may you all have peace!.
my husband thought i should post this and i thought, you know, not a bad idea.
so, we're sitting in the telly room together, relaxing before our journey (to see the [adult] kids tomorrow.
A few minutes ago a commercial for a cake baking contest-type show came on.
Ummm, a what now?
I seriously had to read your entire post twice to understand that sentence. . . it's literally a contest show where the point is to bake cakes? What the heck?
http://regulatemarijuanalikewine.com/legal-and-political-analysis-of-regulate-marijuana-like-wine/.
i am ecstatic to hear that people are attempting something like this.
i have always thought that using marijuana could be likened to using wine as a medicine.
We have made significant progress in fighting drug use and drug trafficking in America. Now is not the time to abandon our efforts.
I'd almost call this the 'sunk cost fallacy'. . . we've already spent so much time and money fighting it, it would be a waste to make it legal now.
This ignores the fact that, if there's nothing wrong with the drug it SHOULDN'T be illegal. It also ignores the fact that, no matter how well we are doing, it's still an unending expense. There will never come a time when the drug war is 'won' and we can stop dumping money into it.
Fact 2: A balanced approach of prevention, enforcement, and treatment is the key in the fight against drugs.
I agree. I think we just might disagree on what counts as 'balanced'.
Fact 3: Illegal drugs are illegal because they are harmful.
That's not a 'fact', it's an opinion. Which many disagree with. Marijuana is, quite simply, NOT harmful. At least no more harmful than alchohol or eating twinkies. And actually if you don't smoke it, then it's less hamrful than cigarettes.
There is a growing misconception that some illegal drugs can be taken safely.
But it's not a misconception if it's true. Some illegal drugs CAN be taken safely.
Marijuana for example. Heck even ecstacy. They're dangerous if you overdose, but that's like saying it's a misconception that vicodin can be taken safely. . . of COURSE it can, and it can also be taken unsafely.
Fact 4: Smoked marijuana is not scientifically approved medicine. Marinol, the legal version of medical marijuana, is approved by science.
Since when does a substance have to be scientifically approved as medicine before it's legal? Are twinkies a scientifically approved medicine? Are they illegal? Some people might want to take marijuana for non-medical reasons. You know, like alchohol.
Do we just ban everything until it's proven useful?
Also. . . can we please outlaw homeopathy and acupunctue? They at least have been proven NOT to be scientifically viable.
Fact 5: Drug control spending is a minor portion of the U.S. budget. Compared to the social costs of drug abuse and addiction, government spending on drug control is minimal.
That depends on what drug we are talking about. Meth? I agree completely! It should not be legal.
Fact 6: Legalization of drugs will lead to increased use and increased levels of addiction. Legalization has been tried before, and failed miserably.
Duh.
Same applies to cigarettes and alchohol and driving and TV and every other lesiure activity.
If it's legal, more people will try it. IF you made TV watching illegal everywhere but alaska, I'm sure alaska would have a higher rate of habitual television watchers than elsewhere. IF it's not harmful, why should we care that more people try it?
Fact 7: Crime, violence, and drug use go hand-in-hand. . . Six times as many homicides are committed by people under the influence of drugs, as by those who are looking for money to buy drugs.
That's a bizzare stastic and I'm not sure why they used it. But anyway, it's not suprising that people who associate with drug-dealers are more likely to commit crimes. Drugs are illegal, so currently, only people who are willing to break the law will use them.
If owning a car where illegal, then I'm sure people who owned cars would be more likely to commit crimes.
Fact 8: Alcohol has caused significant health, social, and crime problems in this country, and legalized drugs would only make the situation worse.
Change that too "Alcohol MISUSE has caused significant health, social, and crime problems in this country." and you'll be on the right track.
A group of guys sitting at home watching the superbowl and drinking alchohol has not cause ANY noticable health, social or crime problems in this country.
Driving while drunk or on the job though is different.
Drugs are the same. If you are even slightly responsible you won't cause any problems.
Fact 9: Europe’s more liberal drug policies are not the right model for America.
Who the heck is writing these unsupported opinions and labeling them 'facts' ?
Fact 10: Most non-violent drug users get treatment, not jail time.
Not sure why this fact is listed. . . Are we supposed to be happy that we are wasting money paying for them to get treatment they don't need instead of paying for them to rot in jail for something that doesn't matter?
Truth is, only about 5 percent of inmates in federal prison are there because of simple possession.
Why is the word 'only' in that sentence? 5 percent of federal prison inmates are there just because that had drugs? Not for selling them or misusing them. Just HAVING them. ?
5% is a lot!
And that's assuming that statistic is true.
Try this one on for size: "The number of incarcerated drug offenders has increased twelvefold since 1980. In 2000, 22 percent of those in federal and state prisons were convicted on drug charges." http://www.hrw.org/legacy/backgrounder/usa/incarceration/
22% !
So almost a quarter of the prison population is there because we have decided that we don't like people having drugs.
seems like the original star trek was almost universally enjoyed.
from the kooky music theme 'space.....ahhhhh ahhhh ahhh ahhhhhhhh ahhh', the upbeat message, the deep subject matter...the chemistry of the characters.
you remember being much younger almost felt like not a care in the world?
I really loved TNG the most. It's still my favorite series of all time.
IF you liked the kookiness of it and the upbeat message, try the new BBC Doctor Who series. They are occasionally dark, coughcreepyangelscough , but mostly they are upbeat, funny and of course kooky. Plus if you used to watch doctor who, then you can kind of get the nostalgia from it like you would get from star trek.
If you want a show that just makes you feel really GOOD then watch My Little Pony Friendship is Magic. (It's gotta be the friendship is magic version, all the previous ones sucked horribly as I'm sure you can imagine.) The characters are so heartwarming and cute, plus they have the care and trust for each other which is missing from most shows. Watch an episode before you go to bed and you'll definately have a warm fuzzy feeling.
i've often said, if you live in an island nation of a few people, wouldn't you think it a must to try to keep everyone healthy, happy and strong?
you know, in case the natives from the next island over decide they want to come and hurt all of you and take all your stuff?
health, both physical and mental are more important the smaller the population gets.
I reread the thread and I'm still not sure how republicans/democrats fit into this discussion, but comparing me to the nazis is hardly fair.
I agree it sucks, but that doesn't make it less true. Some people WILL be less useful in a survival situation. Myself probably included. In an ideal world EVERYONE would be taken care of.
But the moment you have more people than food someone is gonna get the shaft.
It's a hard winter and you and only managed to hunt enough food for 75 people. Who gets to eat? Your best hunters? The pregnant 20 year old? Or the sickly 90 year old?
Your best hunters HAVE to eat, or you're all gonna die. The pregnant woman has to live because she holds the future to your tribe.
I understand you're trying to force this hypothetical scenario to fit a happy everyone-lives-together-in-harmony message, but that only works if you have enough resources for everyone all the time.
one thing i regret, is not listening to the questions in my head whilst a jw.
one i didn't ask until years after leaving was....who designed disease?
of course the first thing to realise is the complexity of disease, the histology, pathology and aetiology.
If Bananas prove there is a god, Coconuts prove there is a devil.
i've often said, if you live in an island nation of a few people, wouldn't you think it a must to try to keep everyone healthy, happy and strong?
you know, in case the natives from the next island over decide they want to come and hurt all of you and take all your stuff?
health, both physical and mental are more important the smaller the population gets.
What if I chose to go live by myself away from the group? Would your leaders allow me to leave? Or would they insist that with the low population they can't afford to lose anyone, so I'm forced to stay?
What if I did very well for myself, would you send people out to take from my plenty? Would you view my success as a threat to your society, fearing that others might follow my example?
Or would you be better off without me since I'm a non-reproducing antisocial geek with no practical skills in a world with no computers? Come to think of it, If I got sick, would it even be in your best interest to provide me with medical care?
i've often said, if you live in an island nation of a few people, wouldn't you think it a must to try to keep everyone healthy, happy and strong?
you know, in case the natives from the next island over decide they want to come and hurt all of you and take all your stuff?
health, both physical and mental are more important the smaller the population gets.
Very possible. The one college degree could be a medical doctorate degree and they could exchange eggs, brussel sprouts and home made boots for the care. No citizen would be denied care because with 100 people, you don't need to lose anyone.
Darn, our one doctor is an orthopedic surgeon and you have a tumor in your left lung. . . now what?
Or alternatively: Oh darn, our one doctor is a heart surgeon and you just got a spiral fracture to the leg. . . now what?
What about the anesthesiologist, the nurses, the team who fixes the MRI machine when it breaks, the assisting surgeon, the other several dozen people who make modern medicine work.
Everyone could have equal medical care, but it would be equally crappy medical care. Who's gonna pay the boots, brussel sprouts and eggs to provide medical care for the one 90 year old guy who cannot contribute anymore to your small society? Lots of people would probably volunteer, but what if he's kind of a jerk?
Also, being a doctor is hard work, why can't he just STOP being a doctor and grow his own darn brussel sprouts? Are you going to FORCE him to be a doctor simply because he knows how? Even if he could do better for himself by dropping that proffession when it becomes unprofitable?
With 1 doctor, there is no such thing as a 'second opinion', there is also no such thing as: the price is too high. If he wants to charge 3 pairs of boots, or 100 pairs of boots, it's not like you can say: "No I'll have someone else remove my appendix."
do you not have to take good care of everyone of the 100? Do you not need to keep the 100 strong and healthy as possible?
Not really. Some of them are probably completely useless, and in fact, a burden on the rest of you.
And it depends on what your goal is. Do you want to repopulate the earth? Well then you better stop worrying about the old people and start having lots of babies.
My personal goal would be pretty much the same as it is now. Namely: For me to have the best quality of life I can. That definately does not include raising a bunch of children in a post-apocolyptic world.
I personally wouldn't give a crap about saving the species or anything like that, and if I had good reason to believe that I could have a better life out by myself, I wouldn't think twice about leaving the whole group and living elsewhere.
With 100 different people from 100 different backgrounds, odds are pretty slim you're gonna have many people who are willing to strive towards the same goal you are trying to reach.
one thing i regret, is not listening to the questions in my head whilst a jw.
one i didn't ask until years after leaving was....who designed disease?
of course the first thing to realise is the complexity of disease, the histology, pathology and aetiology.
Well. . . cancer is not the best choice.
Take the ebola virus instead. IF creationism were true and evolution doesn't happen, then some jerk had to take time to actually DESIGN the ebola virus.
He thought it through and chose to create a virus that only effects primates. It latches onto a cell, hijacks the part which builds proteins and uses it to make copies of itself promptly destroying the cell and moving on so that it can infect more victims.
It basically kills you through what is called a Viral Hemorrhagic Fever, that's the thing where you bleed out every oriface and die.
The question is not: Why are humans effected by this?
The question is: Why create this thing to begin with? It sucks!
According to evolution deniers it would have required deliberate creation and planning. . . If a human invented something like this and allowed people to get infected with it, we'd call him a monster, even if he released it by accident.
There is sordid, abhorrent pornography involving homosexuality (sex between those of the same gender), group sex, bestiality. . . . .
Is there anyone on the planet who knows what the word 'bestiality' means but needs you to define the word 'homosexuality' for them?
deep breath here....... my baby... nearly 15!...
has disclosed in the last several months .
that, altho born to us a girl, he needs to be a boy... we have had.
On the bright side. . . it's a heckuvalot easier for a girl to dress as a boy without critisism than the other way around.
