MigL

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 )

Depends on what you mean by ;oxidizer'. Oxidizer potential is the affinity of an atom/molecle for the electrons of a 'reducer' atom/molecule, so as to fill its outer valence band. Oxidizer/reducer is a sliding scale. But if the outer valence orbital of MgSO4 is full, even containing oxygen, it will not readily undergo red-ox reactions.

Ideally, you shouldn't have to 'Johnny Depp your wife' to realize drinking/drugging to excess can ruin your family, social and professional life.

Being from south-central Italy, I love fresh figs. Imagine my horror when I found out all figs contain 'digested' wasp remnants. Then, the disgust when I found out honey is actually bee 'puke'. I got over it.

It was related to this Which tries to relate Religious beliefs to reproductive rights.

You were quite the party animal Stringy 😄 . It seems a lot of abusers are 're-born', and become the most vocal oppnents. I remember the first time I got drunk. On cherries preserved in alcohol, when I was 5 years old ! Growing up, wine and beer were always available to me, if I wanted any, so that when I turned 18 ( in the 70s ) I felt no need to go out and get intoxicated. Nor did I get any particular thrill out of it; I still treat liquor/beer/wine that way, and never felt the need to drink by myself. Never having gone through your experiences, I enjoy alcohol beverages like I do good company, or good food ( and a good discussion ).

Really? That seems an extreme form of birth control. Wouldn't it be easier to castrate the males? My bad. I should have use the more accurate term, female genital mutilation, Female genital mutilation - Wikipedia but it still does not get to become law when its proponents immigrate to any civilized part of the world.

Most liquor stores are not held up by alcoholics looking to steal booze. Most are held up by people wanting to seal money. That desease, greed, is a lot more common than alcoholism.

Female castration is a religious requirement in some parts of the world. It does not become law when they immigrate to America. As a matter of fact, this should have nothing to do with Religion. Our laws are based on rights, and the only consideration for an abortion is the rights of the fetus vs. the rights of the mother ( and possibly, father ). We can all agree on the rights of the mother ( and possibly father, responsible for support after birth ); what is the sticking point are the rights of the fetus, and when exactly those rights are aquired, further complicated by the fact that medical science keeps that goalpost moving. My nephew's partner had a severe medical condition that required her baby to be removed prematurely. She was barely two pounds and fit on one hand when born on Jan 2nd, but is now a beatiful, 7.5 pound, full-term baby girl.

Notice I did not say that. An abuser is anyone who overindulges, whether an alcoholic or a perma-stoner. That is who you want to compare. And that statistic of 40% of violent incidents being caused by alcoholics is also questionable. Does it include kids who get drunk one night and get in a fight ? Are they alcoholics because they succombed to peer pressure one night ? As Peterkin already explained, this statistic depends on how far you want to stretch the web of crime connected to usage. And yes, illegality has a lot of impact on the associated crime element, in much the same way it did during alcohol prohibition. I would think cannabis use should be compared to cigarette use rather than alcohol, but I do think it is rather strange that the new mantra is "Cigarettes are bad; pot is good for you". They both involve breathing byproducts of combustion ( there is a reason fire-fighters wear supplied air ), and smoking 20 joints a day will have equivalent ill effects as smoking a pack of cigarettes; plus, you'll be perma-stoned. All I'm asking for is like for like comparison. As for the 'harder' drugs, which bear comparison to alcohol yet no-one seems to mention comparative down-sides to health and society, I would love to see life expectancy numbers for an alcoholic compared to a heroin addict, or the negative impacts of either condition on family/society. Cannabis is legal in Canada, and I don't have a problem with that ( as long as they keep the stoned off the roads ), but saying the war on harder rugs has failed, and we should just legalize them, makes little sense. Wars on most all crimes are failing, because we still have most crimes; should we legalize all crimes ?

It was meant for all who were discussing the pain aspect. I quoted you because you put it most eloquently.

Why not compare like with like ? You are comparing alcoholics, who are abusers /addicts of alcohol, to social users of Cannabis. Only a minority of alcohol users become dependent, and have/cause problems; but there are an awful lot of users. Why not compare alcoholics to the perma-stoned users of cannabis ? The fact that a lot of alcohol users are not addicts/abusers, but simply have one or two drinks a day, is skewed by how you choose to define 'alcoholic'. I am reminded of going to my yearly medical, and being asked by the doctor how many drinks I'd have per week. To which I replied between 7 and 14. He then said that if I need a drink or two every day, I'm considered an alcoholic. To which I replied that I just drank on Saturday nights. And I won't even get into abusers of the 'harder; drugs.

I wish we could have better arguments, for and against, instead of just down-voting your disagreement. Please tell us why, else this is not a discussion.

This seems to have done a 90o turn and gone from a discussion about Supreme Court decisions and leaks, to abortion rights. Is that a criteria we want to use to determine candidacy for abortion ? As long as they feel no pan, they can be terminated ? I know you guys are a lot more nuanced than that. We need to first estabilish what is, and when, a 'person' ( baby or fetus ) acheives personhood, at which point the mother cannot have that 'person' killed in order to relieve the burden of having to carry around a 'collection of cells'. For some mothers, that 'collection of cells' is a burden even after birth, as evidenced by the number of babies/children given up for adoption. I, myself, am of the opinion that it is a personal choice that a woman must make, and live with. And that choice being a private matter is the gist of the '72 Roe vs Wade decision. But I also realize that others may feel more strongly one way or the other, and as a socety, we must strive for balance. It is not my place to dictate other's opinions or morals.

Speaking of sticker shock ... Most expensive Scotch I found at the duty free in the Toronto Airport was $9000. At the duty free in Rome I found one for the equivalent of almost $27000. No, I didn't buy either.

Always thought that, unlike Canada, prisoners in the US are allowed to vote, even though it is very difficult to do so.

Gun violence in the US is directly tied to poor education in that area. We're not even allowed to spend taxpayer funds on studies of gun violence in the US. Our leadership refuses to turn the light on, so how can we see what's wrong? If we had a healthcare system that supported early mental and physical health standards, and educated kids about the dangers we consider inherent in our society, I think many of our problems would disappear. Sorry, I didn't communicate that very well ... Both gun violence and drug use/abuse are big problems in the US. Both are currently illegal. Since keeping them illegal is not currently working, one proposed solution is to make drug use legal ( or decriminalized ) and focus resources on mitigating consequences of usage. I'd like to explore using that approach for other currently illegal activities, such as gun violence.

None of those graphs which show the harm to society take into account the widespread use of alcohol as compared to other less used drugs. We also have an obesity/diabetes problem in North America, not because sugar is harmful, but because it is present in everything we consume. I do agree with Swansont's suggestion on the previous page that a society with a representative Government is free to choose what it makes legal or illegal, simply by preference and majority rule. And I found this line interesting ... Would you suggest the same approach with gun violence in the US ?