Phi for All

I haven't finished reading this recent study, but it seems to enforce the things I've heard about young people being affected adversely, something the current laws take into consideration in treating MJ like alcohol. But some of those tested were of legal drinking age as well. What about neurological damage? Are the changes noted similar to changes one might have neurologically from drinking, or the use of other drugs, legal or not?

I wonder if the folks opening their meetings with Christian prayers realize how much the SCOTUS is counting on them being tolerant of requests for prayer from other faiths? From the SCOTUS decision: Sure, just because you own the Walmart doesn't mean you don't encourage people to shop at Costco.

The methodology remains consistent, but science NEEDS to be capable of change, otherwise it becomes intractable and untrustworthy. We need to know there may be better explanations, otherwise we stop asking questions.

And I would add that, besides being irrelevant, it also sets a precedence of solidarity using a common link, their religion. It's like declaring "We're all of one mind" right before you vote on important issues where dissent might be in everyone's best interests. I don't see any way you could avoid biased votes. And again, the biggest problem with all of that is that the religious folks see this as a strength instead of a danger. If you tried to argue in this way, they'd most likely claim they WANT to be of one mind as they lead their communities to prosperity, they don't understand how it could be bad to ask for their god's guidance in making their decisions. This seems to be a failing among many religious people. I'm not alone in feeling that religion is perfectly OK as long as it's personal and not foisted upon those who don't want it. Yet many religious people feel that how others live their lives affects them personally, and they want to pass laws that will be applied to everyone based on the discrimination of those they don't agree with. Anti-black, anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-contraceptive legislation is the sole providence of religious influence. If they aren't offended by you for who you are, they'll persecute you for trying to affect the cycle of the eggs your own body produces. So, do they think of it that way when they eat potential baby chicks for breakfast, or are they just eggs?

To me, this is why we have separation. Religion and politics are both very powerful by themselves. Plenty of things seem innocuous until they're not. This reminds me of a 5th Amendment argument. If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't mind answering police questions about a crime, right? But nothing you tell the police can ever be used to help you if they decide you might be a suspect. They even warn you with the Miranda: Anything you say can and will be held against you. And if you said something in your interview that could help you in court, the prosecuting attorney will throw it out as hearsay. There have been a great many people who thought "No big deal" and lived to regret it. Religious people, people who pray, have no built-in guidance system that helps them make the right choices in every situation. But I think they think they do, and that's why we shouldn't mix prayer and politics. Leaders should take responsibility for their decisions, without a rubber stamp from their god. "I trust God speaks through me, without that I couldn't do my job." --George W Bush

! Moderator Note Let's assume bigview and David Harvey are the same person, since the name is mentioned only once, in the title, with no citation link to a paper.

I think, if I were to get voted in to one of these city councils, and I refused to join in with their prayer, they would be more apt to think I didn't share their sentiment rather than their religious beliefs. Does that make sense? It's not that they'd look down on me for not praying because I don't believe in their god. I think if they wanted to pray for their god to guide their decisions in the city council meeting, and I refused to join them, they'd look down on me because they'd think I didn't want their decisions to be good ones. I once argued with someone about a faith-based initiative his church wanted to adopt. I made it clear that I didn't think the government should be funding his church because they don't pay taxes and it violates the separation between Church and State. His response was to ask me why I was against helping orphans. This makes it seem like any means justify the ends if it's part of your faith. That scares me.

Most of these types of prayers are for their god to guide their decisions. I'm always quite a bit leery when legislators in a republic with a clear distinction between church and state call upon the supernatural to perform their secular duties, but I don't know that they're using this connection unwisely. Leaders who have their fingers on the button should NEVER be thinking they're doing what their god wants them to. I would hope political decisions could be made more rationally. I think even hard-core Republicans blanch at thinking how close Sarah Palin came to being POTUS when they hear her talking about Armageddon the way she does. You just know that if she launched our nukes, she'd claim it was God's will. In most cases this prayer before the council meeting is probably harmless, but the potential for corruption is great. People who pray like this in non-church settings tend to think those who don't pray want the opposite outcome, rather than that they just don't practice a faith ("You refuse to pray for our solider's safe return? Why do you want them to die?").

I agree with this part. Of course, we'd need to study the effects of reintroducing these species into ecosystems that have adapted to them being gone. But we broke this, and should see if it can be fixed effectively. I would say no. Not in a "not our fault" kind of way exactly, just that we need to choose which species should be brought back so we should choose from a list of viable reasons. If natural climate overcomes your evolutionary adaptations, you aren't fit enough. I could see a case for bringing back a species made extinct by climate change or cataclysm, but only if this species added something extremely beneficial to the environment with little negative impact.

! Moderator Note Fred Champion, you're introducing a speculative concept into a mainstream physics discussion that threatens to hijack the original intent of the OP. Please open your own thread, in the Speculations section, if you wish to discuss your idea further. Also please make sure to read the special rules governing that section.

! Moderator Note This is over the top and most likely reduces the effectiveness of your more civil posts.

I'm so glad it's working for you. It's not for everyone, but I find it works so much better for me than the pledge/vow/resolution approach. It's not promising not to do something, it's removing it completely from the list of possible actions.

! Moderator Note Deep breaths, EVERYONE. CaptainPanic has already posted a note here about addressing the points made in replies so it doesn't seem like they're being ignored. Please consider this carefully. It's not advice, it's the rules. It might help keep this thread open. And I encourage EVERYONE to rephrase your points instead of repeating them the same way. It's obvious that they aren't coming across effectively. If we can fix the way concepts are considered, it also makes sense to make them as understandable as possible. I see far too much intractable behavior in this thread. Since we seem to be stuck on a point that argues against mainstream theory, we'll need to move this to Speculations if it doesn't resolve itself soon.

It's pure luck. The pony was free, you don't need to check the teeth.

A radiant barrier is still a good idea for your chest. It will protect your investment by making the dry ice last longer. The barrier is sold in rolls, but you may be able to get sheets of it cheaper. You won't need a $60 roll but if you're going to do this for any length of time, I'd definitely figure out how to make your chest more efficient.

I can relate. Some things, like with MJ, you just know the law is wrong, so you can justify pushing against it in order to bring the absurdity of it to people's attention. But I've never wanted to try heroin just because it's forbidden. That seems like a poor use of rational thought. On the other hand, it may be the allure of new horizons, the pioneer fever. These could be the same folks who start trends and then drop them once they see everyone else copying them. If so, we probably need them, otherwise we'd all be beige eventually.

Bond has one strategy. He kicks the anthill to see what the soldiers do (or shakes the martini to see who looks his way), then neutralizes the threats one by one. He relies on established tactics to do this. Sherlock is much more big picture. If he knows Bonds MO, he could easily set a trap that relies on the weaknesses of Bond's singlemindedness (he'll always try to save the girl, muscle his way past guards, use a sneaky back way in, etc). On the other hand, if Bond's luck prevails, Sherlock is getting his ticket punched. I always thought the easiest way for a supervillain to kill James Bond is to put a special belt on all your guards. Tell them it's to protect them, but what it really does is explode when anyone punches the wearer in the jaw, killing the wearer and the puncher.

This brings up another interesting point. How many people have avoided MJ because it was illegal but would use it if wasn't? And do those people offset the people who use MJ now because it's illegal and forbidden and exciting and would probably not be as interested if it became legal and mainstream? From the law enforcement side, it's difficult to gauge the effects of legalization because the police see mostly the worst abusers. For some reason, there are a lot of folks who like to drink alcohol and smoke pot together, along with their prescription and non-prescription pills. And these abusers are also the ones who make the headlines with their inanity, so the public has difficulty isolating MJ-only data from the best sources.

I don't know if this is supported or not. It seems more like a subjective assessment, since everyone's body handles poisons a bit differently. I know MJ was used as a substitute in alcoholism treatment before it was made illegal. Withdrawal symptoms may also be too unique to the individual to be a good gauge. Safety? That's my big issue. MJ is legal here in Colorado. It's been difficult to get accurate driving data (and that's the only area where alcohol/MJ safety data is being collected) because the tests for MJ aren't as sophisticated as those for alcohol (in the past, having any MJ in your system was illegal when driving), so there's no recent data for people pulled over with only MJ in their system. All the arrests for driving under the influence recorded illegal levels of alcohol as well. So the people who abuse substances the most are skewing all the most recent data. We need to be able to define a level of intoxication the way we have with alcohol. In Colorado, the law we passed treats MJ just like alcohol, but it doesn't seem like the effects are as easily judged. Someone who doesn't use MJ very often can get extremely altered by very little of the potent MJ available today, while someone who smokes every day can have a huge amount in their system and function just like anyone on prescription meds. This makes it very difficult to judge. As a personal anecdote, I've dealt with people who maintain a high level of THC in their systems, and while I've never driven with any of them, I have to say it's less noticeable in normal social and business settings than with someone who is a serious alcohol drinker. I can always spot the guy who's sloshed and has found his happy place, but it's a lot more difficult with a veteran MJ user. I've always believed the MJ user was safer behind the wheel because they're more apt to go slower than the drunk, but we all know that slower vehicles can pose danger as well. We really need a way to determine how much MJ is too much. We have some folks applying for hemp-growing operations, yay! This is where the no-brainer part of legalizing cannabis comes in. There are SO MANY applications for hemp, and virtually all of them are better than their mainstream alternative (Trees for paper? Cotton for cloth? Petroleum for lubrication?), or at least more sustainable. Sorry, I mistook your statement in the OP as an enforcement issue, not one of abuse. AFAIK, in most states they treat Schedule I and II offenses both as Class 5 felonies. You'll most likely get the same sentence for pot that you would for meth. Craziness. Colorado is projected to take in over $70M in tax revenue this year from legal MJ sales. The majority of that is earmarked for schools. I don't know about cheaper. I'm sure eventually competition will drive prices down, but for now I don't think MJ is substantially cheaper than before. It's taxed around 25% and they don't sell in large quantities, so it's not cheap. I think the dispensaries are probably doing a bit of collusion to keep profits as high as their customers.

I have to correct this. Marijuana is not considered worse, it's on the same schedules for enforcement as cocaine and meth. Oxy is legal with a prescription.

The only thing I remember from Bible scripture is that people will all wear a crown. I'm pretty sure the white robe image was assumed and popularized later, but the Bible definitely mentions five crowns that you work for on Earth to wear in heaven. I was never sure if you could earn all five or if it was one per customer. And there's Revelations 3:11: "I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown." So there's a nice image. Everyone walking around in heaven naked, admiring each other's crowns. I've asked this question before, slightly differently. Imagine an isolated tribe that's never heard of the Christian god or the Bible. This Bible says EVERYONE is subject to God's will, believer and non-believer alike. Is this tribe going to burn in hell for eternity just because nobody told them about this just and loving god? I've heard all the apologist explanations for this and they all seem very... convenient. But not very trustworthy. I've even been told by an Evangelist that this is God's way of urging Christians to spread the Word, so these ignorant savages can enjoy the glory too. Maybe the Christian god is like a Marine Drill Instructor who punishes the whole platoon when one recruit messes up, so the rest will make sure he falls in line. God makes you run in full gear for eternity. Uphill. Through live fire.

All right, "foreseen" isn't the right word, it implies that something or someone has glimpsed the future. Perhaps you mean that the universe is predetermined, that things will happen in a certain sequence no matter how hard we try to change it? How do you "know" this? First you claim this is "theory" (which is wrong; a theory is the strongest, best supported explanation in all of science, with tons of supportive, peer-reviewed evidence), but your use of the word implies you're speculating, then you claim "It is the only thing I know", which is a very assertive statement. Sorry for being picky about this, but scientists are going to ask you to show how you reached your conclusions. If you claim something is true, nobody is going to accept that without showing why. Your subject is interesting, but the discussion will keep circling around these assertive statements if you keep making them. It might be better to keep your hypothesis a little less rigid for now, so we can ask some questions and discuss your idea more productively. If the chemistry of the universe might be a formula one could write on an imaginary blackboard, isn't it possible I can affect the equation with choice? And if choice can change it, how could it be predetermined at the time of the Big Bang?

I've visited Blurt a lot in real time. I bought a time-share there when I was in high school. I'm just usually not so focused on my work that I emerge from a Eureka! moment and start typing my findings without letting folks know the context of my work. When I write, I get to edit myself more than when I speak, and my first step is usually to ask, "Have I given my readers enough to know what I'm on about?".

I don't understand what we're supposed to do with this explanation. It doesn't seem to explain anything better. I also don't understand what you mean by "foreseen". Foreseen by whom? Also, your reasoning for why we do what we do seems circular. We do what we do because we are here and do what we do? Again, this explains nothing.

Wherever "there" is, it seems to be a place where no valid discussion topics are offered.