MigL

That was Huxley ? I would have thought it was Morpheus, or the Architect, describing the Matrix.

Never tried VB, but I did like Fosters when it was first imported, Beecee. It was crisp and refreshing, which I like since I drink beer to quench thirst ( not get drunk ). When it became a local brew, it tasted like all the other Canadian beer, and I stopped buying it. Same happened with Carlsberg. I tend to like beers brewed in the German tradition ( Heineken, Stella, Kronenberg, or even Tsing Tao ), not beers that require 'chewing'; sorry Stringy.

That sets a good example, and is commendable. I have done the same for my nephew on a couple of occasions. In Canada we have the Young Offender's Act, where young people, learning to navigate their way along the many paths of life, are not charged as adults for many crimes. People, especially the young, are allowed to learn from their mistakes. And as has been mentioned, my attitude is make it legal, if socity wishes to do so and there is a demonstrable harm reduction, or keep it illegal. But it is then illegal everywhere, as Safe Injection Sites would presumably only reduce harm in specific locations

No. I think if you knowingly do something illegal, you are accepting of the known punishment you may get. You don't get a special place where you can be illegal without the consequences. If society deems that illegal act, to become legal, then you can do it wherever you want. So by all means, if you can get the country to legalize possession of 'hard' drugs, then you can have safe injection sites. Otherwise you are simply providing an area whhere the illegal is considered legal ( ? ).; which is nonsensical. Maybe that was a bad example, as it has nothing to do with drugs. Alcohol is a drug. Every year drunk drivers kill and injure not just themselves but other drivers and pedestrians. And after years of education, fines, driving suspensions and jail time, they continue to drive drunk. Obviously it is not working. I would suggest 'special' roads, only for drunk driving use, such that other innocent drivers and pedestrians are not killed or injured; just the drunk drivers. This would also be a harm reduction strategy, would it not ? I haven't seen any 'safe drunk driving roads' pop up in Vancouver or Toronto like the safe injection sites have.

A law has to be judged unconstitutional to be struck down. A decision can be changed when Supreme Court Justices change their minds. ( as Justice Alito's leaked draft demonstrates )

Noted.

Maybe I'm just not too clear on the US Constitution ... It states that unenumerated rights exist. Granted. But until those rights are 'numerated' by SC Justices, no one know what they are. The SC may decide tomorrow that everyone has the right to have pink hair. That right existed previously, as per the Constitution,, but was unenumerated, so no one knew they had that right. Now that the Justices have decided, everyone knows we have that right. So who made that decision ? ( not law, decision; and that's what I'm on about )

You should have a special area where you can give your sweetheart 50 lbs of chioccolate, and avoid prosecution when she overdoses on choccolate. ( but what a way to go 😄 ) In Canada Cannabis has been de-criminalized, but we have Safe Injection Sites where you can do illegal activities in a 'special' area. Until, or ever, legalized, that is still an illegal activity. These bad choices people make are not excused in other cases not involving drug use. Why is 'moral outrage' and punishment justified if I make bad choices, other than illegal drug use, that harm people and society ? There would be less deaths of innocent bystanders if gang members were allowed to have their shoot-outs in 'special' areas, without retribution. I'm looking at the issueentirely from the viewpoint of reducing public health risks. Sounds kind of silly, doesn't it ? I know. And that is what I'm ranting against. So, if society deems such actions and use legal, then there would be no need for Safe Injection Sites. Until then, you are advocating a 'specal' place to do specific illegal actions/uses that you may favor ( but certainly not other actions/uses a mentioned above ), even though society doesn't consider them legal. Did I forget anyone ?

This thread has certainlly wondered about a bit. From alcohol legality, to other recreational drug use, onto addictions, including social media/technology, and even to Government enabling. The simple reason alcohol is still legal ( the OP ) is that it is preferred by a vast majority of people. And 'majority rules' is one one criteria for social laws. ( whether it should or shouldn't be, is a different matter ) And here I go again ... This all sounds very noble and 'woke', but people make bad decisions in life, like not stopping at a Stop sign, and killing someone. Or having a gun while involved in an argument, and shooting someone. Or ordering your armed forces to invade a sovereign country for the purpose of de-Nazification. Yet, for cases where illegal drug ( and alcohol ) use lead to criminal activity, and violent crimes against society, there should be no stigma/prejuudice or retribution ? We should just give up trying to stop it, give them a hug, and send them on their merry way, without the right to react to their actions ? I'm sorry, but if something is known to be illegal, until it is actually made legal by society you don't get a 'special' area where you can do it with no repercussions.

Moreso for some than others. Some of us are legends in our own minds.

And these unenumerated , or unwritten, rights exist because of previous Supreme Court decisions that favored rights such as the right to travel, within the states, the right to privacy, autonomy, dignty, and yes, even the right to abortion. Isn't that circular ?

Unlike the goldfish' s situation, that is the only perspective there is.

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.

That's not true. GR does not allow for a universal reference frame, so it would not be consistant with the latter case.

Even more beautiful if you had money on it.

Yeah ! Prohibition of guns doesn't work. Lets make them legal; we'll have less people in jails.

So try purchasing ( legally ) a gun with a barrel length less than 106 mm. You will be told it is prohibited.

No, I did read it. The above is, again, an interpretation of laws according to the Constitution. It is not a law. Would it not be much simpler for our elected representatives to write appropriate laws, that reflect the needs of their electors, instead of having unelected, politically partisan Justices interpret laws according to their own individua sensibilities ?

The Government prohibits you from doing things all the time, to protect us from our own stupidity. Try lighting a cigarette while you're pumping gas. Or riding a motorcycle without a helmet. Or owning a handgun with a less than 4" barrel length. ( I thought you'd understand these prohibitions since they are strictly Canadian ) I'm going to assume you replied quickly without thinking 🙂 . Because that is a dumb thing to say.

You mean we aren't required to wear seatbelts or have insurance when operating a vehicle ? Or wear a harness/tie off when working at heights ? Or get permits and engineering approval when doing home renovations ? Or have working smoke/CO detectors in your house/apartment ? Etc. Etc.

That was your parents ( much like mine ) in simpler times. But you are not ignorant of the facts, nor are your kids. What do you and your kids fear that your grandkids might get into ? I'm sure they were brought up to make wise choices in life, and again, I'm not talking about alcohol or cannabis products ( yes I've noticed the increased strength also ), but do you think your grandkids should have the option of legalized 'harder' drugs ? After all, prohibition is not working.

That goes contrary to my understanding of oxidizers and reducers, John. Will they spontaneously react, as Sodium and Chlorine, Nitric acid and Hydrazine, or even Lead and Sulphuric acid ? Or must an initial energy be added, as in your posted video, to get past the potential barrier ? Please explain the reaction process. ( my last Chem course was Gr.13 in 1976-77 )

So, because the Federal Government is so 'toothless' and won't provide proper laws, Mr A Serwer thinks a bunch of unelected SC Justices should ? Justice Alito is saying "That's not my job !" "Look to your elected representatives to provide the proper laws."

In addition to Janus' post, as far as I know, a 'square well' potential is impossible with gravity. Certainly there can be no solutions to the EFEs as the manifold is not continuously differentiable.

One question you should be asking yourselves. And we won't even consider abusers, but if you have a son or daughter, how happy would you be if he/she had the occasional alcoholic drink, or burned an occasional joint, or did an occasional line of coke, occasionally smoking crack or crystal meth, or even injecting heroin every once in a while. Does the idea of your son/daughter doing some of the above, stress you out a hell of a lot more than the first two ? And, if you found your son/daughter with a needle stuck in their arm, would you say that it was all-right since prohibition wasn't working anyway ? If it does, ask yourself "why ?", and then apply the resulting answer to the question of making it legal for everyone's son and daughter. Call up from the basement, Dim, and ask your mom if she's happy with you making the house smell 'skunky' all day and night. ( yes, that was a dig )