going the whole way and legalising it, I think, but I&#39;m not sure, that it isn&#39;t possible to legalise something that is illegal under international law.


Which "International Law" makes the personal use of cannabis illegal. I genuinely have not got a clue what you are talking about when you post that.

I would imagine that, if the United Kingdom can reclassify the drug from Class B to Class C, therefore reducing any penalty for it&#39;s possession and use, then it can remove it from the list of proscribed drugs entirely.

If you have information to the contrary I would like to see it.

Similarly, if it is openly available in Holland, is it illegal - under this "International Law" you speak of. Any insight would be appreciated.[/b][/quote]
In 1961 the United Nations made it a violation of international law to legalize marijuana.

OTTAWA -- A Liberal MP says Canada will violate an international treaty if it moves ahead with plans to decriminalize pot.

Ajax-Pickering MP Dan McTeague said representatives of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime met with government officials last week to warn that Canada&#39;s proposed legislative changes would contravene a 1961 UN drug control convention.

Google it JP, lots of info out there.


:)

vidcc
12-28-2003, 04:20 AM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean+28 December 2003 - 03:51--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Billy_Dean @ 28 December 2003 - 03:51)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@28 December 2003 - 02:47
<!--QuoteBegin-Billy_Dean@27 December 2003 - 08:05

As to your point about not going the whole way and legalising it, I think, but I&#39;m not sure, that it isn&#39;t possible to legalise something that is illegal under international law.


Which "International Law" makes the personal use of cannabis illegal. I genuinely have not got a clue what you are talking about when you post that.

I would imagine that, if the United Kingdom can reclassify the drug from Class B to Class C, therefore reducing any penalty for it&#39;s possession and use, then it can remove it from the list of proscribed drugs entirely.

If you have information to the contrary I would like to see it.

Similarly, if it is openly available in Holland, is it illegal - under this "International Law" you speak of. Any insight would be appreciated.
In 1961 the United Nations made it a violation of international law to legalize marijuana.

OTTAWA -- A Liberal MP says Canada will violate an international treaty if it moves ahead with plans to decriminalize pot.

Ajax-Pickering MP Dan McTeague said representatives of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime met with government officials last week to warn that Canada&#39;s proposed legislative changes would contravene a 1961 UN drug control convention.

Google it JP, lots of info out there.


:) [/b][/quote]
you have to remember that not all countries are menmbers of the UN...i&#39;m not sure if holland is, but i don&#39;t think so

Billy_Dean
12-28-2003, 04:36 AM
Originally posted by vidcc@28 December 2003 - 13:20
you have to remember that not all countries are menmbers of the UN...i&#39;m not sure if holland is, but i don&#39;t think so
I can assure you they are.

You should not confuse "Decriminalise" with "Legalise". In Holland, marijuana has been decriminalised, not legalised. It is not a criminal offence to be in possession of a small amount, but is still not legal, like a parking fine, for instance.


:)

vidcc
12-28-2003, 04:49 AM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean+28 December 2003 - 04:36--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Billy_Dean @ 28 December 2003 - 04:36)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@28 December 2003 - 13:20
you have to remember that not all countries are menmbers of the UN...i&#39;m not sure if holland is, but i don&#39;t think so
I can assure you they are.

[/b][/quote]
united nations members (http://www.un.org/Overview/unmember.html)

Mr. Peabody
12-28-2003, 05:20 AM
Originally posted by clocker+27 December 2003 - 19:47--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 27 December 2003 - 19:47)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mr. Peabody@27 December 2003 - 00:38
Well the sad thing is alot of the people that smoked pot in the states,have chose to smoke crack instead.
It&#39;s out of your system quicker.


What?

Where did this factoid come from? [/b][/quote]
Well I guess you can go by what you read or what you actually see.

clocker
12-28-2003, 05:31 AM
Originally posted by Mr. Peabody@27 December 2003 - 22:20

Well I guess you can go by what you read or what you actually see.
Sometimes when it&#39;s sunny I am very happy.

Billy_Dean
12-28-2003, 05:39 AM
Originally posted by vidcc+28 December 2003 - 13:49--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 28 December 2003 - 13:49)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@28 December 2003 - 04:36
<!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@28 December 2003 - 13:20
you have to remember that not all countries are menmbers of the UN...i&#39;m not sure if holland is, but i don&#39;t think so
I can assure you they are.


united nations members (http://www.un.org/Overview/unmember.html) [/b][/quote]
http://server5.uploadit.org/files2/281203-holland.jpg

Did you miss this bit?


:)

Mr. Peabody
12-28-2003, 05:46 AM
Hey Clocker,is your aviator picture from that "Silent Running " Movie? B)

vidcc
12-28-2003, 05:51 AM
actually i just pointed a page that listed all the un countries, but i genuinely didn&#39;t think holland was signed up...i stand corrected..well sit corrected

clocker
12-28-2003, 06:52 AM
Originally posted by Mr. Peabody@27 December 2003 - 22:46
Hey Clocker,is your aviator picture from that "Silent Running " Movie? B)
No, it is HAL 9000 from "2001: A Space Odyssey".

Mr. Peabody
12-28-2003, 06:59 AM
Never seen it,I&#39;&#39;ll have to check it out.

MagicNakor
12-28-2003, 07:19 AM
At least it explains why you answered, "I know everything hasn&#39;t been quite right with me, but I can assure you now.....quite confidently.....that it&#39;s going to be alright again," when questioned about my burnt sock drawer.

:ninja:

Edit: Format..

J'Pol
12-28-2003, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean+28 December 2003 - 04:51--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Billy_Dean &#064; 28 December 2003 - 04:51)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@28 December 2003 - 02:47
<!--QuoteBegin-Billy_Dean@27 December 2003 - 08:05

As to your point about not going the whole way and legalising it, I think, but I&#39;m not sure, that it isn&#39;t possible to legalise something that is illegal under international law.


Which "International Law" makes the personal use of cannabis illegal. I genuinely have not got a clue what you are talking about when you post that.

I would imagine that, if the United Kingdom can reclassify the drug from Class B to Class C, therefore reducing any penalty for it&#39;s possession and use, then it can remove it from the list of proscribed drugs entirely.

If you have information to the contrary I would like to see it.

Similarly, if it is openly available in Holland, is it illegal - under this "International Law" you speak of. Any insight would be appreciated.
In 1961 the United Nations made it a violation of international law to legalize marijuana.

OTTAWA -- A Liberal MP says Canada will violate an international treaty if it moves ahead with plans to decriminalize pot.

Ajax-Pickering MP Dan McTeague said representatives of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime met with government officials last week to warn that Canada&#39;s proposed legislative changes would contravene a 1961 UN drug control convention.

Google it JP, lots of info out there.


:)[/b][/quote]
You mention a Treaty (not law) which prevents signatory countries from legalizing cannabis.

I would make 2 points.

Firstly that does not actually answer the question of which "International Law" makes the personal use of cannabis illegal in the first place.

Secondly a treaty is not really a law (international or otherwise) now is it. It is a negotiated agreement.

Your answer is specious, not entirely unexpected.

balamm
12-28-2003, 11:59 AM
Interesting, these acts and treaties. Apparently, under the British North America act, the federal government of Canada would not have the right to interfere in a provincial decision governing the control or legalization of marijuana or similar "problems of a personal or regional nature."

As I understand it, we are no longer using the BNA and have a mish mosh of so called charters governing human rights. Add to that the "not withstanding clause" and Who knows what falls under Provincial or national jurisdiction.

I&#39;d compare this to the gay marriage issue I guess, although legal under Canadian law, It&#39;s still up to each province to adopt or reject these laws.

I&#39;ve seen the opposite as well. There are employment and communications laws enacted in BC which are not recognized by Ottawa although they also have laws on the subject.
It just depends on any associated trade, commerce, or international laws, which the federal government still has (or percieves it has) the authority to police, tax, etc., that might be tied to any part of a Provincially registered business or it&#39;s employees.
An example of this is: Telephone workers in British Columbia are protected under Canadian federal employment laws. You cannot hire replacement workers or impose wage cuts or conditions without union approval and ratification.

Cable television workers are provincially regulated and have no protection under Canadian employment legislation. You can replace them at will.
Odd because the technical training period required for a certified CATV technician is about twice as long as a telephone technician.
No doubt this is a result of telephone/ rail treaties and such from 100 years ago.
It&#39;s just one of the quirks in our system.

If BC decided to legalize anything tomorrow, Ottawa would have a taxation plan in effect by the end of the week. It might be challenged, but in the meantime...

It could happen.

Billy_Dean
12-28-2003, 03:01 PM
You mention a Treaty (not law) which prevents signatory countries from legalizing cannabis.

I would make 2 points.

Firstly that does not actually answer the question of which "International Law" makes the personal use of cannabis illegal in the first place.

Secondly a treaty is not really a law (international or otherwise) now is it. It is a negotiated agreement.

Your answer is specious, not entirely unexpected.
If you were to read my first post JP you would have seen that I was unsure, I stated that quite clearly.

However, here is another view, just for you.

The Obligations of the UK Government under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961.

There is an &#39;urban myth&#39; propagated by spinned-out Government Ministers, ignorant drug policy &#39;experts&#39; and lazy journalists, that Britain&#39;s supposed &#39;obligations&#39; under the Single Convention prevents the government from legalising cannabis (or other drugs).

In fact the Single Convention places no obligation on any signatory to make possession, production or distribution of any drug for personal use a criminal offense. This has always been accepted as at least a permissible interpretation by the United Nations itself, as the official commentary on the Convention makes clear. (&#39;Commentary on the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs&#39;, 1961, United Nations, New York, 1973.)

The working papers of the Shafer Commission contain a detailed discussion of this point, reaching the conclusion that: "although a country may decide that possession for personal use should be a punishable offense, there is nothing in the Convention which requires it to do so". (Marihuana: Signal of Misunderstanding: The Shafer Report, Appendix, Vol. 1,Technical Papers, p 533.)

The most authoritative interpretation is that of Professor Adolph Lande, who as Deputy Executive Secretary of the Plenipotentiary Conference, acted as chief draftsman of the Convention: "The terms &#39;possession&#39; and &#39;purchase&#39; used in the penal provisions of the Single Convention mean only possession and purchase for the purpose of illicit traffic. Consequently unauthorised possession and acquisition of narcotic drugs for personal consumption need not be treated under the Single Convention either as punishable offenses or as serious offenses". (A. Lande The International Drug Control System in Drug Use in America: Problem in Perspective, Appendix, Technical Papers, Vol. III, p 129.)

The correct interpretation of the penal provisions of the Single Convention is that they deal only with the production and supply of drugs; acts incidental to personal use are not within its scope. It follows that not only possession but cultivation and distribution are required to be punishable only insofar as they are related to commercial trafficking not personal consumption.

1. It is open to the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, acting on the recommendation of the World health Organisation, to delete cannabis from the schedules to the Convention.

2. Cannabis could be removed from the scope of control by an amendment to the Convention proposed by any party and discussed by a special conference called for the purpose by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. It was with this in mind that the Dutch delegate to the Council

(19th April 1978) proposed that the Convention should be amended "so as to enable each party to decide for itself the extent to which cannabis may be allowed for personal use".

3. Any party to the Convention may legally withdraw from it on six months notice. The commonly used argument that for Britain to do this would lead to a breakdown in the international system of control of opiates, or even prevent the UK from obtaining opiates for legitimate use is simply not true. Ireland is not a signatory and they suffer no inconvenience. The reality is the system of control is applied to every country in the world whether it has signed the Convention or not. The International Narcotics Control Board is specifically authorised to do this by Articles 12, 13, 14 and 21 of the Convention.

4. The Vienna Convention of 1969 introduced the procedure of &#39;selective denunciation&#39;, which provides that a country may unilaterally withdraw from part of a treaty to which it is a party on various grounds, including "error of fact" in which the treaty itself and "fundamental change of circumstances". (The relevance of these provisions is considered in: Lienward The International Law of Treaties and US Legalisation of Marijuana, Columbia J Transnet. Law 1971 10(2) 413.)

5. The prohibition on non-medical use of drugs does not extend to cannabis leaves, and the prohibition of cultivation of the cannabis plant does not extend to cultivation for any purpose which does not involve the separation of the flowering and fruiting tops, or the resin, from the rest of the plant. (A Lands The International Drug Control System in Drug Use in America: Problem in Perspective, Appendix, Technical Papers, Vol III, p 129.)

The interpretations here are disputed elsewhere. Another spin on this is to say, if it is illegal to grow it, and illegal to traffic it, and illegal to sell it, it stands to reason it must be illegal to be in possession of it. But who gives a fuck? This is a forum, not a court of law.


:)

J'Pol
12-28-2003, 03:30 PM
As to your point about not going the whole way and legalising it, I think, but I&#39;m not sure, that it isn&#39;t possible to legalise something that is illegal under international law.

So where is this "International Law" which you spoke of. Or are you now saying that it doesn&#39;t exist, or that you can&#39;t find any using google.

You keep quoting large areas of text which you presumably have cut and pasted from your now legendary google searches. I am not convinced that you even read these things. I am even less convinced that, where you do, you understand them

You could just try answering the question.

Edit Possible Source - to give a context. (http://www.ccguide.org.uk/treaties.html)

Billy_Dean
12-28-2003, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@29 December 2003 - 00:30

As to your point about not going the whole way and legalising it, I think, but I&#39;m not sure, that it isn&#39;t possible to legalise something that is illegal under international law.

So where is this "International Law" which you spoke of. Or are you now saying that it doesn&#39;t exist, or that you can&#39;t find any using google.

You keep quoting large areas of text which you presumably have cut and pasted from your now legendary google searches. I am not convinced that you even read these things. I am even less convinced that, where you do, you understand them

You could just try answering the question.
International Law, International Treaty, who gives a fuck&#33; You really are a pedantic prick at times JP.


:)

J'Pol
12-28-2003, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean+28 December 2003 - 16:38--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Billy_Dean &#064; 28 December 2003 - 16:38)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@29 December 2003 - 00:30

As to your point about not going the whole way and legalising it, I think, but I&#39;m not sure, that it isn&#39;t possible to legalise something that is illegal under international law.

So where is this "International Law" which you spoke of. Or are you now saying that it doesn&#39;t exist, or that you can&#39;t find any using google.

You keep quoting large areas of text which you presumably have cut and pasted from your now legendary google searches. I am not convinced that you even read these things. I am even less convinced that, where you do, you understand them

You could just try answering the question.
International Law, International Treaty, who gives a fuck&#33; You really are a pedantic prick at times JP.


:)[/b][/quote]
I am not being pedantic by saying that Treaty and Law are different things. It is sometimes important to know what the words we use mean, otherwise we end up like you. Cutting and pasting screeds of text which we don&#39;t actually understand. In an effort to impress.

So, when you mentioned this "International Law", it was just so much hot air. Is that what you are now telling us.

Fair enough, no harm done. No need to be rude tho&#39;.

Billy_Dean
12-28-2003, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@29 December 2003 - 00:47
I am not being pedantic by saying that Treaty and Law are different things. It is sometimes important to know what the words we use mean, ...
Pedantry. It should be your next sig ... J&#39;Ped.


:)

J'Pol
12-28-2003, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean+28 December 2003 - 16:55--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Billy_Dean &#064; 28 December 2003 - 16:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@29 December 2003 - 00:47
I am not being pedantic by saying that Treaty and Law are different things. It is sometimes important to know what the words we use mean, ...
Pedantry. It should be your next sig ... J&#39;Ped.


:)[/b][/quote]
I don&#39;t actually have a sig just now.

Tho&#39; I may have to write one. Good idea, thanks for that.

Billy_Dean
12-28-2003, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@29 December 2003 - 01:04
I don&#39;t actually have a sig just now.

Tho&#39; I may have to write one. Good idea, thanks for that.
You&#39;re welcome.


:)

Yogi
12-29-2003, 02:16 PM
It is not called the butterfly effect, it is called the Chaos Theory&#33;&#33;

Chaos Theory: A Brief Introduction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What exactly is chaos? Put simply, it is the idea that it is possible to get completely random results from normal equations. Chaos theory also covers the reverse: finding the order in what appears to be completely random data.
When was chaos first discovered? The first true experimenter in chaos was a meteorologist, named Edward Lorenz. In 1960, he was working on the problem of weather prediction. He had a computer set up, with a set of twelve equations to model the weather. It didn&#39;t predict the weather itself. However this computer program did theoretically predict what the weather might be.

One day in 1961, he wanted to see a particular sequence again. To save time, he started in the middle of the sequence, instead of the beginning. He entered the number off his printout and left to let it run.

When he came back an hour later, the sequence had evolved differently. Instead of the same pattern as before, it diverged from the pattern, ending up wildly different from the original. (See figure 1.) Eventually he figured out what happened. The computer stored the numbers to six decimal places in its memory. To save paper, he only had it print out three decimal places. In the original sequence, the number was .506127, and he had only typed the first three digits, .506.


By all conventional ideas of the time, it should have worked. He should have gotten a sequence very close to the original sequence. A scientist considers himself lucky if he can get measurements with accuracy to three decimal places. Surely the fourth and fifth, impossible to measure using reasonable methods, can&#39;t have a huge effect on the outcome of the experiment. Lorenz proved this idea wrong.

This effect came to be known as the butterfly effect. The amount of difference in the starting points of the two curves is so small that it is comparable to a butterfly flapping its wings.


The flapping of a single butterfly&#39;s wing today produces a tiny change in the state of the atmosphere. Over a period of time, what the atmosphere actually does diverges from what it would have done. So, in a month&#39;s time, a tornado that would have devastated the Indonesian coast doesn&#39;t happen. Or maybe one that wasn&#39;t going to happen, does. (Ian Stewart, Does God Play Dice? The Mathematics of Chaos, pg. 141)
This phenomenon, common to chaos theory, is also known as sensitive dependence on initial conditions. Just a small change in the initial conditions can drastically change the long-term behavior of a system. Such a small amount of difference in a measurement might be considered experimental noise, background noise, or an inaccuracy of the equipment. Such things are impossible to avoid in even the most isolated lab. With a starting number of 2, the final result can be entirely different from the same system with a starting value of 2.000001. It is simply impossible to achieve this level of accuracy - just try and measure something to the nearest millionth of an inch&#33;

From this idea, Lorenz stated that it is impossible to predict the weather accurately. However, this discovery led Lorenz on to other aspects of what eventually came to be known as chaos theory.

Lorenz started to look for a simpler system that had sensitive dependence on initial conditions. His first discovery had twelve equations, and he wanted a much more simple version that still had this attribute. He took the equations for convection, and stripped them down, making them unrealistically simple. The system no longer had anything to do with convection, but it did have sensitive dependence on its initial conditions, and there were only three equations this time. Later, it was discovered that his equations precisely described a water wheel.


At the top, water drips steadily into containers hanging on the wheel&#39;s rim. Each container drips steadily from a small hole. If the stream of water is slow, the top containers never fill fast enough to overcome friction, but if the stream is faster, the weight starts to turn the wheel. The rotation might become continuous. Or if the stream is so fast that the heavy containers swing all the way around the bottom and up the other side, the wheel might then slow, stop, and reverse its rotation, turning first one way and then the other. (James Gleick, Chaos - Making a New Science, pg. 29)
The equations for this system also seemed to give rise to entirely random behavior. However, when he graphed it, a surprising thing happened. The output always stayed on a curve, a double spiral. There were only two kinds of order previously known: a steady state, in which the variables never change, and periodic behavior, in which the system goes into a loop, repeating itself indefinitely. Lorenz&#39;s equations were definitely ordered - they always followed a spiral. They never settled down to a single point, but since they never repeated the same thing, they weren&#39;t periodic either. He called the image he got when he graphed the equations the Lorenz attractor. (See figure 2)
In 1963, Lorenz published a paper describing what he had discovered. He included the unpredictability of the weather, and discussed the types of equations that caused this type of behavior. Unfortunately, the only journal he was able to publish in was a meteorological journal, because he was a meteorologist, not a mathematician or a physicist. As a result, Lorenz&#39;s discoveries weren&#39;t acknowledged until years later, when they were rediscovered by others. Lorenz had discovered something revolutionary; now he had to wait for someone to discover him.

Another system in which sensitive dependence on initial conditions is evident is the flip of a coin. There are two variables in a flipping coin: how soon it hits the ground, and how fast it is flipping. Theoretically, it should be possible to control these variables entirely and control how the coin will end up. In practice, it is impossible to control exactly how fast the coin flips and how high it flips. It is possible to put the variables into a certain range, but it is impossible to control it enough to know the final results of the coin toss.

A similar problem occurs in ecology, and the prediction of biological populations. The equation would be simple if population just rises indefinitely, but the effect of predators and a limited food supply make this equation incorrect. The simplest equation that takes this into account is the following:


next year&#39;s population = r * this year&#39;s population * (1 - this year&#39;s population)
In this equation, the population is a number between 0 and 1, where 1 represents the maximum possible population and 0 represents extinction. R is the growth rate. The question was, how does this parameter affect the equation? The obvious answer is that a high growth rate means that the population will settle down at a high population, while a low growth rate means that the population will settle down to a low number. This trend is true for some growth rates, but not for every one.

One biologist, Robert May, decided to see what would happen to the equation as the growth rate value changes. At low values of the growth rate, the population would settle down to a single number. For instance, if the growth rate value is 2.7, the population will settle down to .6292. As the growth rate increased, the final population would increase as well. Then, something weird happened. As soon as the growth rate passed 3, the line broke in two. Instead of settling down to a single population, it would jump between two different populations. It would be one value for one year, go to another value the next year, then repeat the cycle forever. Raising the growth rate a little more caused it to jump between four different values. As the parameter rose further, the line bifurcated (doubled) again. The bifurcations came faster and faster until suddenly, chaos appeared. Past a certain growth rate, it becomes impossible to predict the behavior of the equation. However, upon closer inspection, it is possible to see white strips. Looking closer at these strips reveals little windows of order, where the equation goes through the bifurcations again before returning to chaos. This self-similarity, the fact that the graph has an exact copy of itself hidden deep inside, came to be an important aspect of chaos.

An employee of IBM, Benoit Mandelbrot was a mathematician studying this self-similarity. One of the areas he was studying was cotton price fluctuations. No matter how the data on cotton prices was analyzed, the results did not fit the normal distribution. Mandelbrot eventually obtained all of the available data on cotton prices, dating back to 1900. When he analyzed the data with IBM&#39;s computers, he noticed an astonishing fact:


The numbers that produced aberrations from the point of view of normal distribution produced symmetry from the point of view of scaling. Each particular price change was random and unpredictable. But the sequence of changes was independent on scale: curves for daily price changes and monthly price changes matched perfectly. Incredibly, analyzed Mandelbrot&#39;s way, the degree of variation had remained constant over a tumultuous sixty-year period that saw two World Wars and a depression. (James Gleick, Chaos - Making a New Science, pg. 86)
Mandelbrot analyzed not only cotton prices, but many other phenomena as well. At one point, he was wondering about the length of a coastline. A map of a coastline will show many bays. However, measuring the length of a coastline off a map will miss minor bays that were too small to show on the map. Likewise, walking along the coastline misses microscopic bays in between grains of sand. No matter how much a coastline is magnified, there will be more bays visible if it is magnified more.

One mathematician, Helge von Koch, captured this idea in a mathematical construction called the Koch curve. To create a Koch curve, imagine an equilateral triangle. To the middle third of each side, add another equilateral triangle. Keep on adding new triangles to the middle part of each side, and the result is a Koch curve. (See figure 4) A magnification of the Koch curve looks exactly the same as the original. It is another self-similar figure.

The Koch curve brings up an interesting paradox. Each time new triangles are added to the figure, the length of the line gets longer. However, the inner area of the Koch curve remains less than the area of a circle drawn around the original triangle. Essentially, it is a line of infinite length surrounding a finite area.

To get around this difficulty, mathematicians invented fractal dimensions. Fractal comes from the word fractional. The fractal dimension of the Koch curve is somewhere around 1.26. A fractional dimension is impossible to conceive, but it does make sense. The Koch curve is rougher than a smooth curve or line, which has one dimension. Since it is rougher and more crinkly, it is better at taking up space. However, it&#39;s not as good at filling up space as a square with two dimensions is, since it doesn&#39;t really have any area. So it makes sense that the dimension of the Koch curve is somewhere in between the two.

Fractal has come to mean any image that displays the attribute of self-similarity. The bifurcation diagram of the population equation is fractal. The Lorenz Attractor is fractal. The Koch curve is fractal.

During this time, scientists found it very difficult to get work published about chaos. Since they had not yet shown the relevance to real-world situations, most scientists did not think the results of experiments in chaos were important. As a result, even though chaos is a mathematical phenomenon, most of the research into chaos was done by people in other areas, such as meteorology and ecology. The field of chaos sprouted up as a hobby for scientists working on problems that maybe had something to do with it.

Later, a scientist by the name of Feigenbaum was looking at the bifurcation diagram again. He was looking at how fast the bifurcations come. He discovered that they come at a constant rate. He calculated it as 4.669. In other words, he discovered the exact scale at which it was self-similar. Make the diagram 4.669 times smaller, and it looks like the next region of bifurcations. He decided to look at other equations to see if it was possible to determine a scaling factor for them as well. Much to his surprise, the scaling factor was exactly the same. Not only was this complicated equation displaying regularity, the regularity was exactly the same as a much simpler equation. He tried many other functions, and they all produced the same scaling factor, 4.669.

This was a revolutionary discovery. He had found that a whole class of mathematical functions behaved in the same, predictable way. This universality would help other scientists easily analyze chaotic equations. Universality gave scientists the first tools to analyze a chaotic system. Now they could use a simple equation to predict the outcome of a more complex equation.

Many scientists were exploring equations that created fractal equations. The most famous fractal image is also one of the most simple. It is known as the Mandelbrot set (pictures of the mandelbrot set). The equation is simple: z=z2+c. To see if a point is part of the Mandelbrot set, just take a complex number z. Square it, then add the original number. Square the result, then add the original number. Repeat that ad infinitum, and if the number keeps on going up to infinity, it is not part of the Mandelbrot set. If it stays down below a certain level, it is part of the Mandelbrot set. The Mandelbrot set is the innermost section of the picture, and each different shade of gray represents how far out that particular point is. One interesting feature of the Mandelbrot set is that the circular humps match up to the bifurcation graph. The Mandelbrot fractal has the same self-similarity seen in the other equations. In fact, zooming in deep enough on a Mandelbrot fractal will eventually reveal an exact replica of the Mandelbrot set, perfect in every detail.

Fractal structures have been noticed in many real-world areas, as well as in mathematician&#39;s minds. Blood vessels branching out further and further, the branches of a tree, the internal structure of the lungs, graphs of stock market data, and many other real-world systems all have something in common: they are all self-similar.

Scientists at UC Santa Cruz found chaos in a dripping water faucet. By recording a dripping faucet and recording the periods of time, they discovered that at a certain flow velocity, the dripping no longer occurred at even times. When they graphed the data, they found that the dripping did indeed follow a pattern.

The human heart also has a chaotic pattern. The time between beats does not remain constant; it depends on how much activity a person is doing, among other things. Under certain conditions, the heartbeat can speed up. Under different conditions, the heart beats erratically. It might even be called a chaotic heartbeat. The analysis of a heartbeat can help medical researchers find ways to put an abnormal heartbeat back into a steady state, instead of uncontrolled chaos.

Researchers discovered a simple set of three equations that graphed a fern. This started a new idea - perhaps DNA encodes not exactly where the leaves grow, but a formula that controls their distribution. DNA, even though it holds an amazing amount of data, could not hold all of the data necessary to determine where every cell of the human body goes. However, by using fractal formulas to control how the blood vessels branch out and the nerve fibers get created, DNA has more than enough information. It has even been speculated that the brain itself might be organized somehow according to the laws of chaos.

Chaos even has applications outside of science. Computer art has become more realistic through the use of chaos and fractals. Now, with a simple formula, a computer can create a beautiful, and realistic tree. Instead of following a regular pattern, the bark of a tree can be created according to a formula that almost, but not quite, repeats itself.

Music can be created using fractals as well. Using the Lorenz attractor, Diana S. Dabby, a graduate student in electrical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has created variations of musical themes. ("Bach to Chaos: Chaotic Variations on a Classical Theme", Science News, Dec. 24, 1994) By associating the musical notes of a piece of music like Bach&#39;s Prelude in C with the x coordinates of the Lorenz attractor, and running a computer program, she has created variations of the theme of the song. Most musicians who hear the new sounds believe that the variations are very musical and creative.

Chaos has already had a lasting effect on science, yet there is much still left to be discovered. Many scientists believe that twentieth century science will be known for only three theories: relativity, quantum mechanics, and chaos. Aspects of chaos show up everywhere around the world, from the currents of the ocean and the flow of blood through fractal blood vessels to the branches of trees and the effects of turbulence. Chaos has inescapably become part of modern science. As chaos changed from a little-known theory to a full science of its own, it has received widespread publicity. Chaos theory has changed the direction of science: in the eyes of the general public, physics is no longer simply the study of subatomic particles in a billion-dollar particle accelerator, but the study of chaotic systems and how they work.


Yogi

vidcc
12-29-2003, 11:59 PM
:sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping:

man whoever thought all that up must have been REALLY F*****G STONED :D

clocker
12-30-2003, 01:10 AM
That post was very informative and entertaining, Yogi.
I learned some stuff.

But I&#39;m a bit confused still.
Who is leaving and what pics did JP post?