Sciencemadness Discussion Board

The House I Live In, a documentary film by Eugene Jarecki

watson.fawkes - 6-10-2012 at 11:11

The House I Live In is a documentary film about the (USA) "war on drugs" by Eugene Jarecki. I saw a screening of it over the summer, but I'm writing because it's just hitting theatrical release, which is limited, opening this weekend in New York City, next weekend in southern CA and DC, others over the next couple of months. Here's the list of showtimes on the official website.

This is easily the best thing I've seen on the subject. Jarecki interviews people on all sides of this issue, not just the usual suspects, but also including police officers, marshalls, judges, and prison administrators. And they all have nothing good to say about what's happening. In a pretty astonishing coup, he's got interview footage from some of the same beat cops that were on the TV show Cops. The best thing, though, is the interview footage with David Simon, best know for the TV show The Wire, but previously a police reporter for the newspaper The Baltimore Sun. I could go on. If there's one thing that's wrong about it, it's that the scope of the film is so broad that it feels too short, but then I have a much higher tolerance than most for dense and long documentaries.

Go see it if you can. It's unlikely that the folks that participate on this site will be disappointed.

Official Website www.thehouseilivein.org
Official Trailer #1 on YouTube
Its page on IMDB
Its page on Rotten Tomatoes

watson.fawkes - 4-4-2013 at 09:09

This movie has been picked up by the PBS documentary series Independent Lens. It's premiering there on Monday, April 8, 2013 (that is, next Monday). PBS is widely available in the USA, so there's little excuse not to see it if you want to.

The House I Live In on PBS Independent Lens

hissingnoise - 5-4-2013 at 05:15

And the good news just keeps coming . . .

http://www.people-press.org/2013/04/04/majority-now-supports...

learningChem - 11-4-2013 at 16:20

The documentary could also have talked about the assholes in 'science' forums who like to rant about 'cooks'...

It was a more or less interesting depiction of the nazi system supported by a good deal of idiots who post in this forum.

Bot0nist - 11-4-2013 at 17:43

Quote: Originally posted by learningChem  
The documentary could also have talked about the assholes in 'science' forums who like to rant about 'cooks'...

It was a more or less interesting depiction of the nazi system supported by a good deal of idiots who post in this forum.



Why derail watson's thread with this whining? There is pleanty of help for prospective "drug" chemists here, and as long as the discourse is not full of retarded, non-scientific cook lingo and blatent lazyness. Check the Org chem subforum...

As far as supporters of facsism or nazi ideal. I only know of two members who feel this way, and their positions dont seem to effect the furum.

If you have such problems with SciMad, then why waste your time and ours whining and complianing. If you want to discuss forum issues or moderation in an effective way, then start a thread in the furum matters subforum, instead o being childish and spamming peoples threads with off topic flaming and bitching. Or just GTFO, or STFU. There are likely many forums online that will meet your obviously high standards...

Finnnicus - 11-4-2013 at 23:06

Woah, Woah guys, back to science related matters. No need to be angered. (Unrustle your jimmies?)

watson.fawkes - 12-4-2013 at 04:33

Quote: Originally posted by learningChem  
The documentary could also have talked about the assholes in 'science' forums who like to rant about 'cooks'...
The phrase of imprecation is "lazy cook". Please at least understand what the hatred here actually is. A cook who isn't lazy learns some science, almost perforce, and that happens here all the time.

I am in favor of decriminalization of recreational drugs in general, though I am not in favor of a "free market" in them; the details of the line between no restriction at all and illegality is not the point here. What is the point is that even in such a world (that is, even in one of a whole class of such worlds), I would still curse lazy cooks for being a threat to amateur science.

Lazy cooks are in many ways the perfect capitalists. At every turn they seek to externalize their own costs onto others, exchanging harm to others for personal profit. The three most obvious externalities are (1) harm to health over and above what the drug itself does, (2) contamination damage to real estate, and (3) hazardous materials in the trash. In other words, these are laziness in synthetic purity, laziness in lab practice, laziness with the waste disposal. Association with such toxic people is damaging to amateur science, regardless of the legality or illegality of the substance manufactured.

learningChem - 12-4-2013 at 12:39

Quote:
The phrase of imprecation is "lazy cook". Please at least understand what the hatred here actually is.


That doesn't sound too convincing to me.

Both alleged 'cooks' and non-cooks are routinely told to use the fucking search engine, are accused of wanting to be 'spoonfed' etc. The problem here seems to be lazy 'mentors' who don't want to 'spoonfeed' people, rather than lazy newbies. (I assume that one of the purposes of this forum is to help newbies. If people don't want to, that's fine. Whinning about newbies on the other hand, doesn't seem...right)

And of course there's a double standard. While newbies who are good sheep and supposedly obey 'the law' are tolerated, people who allegedly don't obey 'the law'are 'hated' (your own word)
Quote:
I am in favor of decriminalization of recreational drugs in general, though I am not in favor of a "free market" in them;

That hardly makes sense. You either stop violating people's rights and stop enforcing a criminal system (prohibition) and arbitrary 'regulations', or not.

You either have a 'free market' (that is, stop violating people's rights) or not.

If 'drugs' are 'decriminalized' then people can produce and take whatever they want, i. e. a free market. If you don't want a free market, then don't say that you favor 'decriminalization' (because you actually don't)
Quote:
the details of the line between no restriction at all and illegality is not the point here.

It isn't? Your position isn't very meaningful unless you clearly define that line.
Quote:
Lazy cooks are in many ways the perfect capitalists.

Cooks operate in a black market, not in a free market, so, no they are not capitalists.
Quote:
At every turn they seek to externalize their own costs onto others, exchanging harm to others for personal profit.

Looks like you don't know what capitalism is. It is a system based on private property and free enterprise (free enterprise == you pay for your mistakes)

Now, people who harm other people are NOT respecting private property so they can't be capitalists.

You're also partially wrong about cooks 'externalizing their costs'. Some may do that (like people who are considered 'upstanding citizens' and are not cooks do...) while others simply don't (that is, they produce pure stuff and dispose of their trash properly).
Quote:
Association with such toxic people is damaging to amateur science

Baseless ranting.

[Edited on 12-4-2013 by learningChem]

learningChem - 12-4-2013 at 12:40

By the way,

I was told to shut the fuck up by botonist, but when I told him to shut the fuck up, my post was censored/deleted.

Pa the tic.

AndersHoveland - 13-4-2013 at 01:13

I do not believe that criminalization of physical objects is an appropriate way for society to deal with its problems. At least not when it comes to chemistry... perhaps I am a bit biased. :)

[Edited on 13-4-2013 by AndersHoveland]

watson.fawkes - 13-4-2013 at 06:09

Quote: Originally posted by learningChem  
[... nothing I care to respond to
In the gradation of my negative opinions about people, there are people I disagree with, people I think are completely wrong-headed, and people that are so clueless that talking to them is completely worthless to me. You are in the third category.

Finnnicus - 13-4-2013 at 07:22

Ah stop arguing, it's not even constructive!

12AX7 - 13-4-2013 at 07:25

Looked up the movie. Absolutely amazing.

hissingnoise - 13-4-2013 at 08:00

Quote:
Ah stop arguing, it's not even constructive!

Do we have any smug, mellow, non-argumentative members from the "Legal States"?
Sheeesh! If I were one, I'd be smug as fuck!

elementcollector1 - 13-4-2013 at 09:15

Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise  
Quote:
Ah stop arguing, it's not even constructive!

Do we have any smug, mellow, non-argumentative members from the "Legal States"?
Sheeesh! If I were one, I'd be smug as fuck!


Let's see:
From a "Legal State": Washington is one of two to legalize marijuana.
Smug: I have no idea, though I'd like to think not.
Mellow: Absolutely not.
Non-argumentative: Hahaha no.
Hmm, that's 1 or 2 out of 4. Close enough.

learningChem - 13-4-2013 at 10:17

> people that are so clueless that talking to them is completely worthless to me. You are in the third category.

Yes sonny. After showing that you don't know the ABC of political theory, all you can do is resort to name calling =) Lovely.

BromicAcid - 13-4-2013 at 11:39

Quote: Originally posted by Finnnicus  
Ah stop arguing, it's not even constructive!


No arguments on the internet are ever constructive. When it comes to arguing on the internet, no one really cares what anyone else says, they just hope that everyone cares about what they say.



[Edited on 4/13/2013 by BromicAcid]

internet-argument-rational-wiki.jpg - 37kB

watson.fawkes - 13-4-2013 at 13:42

Quote: Originally posted by 12AX7  
Looked up the movie. Absolutely amazing.
Thanks for watching it, which was the whole point of my original posts. It truly is amazing.

Finnnicus - 13-4-2013 at 21:11

Quote: Originally posted by BromicAcid  

No arguments on the internet are ever constructive.


Well, one could argue the point.... ;)

madscientist - 13-4-2013 at 23:13

Quote: Originally posted by learningChem  
The documentary could also have talked about the assholes in 'science' forums who like to rant about 'cooks'...

It was a more or less interesting depiction of the nazi system supported by a good deal of idiots who post in this forum.



Polverone and I started this forum and neither of us has ever supported the "War on Drugs" in any capacity. Discussion of the topic is limited more as a matter of scope and taste. Though I do agree with watson.fawkes that most cooks are lazy and irresponsible, poisoning themselves, their friends or customers, and the environment.

If drugs were legal there would be no incentive to cook at home. Who would make meth and risk burning to death or ingesting toxins when the same material could be purchased for less at the local pharmacy?

[Edited on 14-4-2013 by madscientist]

violet sin - 14-4-2013 at 03:56

that was an interesting movie. not the normal genre for me but well done. after watching, its kinda hard to believe any one would have a chance of talking their way out of criminal charges(for hobby chem lab) if intruded on by cops. seeing 'em swarm houses for drugs( and some times by accident! ) in the film. they were out to get anything and everything that was stumbled upon while trying to do one initial bust. so having a shithead neighbor and a love of science could suck for you.

all the more reason to be smart when not even doing anything wrong.

on a non chemistry related side, the movie was good at showing a more humanized representation of whats going on. not just the crazy black and white often misleading info we heard growing up. thanks for posting the links to it watson.f , finding it free to watch on the pbs page

hissingnoise - 14-4-2013 at 05:22

OK! This is pretty old ─ but it's still funny . . .

watson.fawkes - 14-4-2013 at 07:36

Quote: Originally posted by madscientist  
Though I do agree with watson.fawkes that most cooks are lazy and irresponsible, poisoning themselves, their friends or customers, and the environment.
To be precise, I did not claim that most cooks are lazy, merely that there are lots of lazy cooks. I've got no particular evidence that most cooks are lazy, and while anecdotal evidence might indicate that, there's also an observation bias in that the incidents where lazy cooks create disasters, such as infants with neurotoxic damage from moving into a former cook house, are subject to attention while ones that keep it clean would be noticed at much lower rates. And I have had no personal contact with this world, so I cannot add anything there, though it's clear that others can.
Quote: Originally posted by madscientist  
If drugs were legal there would be no incentive to cook at home. Who would make meth and risk burning to death or ingesting toxins when the same material could be purchased for less at the local pharmacy?
You've made a number of presumptions here about the nature of a decriminalized world. I'll immediately stipulate that the scenario here is plausible, but I cannot bring myself to assume that's the way things will work. Why only at the pharmacy and why not at the liquor store, for example?

There's actually a rather large hazard here for amateur science, which is that recreational drug manufacture could be legal per se yet captured by commercial interests, who would promote regulations that favor large players over small. Small-scale synthesis could easily become de facto illegal because of requirements for zoning, waste tracking, purity testing, impurity characterization, dose consistency, and whatnot. This isn't idle speculation; this is what regularly happens when large commercial concerns take political action in the name of safety to squash their smaller competitors. A readily-available example is the dairy industry in the USA.

The larger point I'd like to stress is that the amateur science world is not prepared for success with a decriminalization agenda. Prohibition laws are not the only target. There's a whole world after knocking over those laws to consider. There will be some sort of regulation, period. The USA government has a department named after alcohol and tobacco; claiming that recreational drugs won't fall under that rubric is evidence of naivety enough to ignore anybody so foolish. The structure of that sequel regulation can either favor amateur science or hinder it, and I've seen little discussion about how to achieve a beneficial outcome.

learningChem - 14-4-2013 at 13:45

Quote:
Polverone and I started this forum and neither of us has ever supported the "War on Drugs" in any capacity.


And yet it seems to me that this forum complies pretty well with american government dictates, if not fully in print, at least in spirit.

Yes, there are a few people speaking out against the so called war on drugs, but the majority either support it, or don't give a damn about it (that is they tacitly support it).
Quote:
I do agree with watson.fawkes that most cooks are lazy and irresponsible, poisoning themselves, their friends or customers, and the environment.


Bullshit. And I see that 'fawkes' is still ranting about 'drugs'...while pretending that he'd support 'decriminalization'



learningChem - 14-4-2013 at 13:58

Here

http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=18434&...


40% of the vote supports outright fascism while the majority of the rest seems to be comfortable with the current level of 'polite' fascism.

learningChem - 14-4-2013 at 14:25

Quote:
Why only at the pharmacy and why not at the liquor store, for example?


Right - liquor store or supermarket or online - and so what.
Quote:
A readily-available example (of state sponsored cartelization) is the dairy industry in the USA.


Right, big business tend to do that - and they are able to do it thanks to dumb ignorant lefties who want 'regulation'.
Quote:
The larger point I'd like to stress is that the amateur science world is not prepared for success with a decriminalization agenda.


What? There's no such thing as 'amateur science' - just a bunch of hobbysts doing some practical chemistry. The main obstacle to their hobby is regulations restricting the free buying and selling of certain goods. Get rid of the regulations and the problem for your 'amateur science' is solved.




[Edited on 14-4-2013 by learningChem]

Vargouille - 14-4-2013 at 15:14

What's that, Sciencemadness is actually a fascist quasi-dictatorship? That explains the poster of Polverone that appeared on the ceiling, telling me to give up my money for the administration's general coffers. And how people are instantly banned the second they suggest any impropriety in the actions of the administration. And how the motto of Sciencemadness is "God on our side". And how all the intellectuals are subjugated. Really, I don't see how I didn't see it before.

EDIT: On a more serious note, regulation is not the exclusive province of the left-wing. For example, consider the "Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act" passed under Bush, and the "DEA", created under Nixon.

[Edited on 14-4-2013 by Vargouille]

BromicAcid - 14-4-2013 at 15:46

Quote:
A specific aspect of Internet arguments that does not in any way mitigate their terribleness is this: They can’t be won.

All good things come to an end. Internet arguments never come to an end. You don’t need me to finish the syllogism. In the absence of an end condition, there’s only whoever has the last word. So all online arguments come down to the two people who just will not shut up. They’re like contestants in a Fifties-era dance marathon, each bodily dragging their own limp argument around the dance floor in hopes that the other will collapse first.


http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/12/alt-text-internet-arg...

learningChem - 14-4-2013 at 15:47

Quote:
On a more serious note, regulation is not the exclusive province of the left-wing.


Right, it isn't - and I never said it is. Regulation favors both right wing and left wing special interests.



[Edited on 14-4-2013 by learningChem]

BromicAcid - 14-4-2013 at 16:04

Finnnicus - 14-4-2013 at 16:07

Bromic, that was beautiful...

learningChem - 14-4-2013 at 16:36

I don't get BromicAcid's point. Apart from the rather dumb joke.

learningChem - 14-4-2013 at 16:38

By the way, BromicAcid's posts and yours Finnicus look pretty off topic.


[Edited on 15-4-2013 by learningChem]

BromicAcid - 14-4-2013 at 16:52

elementcollector1 - 14-4-2013 at 16:55

Do you have more of these? :D

BromicAcid - 14-4-2013 at 16:57

http://www.cracked.com/funny-3809-internet-argument-techniqu...

learningChem - 14-4-2013 at 16:58

Yeah BromicAcid, keep posting off topic garbage.

Wait. Shouldn't you be doing something useful instead of trolling? Guess you can't even follow your own advice? tsk tsk...

BromicAcid - 14-4-2013 at 17:20

You can't win arguments on the internet, it's impossible. But it is possible to defeat an argument by getting a thread locked. Your post, your very first post to this thread put it into a downward spiral. And as soon as you made the apples to apples comparison between poll results with the astounding sample size of 52 individuals and the general attitude of a forum with 12902 members you dragged this thread down from Mr. Fawkes original ideal to some sort of hole in the ground where people defecate.

There is a reason that all political discussion has been taboo on this forum for some time. We're not making brownies here, this is a chemistry forum first and foremost. The people on this forum are essentially co-workers and there needs to be a level of trust and professional etiquette there else-wise the filth flows over into other areas of this forum. There is a reason we don't have avatars, that the look is clean and simple, it's because we don't have time to deal with shit.

12AX7 - 14-4-2013 at 17:35

I prefer to end arguments by not replying.

Working mechanism:
Since the idiot who insists on MUST POST LAST WORD PWNZ0RZ!!!! will obviously make a fool of himself consistently, there is no need to attempt to disprove his argument nor show others that he is any more of an idiot than he already makes himself out to be. Take the high road and leave him sputtering.

But really, it was a good movie. Highly recommended. Anyone else here catch it?

Tim

madscientist - 15-4-2013 at 03:25

watson.fawkes - I will admit I was only considering my ideal model for legalization.

I do have trouble believing that things could be worse with legalization than they are now. No regulation could possibly be harsher than a felony. Without houses and hotels going off like firecrackers on the 4th, as is the case with the "shake and bake," littering highways with toxic trash, the chemical hysteria would probably die down quickly.
Quote: Originally posted by learningChem  
Quote:
Polverone and I started this forum and neither of us has ever supported the "War on Drugs" in any capacity.


And yet it seems to me that this forum complies pretty well with american government dictates, if not fully in print, at least in spirit.

Yes, there are a few people speaking out against the so called war on drugs, but the majority either support it, or don't give a damn about it (that is they tacitly support it).
Quote:
I do agree with watson.fawkes that most cooks are lazy and irresponsible, poisoning themselves, their friends or customers, and the environment.


Bullshit. And I see that 'fawkes' is still ranting about 'drugs'...while pretending that he'd support 'decriminalization'


We don't have to dedicate this forum to public policy matters to personally oppose the criminalization of health problems. You are in the wrong place if you want to focus on such topics - this is a chemistry forum, not a drug forum, not a political forum. There is a myriad of such places for you to visit, but there is only one Sciencemadness. Go to a drug forum if you want to discuss how to make meth. Go to a political forum if you want to discuss the injustices imposed in your country.

And the sad truth is most cooks are lazy and irresponsible. When was the last time one bottled and labeled their waste and paid for disposal? When was the last time one used analytical equipment to test for mercury after an Al/Hg reduction? How many do any tests whatsoever for purity, or run columns to isolate their materials?

If you were familiar with how rigorous the standards are for pharmaceuticals, and why they are so (toxicity problems having occurred), you would be appalled by what is considered "quality" by cooks. I wouldn't want to ingest anything they produce, that's for sure. Big crystals do not mean the sample is pure. Co-crystallization of impurities can and will still occur. But without analytical equipment, you will never even realize this is happening.
Quote: Originally posted by learningChem  
Here
http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=18434&...

40% of the vote supports outright fascism while the majority of the rest seems to be comfortable with the current level of 'polite' fascism.


I thought you may had found a poll where 40% supported dragging drug users before firing squads. Sorry, but believing Sciencemadness is an inappropriate place for discussions that have little do to with a scientific mentality, and much more to do with grinding phosphorus off matchbooks and extracting pills, does not make one a "fascist." It does, however, make you presumptuous and rude, for making such a claim.

watson.fawkes - 15-4-2013 at 04:59

Quote: Originally posted by madscientist  
I do have trouble believing that things could be worse with legalization than they are now. No regulation could possibly be harsher than a felony. Without houses and hotels going off like firecrackers on the 4th, as is the case with the "shake and bake," littering highways with toxic trash, the chemical hysteria would probably die down quickly.
I do agree that pretty much any legalization would be better than the present situation, and that the hysteria would die down. The regulation I am concerned about, however, would not derive from hysteria but from lobbyists.

For example, consider the case of licensing and home laboratories. I find it completely plausible that as a part of some political negotiation there's a new rule requiring, well, whatever to have a home laboratory and also requiring a license. Not having the license would then be itself a crime, and a new crime at that. There are many such possibilities for the creation of new crimes, not only this one example. I am concerned that there will be regressions if the legal regime changes.

learningChem - 15-4-2013 at 15:19

BromicAcid,

Do you want me to reply to the nonsense you posted? Do you happen to be 'arguing'? Do you even get a glimpse of how laughable your contradictory 'non-arguments' is?

BromicAcid - 15-4-2013 at 15:34

@watson.fawkes - No showings by me but I see that it is available on demand through Amazon, iTunes, etc. From the quotes from critics and everyone else I find myself intrigued.

learningChem - 15-4-2013 at 15:57

Quote:
You are in the wrong place if you want to focus on such topics - this is a chemistry forum, not a drug forum, not a political forum.

Am I in the wrong place? I'm posting in one thread in a sub forum explicitly devoted to NON chemistry, LEGAL and SOCIETAL issues. Hell, the thread is even about chemistry (partially).

By the way, after getting a load of bullshit by fawkes and other idiots in a thread I started (about CHEMISTRY) I don't see why I can't set things right here.
Quote:
When was the last time one bottled and labeled their waste and paid for disposal?

Are you joking? Should clandestine chemists also turn themselves in to the pigs?
Quote:
If you were familiar with how rigorous the standards are for pharmaceuticals, and why they are so (toxicity problems having occurred), you would be appalled by what is considered "quality" by cooks.

Oh, the big, and corrupt pharmaceutical cartel and their standards used to restrict competition. Funny, one of the few things fawkes got right, you ignore it...
Quote:
I thought you may had found a poll where 40% supported dragging drug users before firing squads.

Why do you think they don't? Do you think the war on drugs, and things like the highest incarceration rate in the world are not hallamrks of fascism? Oh, wait, maybe that's 'american' 'freedom' for you...

To me, it seems a safe bet that people who want to ban all talk about 'drugs' also support the war on drugs.
Quote:
It does, however, make you presumptuous and rude, for making such a claim.

Well, I'm a bit old to learn the manners of polite hypocrisy now...