StringJunky

Repetition is not more evidence. You've got nothing more to add. You are a man of your time and the world has moved on. You remind me of my grandad, who would be 103, if he was still alive.

You only need to drink too much to find out. Same goes with other narcotics.

As with many things in life, one often needs to step on the other side of the tracks to make realistic comparisons. Like touching a hot object. If someone says 'Don't touch it, it's hot' and you have no concept of hot.

The statistics relate to all crime where alcohol use was present, not just by chronic alcoholics per se... people that were heavily under the influence of it at the time of the offence. A typical real-life vignette: "My head, what happened last night?" " You threw a bucket of water over Eddie and Amber in bed, and Eddie punched a mirror and the police came. That's why you've got a black eye and he's broke his hand". That was four of us in a flat forty years ago after a bottle of vodka each in Eddie's flat. I started that, and I loathe confrontation and violence. Acute, excessive alcohol use is very prone to initiating violent confrontations. A wander through a typical city centre on a late weekend evening will supply more of these episodes. Tobacco is not a severe intoxicant in any amount and is only comparable to smoking cannabis if the pathological effects on the cardio-vascular system was the point of discussion. It's not like for like, we are looking at social and criminal consequences of substances that significantly alter the central nervous system; the method of administration is irrelevant. Cannabis is not good for you, but it is a form of harm reduction, relative to things like alcohol. It's not a binary good vs bad, but one having less adverse consequences to the person and society than the other. A useful parallel is vaping nicotine as a form of harm reduction that Public Health England has got behind. Adverse cardiovascular events and local air pollution i.e. secondhand smoke, are expected/hoped to subside at national scale.

Nobody is saying that it is harmless, and mention of medical benefits is an irrelevant distraction. It is not a supporting factor for recreational use or a means to lessen perceived harm. It has harms, but the social, medical and financial burden of recreational cannabis use pales in comparison to alcohol.

Notice he calls illicit drug users 'abusers'. If they are abusers, so are drinkers. Being legal changes nothing; they are all drugs. Being legal instils a false sense of toxicological safety and personal virtue relative to illicit drugs...

This is true, casual or chronic alcohol use can have severe negative consequences.

That minority of alcohol users cause 40% of violent incidents. That's a high impact rate. A perma-stoned smoker will be relatively immobile. In fact a casual smoker is more likely to have a fight because they are more alert. than one who is completely intoxicated.

I spent the middle third of my 60 years on mostly cannabis and amphetamines. The only time I've had black eyes or social strife is on excess alcohol. The saddest people I've ever seen are alcoholics by a wide margin, it knocks all the other drugs into the second division for the mess it causes. AFAIK one cannot safely withdraw from a full-on alcohol addiction without medical assistance... the physical addiction is real.... as I'm sure you know. Not sure about meth, but all the others are about a two week withdrawal for the physical side of the addiction. Obviously, the psychological side takes longer to overcome, but one is passed the physical aspect of the addiction after that time. Not so with barbiturates and alcohol. I've had many conversations with a UK Social Services substance misuse team, whose care I was under for a couple of years under a voluntary admission. Their sources are based on evidence.

You are talking from ignorance Around 40% of all violent crimes are alcohol related in the UK and Oz. Tell me alcohol's not dangerous to social harmony.

It's a valid area to talk about, but could do with splitting off. One's political and one's moral/ethical/philosophical in nature. To the original political theme: I read somewhere that restricting buying it in from outside the US is not feasibly enforceable. A telemedical consultation from outside the country wouldn't be unfeasible either.

Did it hurt when you were born? And that's as late-term as you can get. The abortion drugs are no different.

Would the Right be so keen if they thought forcibly preserving the lives of unborn black and hispanic babies might tilt the vote against them in the future with larger ethnic voting pool? I bet they would spin on a penny and come up with some other ulterior crock of shit why not.

I suppose all we can do is get the popcorn out and see how it pans out. It seems to me that the idea of 'settled law' is up the Swanee. I think until politics is removed from such decisions, this mess is going to go on on forever. There seems to be no respect for medical expertise, everything seems subject to political whims in the US. I find it gross tbh.

I think the medical line is not necessarily when personhood begins, but when a foetus can exist independently of it's mother, as a general guidline. Currently, I think they are in a potentially survivable state around 6 months gestation.

Settings > Privacy and Security > Cookies and Other Site Data > Clear Cookies and Site Data When you close all Windows

No prob. What browser?

Clear your cookies on exit in browser settings, you will have to sign in. That's what remembers your session.

Thyroid. As someone said, I just read: "I hope it's not too fatal".

I'm seeing speculation that Russia may declare war on May 9th, so it can mobilize its reserves. That will go down like a lead balloon with the Russian public

A link to a copy of the draft: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21835435/scotus-initial-draft.pdf

Ahh, gotcha.

I read earlier that SC Court numbers is a Congress decision, does it still have to go through the Senate?

Might this restore the idea of packing the Court as a potential option?

OK. I'd just rather try to be positive, where possible, than pessimistic.... saps too much energy before one has even started.