fafalone

So, can anyone solve for y in terms of x? yx=xy I sure can't solve it, and my TI-89 couldn't solve it either.

Welcome! Don't be shy about posting, we won't bite

beer sucks. it's easier for me to take a shot of 151 than a shot of beer. piss water making me vomit=

suicide bombers?

How so? The big businesses would put the little dealers out of business. Basic economics. The studies are in line with my point about human nature... the principle of wanting what we can't or shouldn't have is deeply rooted in psychology, and refuting the studies would involve refuting decades of modern psychology. Possible? Sure. But not likely correct. I was offended. That's why my reply after that was so hostile.

Sounds like Valium. It does not cause euphoria, it just relaxes you. A normal dose would not sedate you to the point of being a danger on the road. It is addictive and available only by prescription.

Small production is inefficient. Large corporations produce more product at a lower cost. This is why large companies control the distribution systems of alcohol and tobacco (in the US at least). The studies are a measure of group behavoir. Human nature doesn't change dramatically from region to region. Most subordinates are aware that you shouldn't call your superiors either stupid or a pseudotroll in public.

Despite the income of your typical drug lords, the major pharmaceuticals still have vastly larger amounts of money at their disposal, and possess the facilities to rapidly produce a large quantity of drugs. It's like how the big chains put the smaller companies right out of business. Here's how it should go: 1) Make drugs legal 2) Make drugs available in quality controlled forms for a competitive price. 3) Drug use is discussed more openly. 4) Drugs lose their appeal as forbidden pleasures. 5) Counseling for addicts is more readily available and the legal status encourages more particiapnts. 6) Drug use decreases. 7) Drug related crimes decrease. Drug related medical issues decrease. You're not a normal member, you're a super moderator. I still don't see how reported use would go down.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96797,00.html NEW YORK — The music industry has turned its big legal guns on Internet music-swappers — including a 12-year-old New York City girl who thought downloading songs was fun. What's even more interesting about this story is how it brings bias in the major US news companies out. CNN (owned by AOL Time Warner) is not carrying the story, CBS (Viacom), ABC (Disney), are all pro-RIAA and not carrying this story, while Fox News, the New York Post, Newsday, and The Register are all carrying it.

Actually I do keep backups, and consider I still have e-mail archives from the 80s, your posts will be on my CDs until I die

The United States does not work like this. We have very few illegal cigarettes around. That's a simple fact. The distribution chain would shift to existing corporations. This is not an issue. Committing crimes to feed an addiction WOULD BE REDUCED as more resouces are available to reduce the number of addictions. If you're trying to fault the logic that a great number of addicts would seek help if it were available at no risk, you really have no idea what you're talking about. People in general do not want to be addicted to something. Go out on the streets and ask drug addicts if they like being addicted. And a minority of people who will continue to commit crimes for drugs is not a factor in legalization, because not only would the number be reduced, it is no different than people who steal items that are legal to possess. I have given consideration to other factors, and have outlined where the faults lie. Don't criticize my use of 'cretin' when you're using 'sardony'. And cretin does sound more professional than fool. Throwing my weight about? I have at no point used my status to defend my argument. I have not made any threats. Reported use would not drop. It would either remain the same or rise. We monitor substance abuse with legal substances. It's that simple. We monitor alcohol trends in adults and kids, we monitor tobacco use in both kids and adults. It would not be described as a crime, however drug use would still be tracked.

Your reasoning is a weak rebuttal that while on the surface seems plausible ultimately gives way to more sound logic. -Streets suppliers would undercut the government? While the black market certainly exists for a variety of products, its unlikely to be a large effect for drugs, which are generally cheap to produce. Furthermore, why don't street suppliers undercut alcohol and tobacco sales? In rare circumstances they do, but it's certainly not common. If the currently illegal drugs were in the same class as currently legal drugs, there's no reason to believe there would be a larger black market for them. Consider the market for illegally obtained prescription drugs: While it's possible for dealers to synthesize them on their own, virtually all prescription drugs are menufactured by pharmaceuticals. Independent suppliers cannot undercut major corporations... come on now, this is a introductory economics idea. -The government would be regulating production, not producing drugs itself. Duh? The finanical burden would be limited because the number of illicit suppliers would be limited. Furthermore, small-time jobs supplying the drugs would be legal, as it is with currently unscheduled drugs that are not under patents. Your reasoning simply ignores why there's no black market for legal substances now. -I'll refer you to the example of prohibition. Violent crime spiked when alcohol was made illegal. Unregulated distribution chains inexorably result in violence, and putting these chains out of business would logically reduce violence, and this is not an unprecedented remark. The major dealers and suppliers would more likely go to another country where drugs are still illegal, quit the business altogether, or join a corporate distribution chain... all three of these outcomes are far more likely than starting cartel wars. Again, your logic is fatally flawed. -People who are living a life of crime to fund their habit will be able to seek help without fear of prosecution. Way to ignore that point. While it's true not 100% would seek help, looking into the future it would result in a long-term reduction of drug related crimes. -People are less likely to use drugs if they are legal. If you have a problem with this, take it up with the psychology PhDs who did the studies. Who are you to assume your logic is superior to psychologists who dedicate years to their lives completing these studies. I'll take their word for it over yours any day. Apparently you missed out on the principle of wanting what is forbidden in introductory psychology class. -This last point is blatant ignorance. I'm shocked and appalled at this cretinistic display. Rape, murder, etc all cause physical harm to a non-consenting individual, while drug legalization would result in the reduction of harm to the vast majority of individuals. And in conclusion, media support would be a prerequisite to political support, because the way our political system is strucutured it would be political suicide for a lawmaker to introduce such a law without media support. Too many people work with the weak assumptions of the ignorant.

you're missing the point that "free" speech is not truly free. we cannot make death threats to the president, we cannot scream 'fire' in a crowded movie theater, we cannot say we are a government official unless we are (impersonation)... free speech only applies when laws aren't being broken, as is in line with the original intent of the first amendent establishing the right to critisize the government.

Go up to a police officer and say that. Saying that provides reasonable grounds for search and surveillance.

What's wrong with an Ibis?

We ate gator meat the day before the game. They were grilling it up and giving it out free on our campus.

I really don't get the point you're trying to make

I for one will not fill out even anonymous surveys about illegal things I [do not] do out of paranoia about biometics/video/etc. All I'm saying is the media reporting on the results of reputable studies will not cause a change in the results.

Who said anything about the media. I'm talking about scientific polls that also track use of legal substances like alcohol.

They shouldn't be. People get addicted to legal substances like alcohol and nicotine, and that leads to health problems. Also, people steal all the time when they can't afford something. Legalization would actually reduce the problems, as quality control would lead to reduced health problems, and corporate distribution would reduce the violence typically associated with rather shady people in the current distribution chain. Help for those who are addicted would be more readily available without fear of being arrested. Basic psychological principles underly the reason more people do drugs if they are illegal. Legalization makes drugs lose their appeal to a large percentage of people, thus reducing liklihood of use. And furthermore, reported use would go up if anything because people would be less worried about being caught.

Of course not, that's why its illegal to begin with. If you get severely addicted to any drug, it will cause health problems, and financial problems if you can't afford the habit that can lead to stealing. And of course overdosing is a risk if you aren't careful about it.

And now they're starting a campaign to villify p2p because people trade child porn on it. While they're at it, they should apply the same argument to e-mail, www, newsgroups, ftps, irc, etc. Come to think of it, mp3s are shared on all those systems too... it's only a matter of time before they start lobbying to have the whole internet outlawed.

Silence! What rank is your team? Are you even in the Top 100?

My favorite science books are my science textbooks, since they're real science books. I find them more enjoyable to read than books aimed at the general public because they contain much more detailed information and get straight to it.

Whether life on Earth originated on or came here from somewhere else just adds needless complexity to how life came about.