backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 51 comment(s) - last by SandmanWN.. on Nov 24 at 10:41 AM
Government-built Google mashup sends a mixed message

Attempts by the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) to make a point about California-legal medical-marijuana dispensaries went horribly wrong earlier this month, when the office’s official “Pushing Back” blog published a Google Maps mash-up supplying the public with a map of downtown San Francisco’s marijuana dispensaries.

The mash-up was originally built to make a point -- San Francisco is so saturated by medical-marijuana dispensaries that they exceed the number of Starbucks coffee shops in the city’s downtown area.

Both San Francisco city officials and the San Francisco Chronicle are questioning the federal governments sources, however. One city official told City Insider that the data presented was “extremely incorrect.”

“I don’t know how they got that,” he added.

According to the San Francisco Department of Public Health, there are only 24 dispensaries in San Francisco in possession of the necessary permits, or trying to apply for them.

Even the ONDCP’s assessment of Starbucks locations is incorrect, said Starbucks spokeswoman Vivian Doan. The map should have listed 71 locations, when it instead listed 66.

In a follow-up post, the ONDCP implies that it gathered its data from publicly-available search engine listings. “It's hard to be exact,” reads the post, “but based on publicly available info on search engines, we believe that there are more listings for pot dispensaries in SF than there are Starbucks.”

The post, authored by ONDCP spokesman Rafeal Lamaitre, then acknowledges statistics from the SF Department of Public Health, before noting that the number of “registered pot clubs” in San Francisco still exceeds the number of Taco Bells (18), Middle Schools (14), and district police stations (14).

“Simple Google searches will find far more pot establishments in the San Francisco area. Some of these even offer delivery services,” the post reads, including a link to one such service.

The original version of the mashup listed a total of 98 dispensaries. When questioned about the source of its data, the ONDCP provided a list of 74 dispensaries and revised its map to show 71. Officials say the removed entries consisted of “alternative-medicine-type” shops whose marijuana offerings could not be confirmed.

Wired’s Threat Level notes that ONDCP was previously caught producing fake news broadcasts in 2005.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Does this surprise anyone?
By FITCamaro on 11/20/08, Rating: 0
RE: Does this surprise anyone?
By arazok on 11/20/2008 9:50:30 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
As far as marijuana, as much as I am against it, I see it being legalized some day.


I’ve never understood why it’s republicans that are always opposed to legalizing pot. This is the party that’s supposed to be against government involvement in our lives. I think that if they droped their obsession about some law and order issues, you would see more of them getting elected.

As a Canadian, your laws seem totally surreal to me. You can buy a beer at a gas station (I can only buy Beer by the case at government run stores with horrible hours), but a joint will get you locked up for 25 years.


RE: Does this surprise anyone?
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/20/2008 10:01:37 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
This is the party that's supposed to be against the government involvement in our lives


You, my friend have the Republican party badly confused with the Libertarian party.

With only a few die-hard conservative Republican stalwarts left in Congress (mostly older), within a couple decades the Republican party will be totally owned by the neo-conservatives, ala Bush/Cheney.

Neoconservative != Conservative
in any way. Neoconservatives support intrusive government on selective topics -- abortion, gay marriage, drug policy. They also support big deficit spending -- corporate tax breaks ("trickle down"), trade incentives, and large military budgets. Whereas conservatism tends to isolationist foreign policy, preferring to stay out of others' messes, Neoconservatism seeks to police the world.

Neoconservatism is probably closest to militaristic/religious nationalism in philosophy, and is sadly in control of the Republican party today.

True conservatives -- those who advocate small government and minimal involvement -- are left with fewer choices by the year as they are forced to choose between Democrats and Liberals, two equally un-conservative parties, or a fringe party that will never garner enough votes to win elections.

My regrets go out to you true conservatives.


RE: Does this surprise anyone?
By arazok on 11/20/2008 10:40:40 AM , Rating: 5
For once Jason, I have to say you are correct. I’m searching for the conservative of the past, and not the one of today.

I guess I’m advocating that the Republicans return to their roots. It’s too bad Ron Paul has no personality.


RE: Does this surprise anyone?
By FITCamaro on 11/20/08, Rating: -1
RE: Does this surprise anyone?
By FITCamaro on 11/20/08, Rating: 0
RE: Does this surprise anyone?
By ChickenMcTest on 11/20/2008 1:22:13 PM , Rating: 2
You are way over estimating the money spent on Health and Human Services. For 2007 we spent about 1.6 Trillion on what I would describe as "social" programs and 1.3 Trillion on military and national security programs.

http://photos.webridestv.com/datastore/images/user...

The problem with military deficit spending is that it does not produce any thing. My federal grant (social program) helped me get through college, and get a career in accounting. However my friends M-16 and combat training (defense spending) which he used in Iraq got him a job as a cashier now that he is back in the States.

Also there is good deficit spending and bad deficit spending. The government can run a deficit if it creating new infrastructure. Infrastructure is an investment, it should create returns. The government can not use a deficit to finance it's military. A large standing army does not create any return on its investment.

If we are to follow the example of Regan, Bush I, or Bush II, then republicans love deficit spending.


RE: Does this surprise anyone?
By FITCamaro on 11/20/08, Rating: -1
RE: Does this surprise anyone?
By knowyourenemy on 11/20/2008 5:19:52 PM , Rating: 2
"As far as gay marriage, its been between a man and a women since time began. I see no reason to change that."

In the sense that it is a religiously defined term, I agree. Whatever the religious says can and can't happen, so be it. Leave it to the religion. However, in United States law, I must sincerely disagree. This war of semantics has brought up some of the most ridiculous bigotry I have ever heard. Goes to show that I didn't grow up during the civil movements through the 50s to 70s.


RE: Does this surprise anyone?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/21/2008 1:23:55 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see how you're equating an opposition to gay marriage with bigotry. I may be legally barred from marriage to another man, but I'm likewise prevented from marrying an underage child, a farm animal, or a length of rubber tubing. Are those laws bigotry as well?

It's important to understand what this struggle is really about. Gay couples already have the right to live together, and to file domestic partnerships that grant them nearly all the rights of a married couple. What do they lack? Primarily, nothing but the ability to force employers who offer health-care benefits to traditional couples to extend those benefits to them.

Of course, many employers already choose to do this anyway. Personally, as a citizen of a supposedly free country, I favor the free choice option myself.


RE: Does this surprise anyone?
By NullSubroutine on 11/23/2008 7:49:55 AM , Rating: 2
An underage child, farm animal, or length of rubber tubing cannot consent to marriage.

Thats besides the point of the equal protection clause in the constitution, which states much be applied equally to everyone, and you cannot discriminate on the basis of race, age, sex, gender, religion, etc...


RE: Does this surprise anyone?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/23/2008 3:56:34 PM , Rating: 2
You've misinterpreted that clause. The right being extended here is that of a man and a woman to enjoin in marriage. The 14th Amendment states that right must be extended to all people, i.e. a gay man must still be allowed to marry a woman, and a lesbian still has the right to marry a man.

It does not, however, generate new rights in itself, such as the right for two men, gay or not, to marry each other.


By NullSubroutine on 11/24/2008 4:34:31 AM , Rating: 2
No, that is not true. Until there is an amendment to the US constitution that states marriage is between a man and a woman the 14th provides someone has the right to marry a man or a woman regardless of their own sex. Man+woman is a social custom not law. (except states that passed law, but are most likely unconstitutional)


RE: Does this surprise anyone?
By wordsworm on 11/20/08, Rating: 0
RE: Does this surprise anyone?
By Aarnando on 11/21/2008 1:24:43 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
As far as gay marriage, its been between a man and a women since time began.


A gay marriage...between a man and a woman...

Anyway, I know what you meant, so I'll quit harrasing you on that point. However, I think you have some facts wrong. Marriage has not been around since time began. Marriage is a concept invented by humans, and represents little more than a business deal no matter how much flowery language, fancy clothes, and delightful foods you throw into the mix. In the sense of a business deal, why should anyone care if it's the combination of a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman?

I think what you're mistaking marriage with is procreation. Where humans are involved, procreation does irrefutably require a man and a woman. But no one is trying to redefine the laws of procreation, so what exactly is the problem?


RE: Does this surprise anyone?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/21/2008 3:05:59 PM , Rating: 4
> "In the sense of a business deal, why should anyone care if it's the combination of a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman?"

Because a traditional marriage formalizes a union where both partners are capable not only of procreation, but of raising their biological offspring in a two-parent household, an arrangement that has substantial benefits for society. The conception and rearing of children has been the basis not just of marriage, but of society itself since the earliest days of protohistory. For the same reason we (in most states, at least) make marriage easy, but divorce difficult-- social stability.

And before you say it-- yes, I'm aware of a few "studies" which purport to suggest that a gay couple can raise children as well as a traditional one. I think we all realize such studies are utter nonsense, designed only to prove a foregone conclusion. The issue has nothing to do with "gayness", but the simple fact that the optimum environment for children is when they have a biological connection to both parents. In other words, the situation for which millions of years of evolution has shaped us.


RE: Does this surprise anyone?
By Aarnando on 11/21/2008 5:55:30 PM , Rating: 3
I can wholeheartedly agree that traditional marriage does have benefits to society in the forms you state, but, if that is your reasoning as to why gay marriage should remain illegal, then what you are proposing is a form of punishment for gay couples who wish to be married. Since they won't create and rear children, they aren't allowed to marry.

Rather than punish citizens, I'd prefer to grant them a right which would possibly create a beneficial union between two people. Unless you want to argue that a satisfied citizen free from discrimination is not beneficial to society?