Phi for All

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.

I wonder if the dip is causing overheating. That would cause above average consumption of the charge.

Absolutely. But drawing the emotional attachments has already been done skillfully by professionals. If I want to sell the People on spending their tax revenue my way, I can point to how strong our defense is, and how we're the good guys and we need to spend a some money to stay that way. If I want to block something done by another politician, I mention taxes or Social Security, because those things are attached to BAD feelings and government ineptness. This argument alone keeps the US from doing the smartest thing it could, which is to forget all the healthcare insurance crap and just make Medicare available to everyone. It's a good system, but the argument "Do you want the government to run this?" has stopped this discussion too many times to count. Yet another reason why our media shouldn't be in the hands of some of the same businesses that lobby our politicians and influence our laws. It's too easy to fool most of the people at just the right times.

Even in the Lounge you aren't going to be able to discuss something like this without some citation to support what you're saying. Personally I'm not interested in talking to people who think, "all Germany cares about is destroying Jews". Frankly, if I wanted a discussion like that, I wouldn't do it here. This sounds like conspiracy and bigotry, with a big dash of "I hate science" thrown in for good measure. Not our cuppa.

Since I know you're seeing the doctor, I'll go ahead and say this. I'll bet the pain in your chest is just part of the adjustment. The body has funny ways of letting us know it's not pleased, and it even punishes us when we stop doing something bad. The body seems to like consistency, even if you're poisoning yourself consistently. A new consistent behavior is being formed and you may need to give it time. But I'm glad you're seeing your doctor about this.

! Moderator Note I see way too many personal comments in the last several posts. If we can't stay focused on the ideas, perhaps it's time to close the thread? We do NOT attack people here at SFN. Read your rules. No more Wild West, please.

I still think this is an aural illusion. I've heard what I thought was a woman in high heels walking up my front steps, only to realize it was the drapery pull gently knocking against the wall from the wind. When I was hearing it though, I was convinced it was someone's shoes. What I was thinking at the time affected what I was hearing. Our ears are probably more easily fooled than our eyes. Have you heard of the McGurk Effect?

I applaud your sacrifice for science. It's actually more of a standing ovation, since the prod seems to work everywhere simultaneously.

Greed/Envy seems to be at the root of so many of the problems that might lead some to develop a species-killing technology. But how do you suppress those traits without damaging competitive spirit and innovation? It seems like the struggle makes us stronger, while having things too good may make us lazy and content to rest on our laurels. It seems logical that, if we're going to survive to spread out in the universe, we need to cooperate globally as a species. A better idea is needed, but we also need to decide if we're going to cooperatively collaborate on this better idea, or have it forced on us by someone who's better idea isn't.

! Moderator Note While we have no control over how people push the Rep buttons, we do monitor to make sure no vendettas or agendas are being served using this system. Looking over the accounts in question, there is no pattern of vendetta, agenda or persecution. These negative points represent the perspectives of multiple users.

Yet another reason for establishing a presence off-planet. If we're going to invent something that wipes us out, better to have some colonies that might survive. And if we are alone in the universe, if other intelligent life developed but couldn't get past this technological filter that may doom high intelligence as an ultimately unsustainable species trait, then I still don't count us out. To me, that's all the more reason to work towards some of our other strong points as a species. Our cooperation and communication may be enough to offset our curiosity and tool use so we can agree NOT to engineer a bunch of nanoterminasties.

Isn't it possible that the merchant called out for a while in one language, a language you didn't understand, and then switched to your native language as he moved along the streets? I've been in places where street vendors called out the name of their wares in English, Spanish, German, depending on the predominant customers. At one time, I knew how to say "shrimp" in seven languages.

Thanks Dave! What does this new "Quantum Cattle Prod" button do?

Not since you stopped putting your lunch in the staff fridge.

If diarrhea is a side effect, I wouldn't put them in a smoothie. Is this supposed to be because people with B5 deficiency have trouble metabolizing fat? I don't think the correlation with megadoses of B5 and increased metabolization has been established. Also, there's no established connection between fat consumption and acne. There have been connections established with excessive carbohydrate consumption, however. The idea that excess fat finds its way through the skin as sebum is unfounded.

I think, for people who believe their morality is tied to their religion, it seems like everyone else are those people the preacher is always talking about, sinning their way to hell and falling prey to lustful urges. The "moral" folks elevate themselves above those sinners by behaving in certain ways, and then comparing their actions to those around them. All of this makes it difficult to empathize with someone who is in a different set of circumstances. To me, the whole argument pivots on a single point: It's not uncommon for anti-choice protesters outside an abortion clinic to sneak in the back way and have an abortion done on themselves. In every story I've heard like this, they justify their stance by saying their pregnancy was an accident, it's just this once, this isn't the right time for a child and they aren't like the other women who go to clinics like this. Apparently, their hypocrisy knows no bounds. Either that or they just don't realize how common their problems are, and that there's no need moral judgement.

Glad I read this before suggesting we all take "special" photos to raise awareness for testicular cancer.

BS artists in parent's basements eat Cheetohs. They lack the sophistication required to appreciate Cheese Nips. Same orange face though.