Leaderboard

Society is only allowed to use the drug that you prefer?

Does 'me' have parts?

It is not a matter of being woke, but rather which outcome you prefer. If you want your moral outrage satiated and punish folks for bad choices (as we did in the past) then we just have to live with more deaths and often also associated crime. If we want to fix it, the public health option seems to be the best way forward, but we would need to forgo some of our moral judgement in exchange. Consider punishing does nothing to reduce drug use I am not sure what such policy do except makes us feel better about not taking drugs and feel superior to those who do. I am looking at the issue entirely from the viewpoint of reducing public health risks. You may call that woke, but I call it sensible. I.e. if something works it works and I do not care much regarding the ideology behind it.

The unenumerated Rights exist because the 9th Amendment say they do. They are just not named. It was left to SCOTUS to make these unenumerated rights explicit as the question of them comes up. Rather forward thinking of the Founders. Once the right is enumerated by SCOTUS it is binding on all other courts as if it had been explicitly written into the Constitution. The Supreme Court has the right to overturn their own ruling of the precedent that enumerated that Right, but unless and until they do, the Right (such as the Right to an abortion) exists due to the Supreme Court decision. I don't believe that is circular reasoning. Ignoring stare decisis should not be taken lightly, and should only be done if the original ruling's egregiousness surpasses an undefined threshold. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/stare_decisis.asp

Exactly right! This is why I never give my sweetheart more than 50 pounds of chocolate in Idaho or pay my one armed piano players to perform in Iowa. Finally, when I travel on business to New York, I never wear my slippers after 10pm. 🙄 https://online.olivet.edu/news/united-states-crazy-laws

That is broadly the conclusion that the medical community mostly has come around to. Basically re-allocating resources that are used for legal enforcement towards is likely to improve overall public health, relative to criminalization. Moreover, some advocate going a step further toward legalization (depending on how things are handled in various jurisdictions), not for broad commercial distribution, but in order to provide safe supplies of certain drugs to combat overdoses. The latter was mostly forced by the opioid epidemic, where harm prevention is now considered more critical (as criminal persecution did pretty much nothing to improve the situation). It is tricky business and also at the intersection between public health, legal challenges and moral judgement. Drug policies in the past were often passed based on moral judgement, but research has shown that it simply does not improve public health. To spin it positively, we should want a situation where everyone has access to help to get rid of addictions without stigma or prejudice (or fear of legal retribution), where inevitable drug use is at low levels but using safe substances and ideally in a controlled environment. This includes but should not be exclusive to alcohol.

These findings seem almost self-evident. More contraception, either post hoc or prior hoc, means fewer babies born into situations of neglect and stress where developmental problems are more likely. We already know that women most at risk, due to poverty and educational deficits and gaps in the social safety net, are not getting the help they need for their children from government programs because those programs are dismissed and have funding pulled by the righteous conservatives who are also telling them they have to have that baby. (the exception are a sizeable group of Catholics, one of whom I'm married to, who actually walk their talk and work hard in their communities to promote pre-natal and post-natal help to mothers. It's sad to me that Catholic Social Services is getting out there and doing what we should all be doing through our elected representatives and our tax payments. Healthy and nurtured babies are in everyone's interest, whether or not they themselves have babies in their lives. If you cannot, for theological reasons, support abortion rights, then at least have the common decency to help support those resulting babies that find themselves in disadvantaged conditions, and maybe you won't be mugged at a bus stop in 2040.)

As Markus explained, classical GR is deterministic. Knowing all initial conditions allows the prediction of future conditions, like a clockwork. And present conditions can be extrapolated back into the past. Quantum effects throw a 'wrench' into the classical works. For a BH this would be most evident near the predicted singularity, and at the boundary we call the event horizon, where information loss difficulties arise.

He's not alone. Most Government officials and judges are paternalistic: if they were not before, the job makes them so. Political power doesn't always corrupt; often it just convinces ordinarily intelligent people that they are wise. They want what's best for us; they often sincerely believe they know better what's good for us than we know ourselves. And since they cannot all agree among themselves what that is, they make piecemeal, lopsided, unenforceable laws, and waste a huge amount of the polity's resources in half-assed attempts to slap the polity into their notion of good behaviour.

Indeed, here's another -1 for your collection; the sad thing is, despite that and all the reasonable argument's presented, you can't even concieve of the possibility that you may be wrong. So instead you condemn everyone that doesn't conform to your standard's, presumably including your loved one's.

But what if it is? The kids are never exactly where we think they are, any more than we were where our parents expected us to be.

Whether they are doing it stoned or otherwise, I've no idea. The point was referring to your assertion of it being a social necessity. If the future generation's uptake of alcohol is declining then it means it has not basis in fact that it is a social necessity. Your assertion is reflective of a time and attitude that is becoming increasingly irrelevant to upcoming generations. C'est la vie

Social necessity? As Phi hopes, modern Australian youth is getting smarter about alcohol: This graph below shows the prevalence and recency of alcohol use for students aged 12-17 years, 1984 to 2017. https://alcoholthinkagain.com.au/resources/alcohol-use-statistics/#:~:text=Rates of alcohol use by,(33.5% to 14.5%). Note the number of 'never' drinkers rises at a higher rate not long after smoking was banned in pubs there - 2006. Smoking bans have been a killer for pubs in the UK as well.

I really don't see where you are trying to get to. A function has three parts so you are right in saying that a function is a map from one set to another (which may be the same set). The base set or set mapped from is called the Domain and the target set or set mapped to is called the CoDomain. A function comprises the Domain, the CoDomain and a rule that links members of the Domain to members of the CoDomain. Many (or even all) members of the Domain may be linked to some particular member of the CoDomain, this is called many-to-one. But no member of the Domain may be linked to more than one member of the Codomain. This would called one-to-many and is not allowed. A function that links all the members of the domain to one single member of the CoDomain is called a constant function. Getting your head around all this is probabaly not worth the effort as it will not help you much, if at all. It is better to think of the three components as being two variables (say x and y since we are discussing numbers) and a rule or formula connecting them. The Domain is called the independant variable (x) and the CoDomain is called the dependant variable (y). For most purposes the Domain will be the set of real numbers or the real number line. The constant function has the rule y = a constant, say y = 5. This means that for each and every value of x the value of y is 5. This function can indeed be differentiated and the value of its derivaitve for all values of x is zero. I hope you will find this little exposition helpful and will listen to it.

Anything's better than being a Boltzmann Brain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

They also hit residential buildings. Fuck you and everyone who thinks attacking sovereign countries unprovoked and killing civilians and children and pregnant women and everyone indiscriminately is funny.

I said as sure "as any parent can be" Perhaps you need to address the author of the article. This discussion also seems to have shown that when one crosses a certain "political line" or have themselves shown weakness in dabbling in illegal drugs, that it will draw their wrath and a hoarde of neg votes. That's sad, and a poor refelction on some. Thankfully the general moral standards of my society, will never see the ignorant banning of alcohol, nor the legitimising of any other drug already on the illegal list, for the reasons given. Yet sadly again, the majority of five or so articles I posted remain unaddressed. I see you got a like rep for that discriminatory comment. Sort of supports what I have said previously about some members here and crossing a certain political line. While at the age of 77 I may be classed as elderly, at least thankfully I am there and thankfully health wise should be around for a while yet. You have yet to get there.

Totally agree. By the way a gun license in Australia costs in excess of $300. Guns, a social necessity? That's rather a silly thing to say. You sound like some Trumpised hillbilly yokel and NRA supporter. And of course the USA is not the epitome or the total of democratic westernised societies throughout the world, where of course alcohol is part and parcel of nearly every human endeavour or event. Or were you just trying to be funny, in the face of the articles and facts I have presented? I'll be around for a while yet, and I suggest most all here also hope for just that. Most young ones that I know though, certainly have already, including my Son. They drink, as per the social necessities dictates, and none as far as I know are drug addicts. In fact I am as sure as any parent can be, that my Son has not lowered himself to experiment with such crap. More than Father and Son, we are good mates. And of course my suggestion still stands...Increasing penalties, and jail terms may wake a few of those smart arse criminals and weak kneed individuals that crave illegal drugs up.

They were school kids, and probably did do the majority of what their parents expected. But kids leave school and then are essentially not under parental control. Perhaps you need to confront the other details and evidence that I have posted, rather then having a dig at people? I won't though give you any neg rep, despite that means being thrown around again. To repeat myself again, this discussion seems to have shown that when one crosses a certain "political line" or have themselves shown weakness in dabbling in illegal drugs, that it will draw their wrath and a hoarde of neg votes. 13 or so in the last three or so days!!! 😄 That's actually sad, and a poor reflection on some. Thankfully the general moral standards of my society, will never see the ignorant banning of alcohol, nor the legitimising of any other drug already on the illegal list, for the reasons given. And that is what matters most and what concerns me. And yet we still have that furphy being pushed by those that like having a dig at people, that Governments should not prohibit you from doing what you want, despite the chances of it being harmful to you. That strangely sounds a lot like Jordan Peterson and Trump. I certainly prefer a world where reasonable social government control over society continues as is...the likes of universal health care, compulsory superannutaion, etc rather then the society as proposed by those rednecks that invaded the White House.