Slashdot Mirror

Beyond that, show me a model that has currents included in it, then remove the currents. Show me how removing currents affects the results.

Here is one, by Professor Don Easterbrook, based on the PDO. And his model nicely fits the data - including the 1940 to 1970 cooling trend and the pause/drop from 2000 to 2015 - that is available. In other words, it is the oceans (and the currents therein, that distribute the heat), not the atmosphere that drives things. Which makes sense, given the amount of heat that can be stored/distributed by each...

:Sigh: ... these high UID kids these days don't know how to debate science anymore...

Low UID doesn't seem to matter much, either...

* It deters as surely as lesser punishments deter, like incarceration or fines. Charts of death penalty vs. murder rate in the US underscore this point. It's curious to assert that lesser punishments deter, but the harshest does not.

I'm not aware of any country where the punisment for murder is a fine. But I did do a search for "death penalty vs. murder rate in the US" and most hits I got do not underscore your point. This shows that you can pick an expert who supports either side of the debate. It seems that if you look at the effect of an execution on murder rates following that execution you find a strong correlation, and if you look at the overall murder rate you find that murder rates are higher in death penalty states.

Perhaps there is a cultural factor. I can imagine that a culture that has a low threshold for killing both has a high murder rate and a strong support for death penalties, and a culture with a high threshold for killing has a low murder rate and a strong opposition against death penalties.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.

Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama's 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina's adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.

They do say

We also find that one of the favorite policies advocated by conservatives to prevent voter fraud appears strikingly ineffective. Nearly three quarters of the non-citizens who indicated they were asked to provide photo identification at the polls claimed to have subsequently voted.

However if you look at their paper

http://www.judicialwatch.org/w...

Nonetheless, identification requirements blocked ballot access for only a small portion of non-citizens. Of the 27 non-citizens who indicated that they were "asked to show picture identification, such as a driver's license, at the polling place or election office," in the 2008 survey, 18 claimed to have subsequently voted, and one more indicated that they were "allowed to vote using a provisional ballot." Only 7 (25.9%) indicated that they were not allowed to vote after showing identification. These results are summarized in Fig. 1. Although the proportion of non-citizens prevented from voting by ID requirements is statistically distinguishable from the portion of citizens5 (Chi-Square 161, p < .001), the overall message is that identification requirements do not prevent the majority of non-citizen voting. The fact that most non-citizen immigrants who showed identifi- cation were subsequently permitted to vote suggests that efforts to use photo-identification to prevent non-citizen voting are unlikely to be particularly effective. This most likely reflects the impact of state laws that permit noncitizens to obtain state identification cards (e.g. driver's licenses

I.e. voter ID laws don't work if by voter ID you mean "driving license" and the state gives out driving licenses to non citizens which are indistinguishable from the ones they hand out to citizens. Which is not impossible. E.g.

https://immigration.procon.org...

The law provides driver's licenses to people who filed Colorado state income taxes in the previous year and can show proof of current state residence, or who have an Individual Taxpayer ID and proof of 24 months of state residency, with a passport, consular ID, or military ID. The license will state "Not valid for federal identification, voting, or public benefits purposes."

The paper also contains th

Totally random OT post, but the Public Domain Drought could easily move to any of 172 other countries in the world and start drinking legally now.

The contemporaries of the US with a drinking age of 21 are: Côte d'Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Iraq, Kiribati, Micronesia, Mongolia, Nauru, Oman, Palau, Samoa and Sri Lanka.

And the only countries that technically forbid drinking alcohol are: Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Iran, Kuwait, Libya, Maldives, Mauritania, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen

Taken from https://drinkingage.procon.org...

whitewash history much?

it's not a myth. and iit was far more than "just a fragment". the tax penalty "punishment" came from them too.
really, the only things dems did was tack on minimum coverage, and a public optopn (that later got dropped).

you folks can try to whitewash the history all you want.
but no one is falling for it.

http://americablog.com/2013/10...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/h...
https://healthcarereform.proco...

and of course, the original document, in full, for your reading pleasure: http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws....

Ex-felons can't vote, am I correct?

That depends on the state. Here is a map. Republican leaning states tend to have far more restrictions on felons voting, which makes sense since felons tend to vote Democratic.

So clearly there's some exception or loophole.

There are a lot of restrictions. For instance, poll taxes and literacy tests are banned. Identification requirements are contentious and tied up in the courts. I doubt if a "competency test" would go unchallenged.

60% of illegal immigrants come from Mexico. And another 15% come from Central America, right up through Mexico. The Mexican/US border is where about 75% of illegal immigrants come in. Yes, it is predominantly a Mexican thing...

The tipoff was the estimate of a whopping $2.1 meeeeeleeon increase in public health costs. FTFS:

We found that a 5% decline in MMR vaccine coverage in US children would result in a 3-fold increase in national measles cases in this age group, for a total of 150 cases

Elsewhere the study says that age group comprises about 30% of total measles cases. So in theory we'd see about 300 more cases per year.

Sorry, but that's not deserving of words like "explosive" or "unshakeable."

And even that would require a drop in coverage TFA dismissively couches as a "mere" 5%, but which would in reality be an enormous move for a statistic that is now only about 1% off its one-time peak and is running right around its mean over the last couple of decades.

Before you go there, my children are vaccinated. But this sort of sensationalism is not helpful.

Here is a list of articles/studies/etc divided into both yes (pros) and no (cons). However, keep in mind, they both involve other factors (especially economic & politic) into the account of what could and could not...

You should Bing

Well there's your problem, and no thanks.

the literal text of the Constitution.

Yep, and what part of "Congress shall make no law" did you miss? Even the bill of rights itself has clear hints that it wasn't intended for use at the state level, and in fact all thirteen of the original states had state sanctioned, official religions for periods long after the constitution was ratified:

http://undergod.procon.org/vie...

And why on earth would the fourteenth amendment need a due process clause if the fifth already had identical one, according to you? In fact, the fourteenth amendment alone is the basis of the incorporation doctrine.

So all the ex convicts voted as a bloc?

Well, pretty close to it, or else the governor wouldn't have cared. http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000662

That being the case, how do you explain the lack of women/certain races/people from certain economic backgrounds?

I have no idea. Fortunately, the burden of proof is not on me...

As far as women go, to stay on topic of TFA, my only speculation is that the burdens of reproduction is what prevents females from a better showing in science and other pursuits. But we can't say with any higher degree of certainty, because to even pose the question is enough to be thrown out of today's "scientific" circles.

Genetically less intelligent?

This is why I mentioned "dogma" in my original post. For you kind, races being genetically identical is even more of an axiom, than Earth rotating around the Sun. You discount our obviously visible differences — eye-shape, skin-color — as superficial. The less obvious ones — like resistance to certain diseases and ability to digest milk — are less known and you quietly ignore them.

But to suggest, that, maybe, some other such differences may play part in differences between academic and other achievement — as you are baiting me to do — is a more reliable way to lose an argument, than even tripping the Godwin's Law would be.

So, I will not make any such statement. The woeful underperformance of Blacks in today's America is much better explained by the scandalous rate of single-parenthood in Black families, for example. And let me preempt your saying "persecution" by pointing out the sad story of Jews — persecuted for centuries throughout Europe, they have a lot to complain about. But not about being underrepresented in Science (nor Chess)...

That said, we are veering off topic here, from differences between sexes to those between races. I shall not continue.

Actually, I am.

White men born in America are twice as likely to end up in prison as men born abroad,

This carefully mixes legal and illegal immigration together. And there are over twice as many illegal immigrants in the US today, than there were in the 90ies. Oh, and you carefully replaced the number of crimes with the number of incarcerations — illegals don't always go to prison, some times they may get deported instead. Nice try, but fail...

Another funny bit is that neither you nor your source cite figures for Black men — even though this would've supported your point (much) better, you chose to shy away from it for fear of appearing racist... Another ill Trump's presidency may be able to fix...

that crime rates would go down with less immigrants

Not crime rates — the number of crimes.. Fewer people, fewer criminals, less crime. Just housing the already convicted illegal immigrants cost the US taxpayers $1.87 bln in 2014 — on top of the devastation of the victims and the great costs of investigating and prosecuting the crimes.

just the property rights have been estimated at several times that

Another unsubstantiated claim.

Simply driving the segment of the wall to its final location would cost you that much in fuel

And another...

the wall is a simplistic solution from the mind of a child

Israel's wall works — the point you do not even attempt to refute. So will ours.

You actually want to stop illegal immigration? punish the employers.

One measure does not exclude another. But you may be exaggerating the current ease of hiring illegals. When I was hired recently, for example, I had to bring my passport (or some other proof of eligibility) with me on the first day. I forgot and they sent me back home for it...

White men born in America are twice as likely to end up in prison as men born abroad,

This carefully mixes legal and illegal immigration together. And there are over twice as many illegal immigrants in the US today, than there were in the 90ies. Oh, and you carefully replaced the number of crimes with the number of incarcerations — illegals don't always go to prison, some times they may get deported instead. Nice try, but fail...

Another funny bit is that neither you nor your source cite figures for Black men — even though this would've supported your point (much) better, you chose to shy away from it for fear of appearing racist... Another ill Trump's presidency may be able to fix...

that crime rates would go down with less immigrants

Not crime rates — the number of crimes.. Fewer people, fewer criminals, less crime. Just housing the already convicted illegal immigrants cost the US taxpayers $1.87 bln in 2014 — on top of the devastation of the victims and the great costs of investigating and prosecuting the crimes.

just the property rights have been estimated at several times that

Another unsubstantiated claim.

Simply driving the segment of the wall to its final location would cost you that much in fuel

And another...

the wall is a simplistic solution from the mind of a child

Israel's wall works — the point you do not even attempt to refute. So will ours.

You actually want to stop illegal immigration? punish the employers.

One measure does not exclude another. But you may be exaggerating the current ease of hiring illegals. When I was hired recently, for example, I had to bring my passport (or some other proof of eligibility) with me on the first day. I forgot and they sent me back home for it...

Scientists swore for decades that smoking was safe, until it was proven otherwise.

Scientists swore that thalidomide was safe, until it was proven otherwise.

Scientists swore that fen-phen was safe, until it was proven otherwise.

The list goes on and on. This is just a sample: http://prescriptiondrugs.proco...

So forgive me if I don't trust the "scientists". Do I believe that GMO in inherently bad? Of course not. It's simply a method. It's how that method is used that concerns me. When it's done for profit, then I am highly suspect of its safety. When it's done for strictly humanitarian reasons with no profits involved I'd be much more willing to be open to it.

Our history is rife with companies that would poison their own mothers if they could make a buck from it.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/va...
http://vaccines.procon.org/vie...
http://www.vaccines.gov/basics...

Bullshit.

People are against vaccines because if ignorance, not some secret knowledge.

The jails are too full of pot heads. There's no space for robbers, murders, and rapists...

Would this false meme go away?

At the height of the War on Drugs hysteria, combined state and federal prisoners in for drug offenses (all, not just pot) topped out a little over 25%.

http://felonvoting.procon.org/...

"Everything is new under Obama. Before Obama there was no terrorism, "

9/11 was in the making from Afganistan which was pre Obama

" no debt, "

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/... Long before Obama

"no healthcare premium increases, "

And no healthcare for the poor

"no illegal immigration, "

http://immigration.procon.org/... say no more

"no deadlock in government, "

And no ability to make any changes because of the self interested capitalist groups who are in power.

"no economic downturn, "

GFC started in 2008, Obama took office in 2009

"no corporate welfare, "

Should have let the banks all die

"no cronyism and more."

The US has always had that

The company's owner claimed that he shouldn't be held responsible because there was no law that the company had to prove that their drug wasn't harmful.

B.S. There should be no need to prove, it is not harmful — prosecutors merely needed to prove, he knew the stuff was poisonous.

And, even if they failed, the wrongful death civil suit should still have bankrupted his company.

So now there is a law. Sorry, don't blame us

Yeah, a typical statist approach to things: "Something must be done. This is something. Therefor it must be done."

But, yes, today "there is a law" — instead of suffering from bad medicines, people suffer from absence of good ones. Wait, did I say "instead"? Sorry, make that in addition to.

Instead of weighting this vs. that, how about we simply recall being a free country — and allow people to take whatever they wish to take? Non-government organizations — themselves competing with each other — can still institute various certification requirements, which pharma-companies would try to fulfill in order to increase their sales. But none of it will be mandatory and the market will become a little bit more free...

You can vote in a presidential election. Only a few states still restrict voting in State elections (or local elections) due to felony convictions but you're able to vote for the president. Look into ...

I haven't researched voting restrictions for felons in many years. I'm relying on the general folk wisdom and my own years-ago research. When I did research it, at a time before the internet, I did so using appellant law records, and I found all legal attempts to get voting rights for felons failed. Most recent (at that time) decisions simply copied wording from previous (even non-controlling) decisions.

Since the time of my research, I've read an article or two on the subject when I happened to see one. I did notice during the 2000 presidential election, felons were not allowed to vote in Florida. From that, I assumed nothing had changed. It didn't occur to me that the rules could vary by state.

I know if a felon gets their "rights restored" (meaning getting the conviction expunged), then voting is included in those restored rights. Some states automatically "offer" to restore rights after a *first* felony conviction. Arizona is the example I know of. But in reality no one that I know has ever successfully had their rights restored. I suspect this the overall situation. That is, it is rare for a felon to get their rights restored in Arizona - even if it is their first conviction.

Looking briefly on the internet now, I see that voting rights for felons depend on the state of residence. It seems this is true even for presidential elections. Although I don't understand how the states can legislate rules for presidential elections, I don't find anything that differentiates between presidential voting rights and state voting rights when it comes to felons. Can a Convicted Felon Vote in the Presidential Election? states that Kansas, my state of residence, allows voting after the case is completely over.

If you have a lawyer researching this issue, I'll be pleased to hear their opinion. My particular situation may be complicated though. I have convictions (which because of their nature, I am not at all ashamed of, btw) in 3 states: Arizona, Oregon and Florida. I believe all the "tails" of my cases have been dispensed with. I have not petitioned for rights restoral anywhere. I currently live in Kansas City, Kansas, USA.

Incidentally, the primary message of my older post was to say I was dissatisfied with offerings from both parties. The Republicans fail on numerous issues for me, and the Democrats are offering Hillary, who takes bribes disguised as speaking fees and donations to charity.

And this link is far more interesting.
In particular, it shows with REAL data, and not just guess work, that Americans consume around 110 lbs / person / year in 2009.

IOW, all of the numbers out there from your groups are a great deal more than what we actually (produced - exports) + imports.

...but Europe and many others not so far behind, percentage wise.

http://obesity.procon.org/view...

I haven't seen ANY studies claiming that the potency in available strains of cannabis has remained the about the same for the past 10-40 years, let alone for hundreds of years.

I HAVE seen LOTS of studies that seem quite legitimate and performed by impartial groups (ex. universities) that show THC levels have increased significantly. Here's one example from a quick google search: http://medicalmarijuana.procon...
1978 : 1.37% average
1988 : 3.59% average
1998 : 4.43% average
2008 : 8.49% average

In addition, most of the strains I've seen available lately have been around 15-20% THC (based on wikileaf's info). wikileaf also notes the average sativa strain is 12.5% THC. That's a medical MJ site, which also has a recreational marketplace search subsite (http://www.recreational.wikileaf.com/), so it should be fairly trustworthy information for the current state of things.

So, even if I don't believe the 1978 figure because it's old, I have a fair level of confidence in the values reported for 98, 08, and present, which shows 3-4x potency increase over 20 years.

Based on your /. login, maybe you have more/better info? Care to share? Though, based on your uid, you probably haven't been around long enough to remember way back then.

there is always some f'tard left wing ...

The strongest opposition to euthanasia comes from right wing religious conservatives. Democrats are more likely to support euthanasia than Republicans. The only state where it is legal is Oregon, a blue state.

Perhaps you are not familiar with the "evidence-based medicine" movement which calls blinded RCTs the "gold-standard" of evidence when testing a treatment.

Again, absence of a blind RCT study doesn't mean the observation is wrong.

A more than three orders of magnitude change doesn't require blinded RCTs to be observed. The "gold standard" is sufficient, but it is not necessary, to confirm observations that are orders of magnitude in strength. Finally, a blind RCT requires that some people get exposed to measles without the protection of the vaccine (the "controls"). That creates significant suffering and risk of death or major injury in order to confirm a strong signal. What is there to gain scientifically that justifies that price in suffering? I see no justification for it.

In Florida 23.32% of African Americans were disenfranchised I think it's safe enough to assume that they are a block unto themselves.

The licence is to verify you have a valid reason for being naked in public, which would otherwise be illegal.

In particular I suspect that it's to make sure that once you're naked you only fulfil that valid reason, and don't hand out any "extras" that might get your license revoked....

Of course, because we don't already have any laws (just or unjust, I'm not going to go there) that address those concerns.

http://www.amazon.com/Biologic...
"Homosexuality in its myriad forms has been scientifically documented in more than 450 species of mammals, birds, reptiles, insects, and other animals worldwide. Biological Exuberance is the first comprehensive account of the subject, bringing together accurate, accessible, and nonsensationalized information. Drawing upon a rich body of zoological research spanning more than two centuries, Bruce Bagemihl shows that animals engage in all types of nonreproductive sexual behavior. Sexual and gender expression in the animal world displays exuberant variety, including same-sex courtship, pair-bonding, sex, and co-parenting--even instances of lifelong homosexual bonding in species that do not have lifelong heterosexual bonding.
Part 1, "A Polysexual, Polygendered World," begins with a survey of homosexuality, transgender, and nonreproductive heterosexuality in animals and then delves into the broader implications of these findings, including a valuable perspective on human diversity. Bagemihl also examines the hidden assumptions behind the way biologists look at natural systems and suggests a fresh perspective based on the synthesis of contemporary scientific insights with traditional knowledge from indigenous cultures.
Part 2, "A Wondrous Bestiary," profiles more than 190 species in which scientific observers have noted homosexual or transgender behavior. Each profile is a verbal and visual "snapshot" of one or more closely related bird or mammal species, containing all the documentation required to support the author's often controversial conclusions.
Lavishly illustrated and meticulously researched, filled with fascinating facts and astonishing descriptions of animal behavior, Biological Exuberance is a landmark book that will change forever how we look at nature."

Basically, for decades, even centuries, wildlife biologists have been making assumptions about the sexes of animals based on their interactions -- either than or consciously suppressing the data that shows homosexuality in the wild.

Of course, just because animals do something has never been a conclusive argument for why humans should do it, because humans are moral beings and make choices (a point my Ecology&Evolution Prof. Larry Slobodkin made in a course of philosophy and ecology/evolution). But love is so often rare and fleeting in this life, why go out of our way to make it more difficult for some people? Was the world really better off because of what was done to Alan Turing after he helped Britain survive WWII?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

See also for references to some studies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

More discussion (which mentions the page you site):
"Is Sexual Orientation Determined at Birth?"
http://borngay.procon.org/view...

And:
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi...
"Paul Vasey's research in Samoa has focused on a theory called kin selection or the "helper in the nest" hypothesis. The idea is that gay people compensate for their lack of children by promoting the reproductive fitness of brothers or sisters, contributing money or performing other uncle-like activities such as babysitting or tutoring. Some of the gay person's genetic code is shared with nieces and nephews and so, the theory goes, the genes which code for sexual orientation still get passed down. ... Vasey speculates that part of the reason the fa'afafine are more attentive to their nephews and nieces is their acceptance in Samoan culture compared to gay men in the West and Japan ("You can't help your kin if they've rejected you"). But he also believes th

Because a single Republican governor implemented a similar system in a Democrat-controlled state, then automatically, this is a Republican plan that all (or even a majority of) Republicans across the nation supported? What a stupid statement! It completely flies in the face of actual facts.

Feel free to read the original source of the Romneycare idea:
http://healthcarereform.procon.org/sourcefiles/1989_assuring_affordable_health_care_for_all_americans.pdf

I assume the medical pot folks have a clue, and they say it tests quite a lot stronger than in the past -- more than six times stronger on average:

http://medicalmarijuana.procon...
========
The average potency of all marijuana in the US, according to the UMPMC's Dec. 2008 â" Mar. 2009 quarterly report, was 8.52% (5.62% domestic and 9.57% nondomestic).

The highest tested sample had 22.04% THC (domestic) and 27.30% THC (nondomestic). The highest tested sample ever tested between 1975 and 2009 had 33.12% THC (domestic) and 37.20% THC (nondomestic).

For comparison, the national average of marijuana's THC content in 1978 was 1.37%, in 1988 it was 3.59%, in 1998 4.43%, and in 2008 8.49%.
======

They also point out that today's joints are typically smaller, so the total dosage may be about the same, or at least not much higher. However, that also means it may be harder for a novice to determine his limits -- kinda like being handed a bottle of vodka for your first drink.

Marijuana doesn't have the same dramatic effects as meth, and there are people who are long-term users who suffer very few side effects from this drug. There is however a small chance that it can lead to temporary or even permanent psychosis. There is still some debate over this issue, but I can assure you it's quite real.

http://www.sane.org/informatio...
http://medicalmarijuana.procon...

A while ago I spent some time in a mental facility and one of the patients there was that unlucky 1 in 700,000 who was vulnerable to the psychotic effects that marijuana could cause. He was a good student who was just starting university. Intelligent, articulate, and with excellent grades - he had good prospects for a long and happy life.

His mother worked as a nurse at that hospital so she could spend time with her son, and I received this information directly from her. At uni he tried marijuana, just a few times. I get the impression he was just a typical uni kid enjoying his new freedom and he started to smoke it because his new social circle were smoking it. Pretty typical stuff. He had an adverse reaction (I think over a short time period of maybe week or so) and had to be hospitalised due to psychosis.

By the time I met him, he had been in hospital for 12 years. He had no teeth left, since he couldn't look after them they had to all be removed. He was heavily medicated but was still liable to fits of anger and hitting other patients for something simple like sitting in his chair. He was barely able to speak and never managed more than a couple of mumbled, often unintelligible words. There was a rec room where we could watch a TV which was behind a plexiglass panel we needed to lift up to change channels. He had a tic that meant every 1-2 minutes he needed to get up, walk to the TV, life the plexiglass, run his hand over the top of the TV, then sit down again. He might do this 100+ times in a day.

While it's easy to think there's no dangers using marijuana, and admittedly, they are few and low - it's not totally without cost or risk. This man will spend the rest of his short life in that mental institution, unable to read, play games, go outside, speak to others, share friendships or talk about the good old days. He will never experience any of the myriad of things that you and countless others can - and that is directly attributed to a fairly small quantity of weed he smoked - he wasn't trying any other drugs at the time.

Certainly, he had a disposition towards this happening, but it was marijuana that pushed it over the limit and completely fucked his entire life.

We have a decent welfare system and free hospitalisation in Australia, so he is getting the care he needs. You could argue that as taxpayers who are shouldering that cost we do get a say in whether people consume the drug or not...but, I'm not going to bother with that argument, it's not the important one.

Enjoy the smoke if you can amd avoid it if that's that you prefer. Just bear in mind, however small, there is a chance of psychosis that may in same rare cases be permanent - and weed is a known contributor to this condition.

Role your dice, move your mice.

Sounds like a wonderful, idealized, place to live. Many countries place restrictions on citizens who've been convicted of felonies. These restrictions make it a little less democratic don't you think? That appears to be at odds with your binary democracy. Which so called democratic country do you hail from?

...contradictory, inconclusive, and (as even Dr. Sanjay Gupta of CNN finally came to realize and stated in public when he changed his stance on pot) the result of decades of research funded for the sole purpose of finding something wrong with pot. If 96% or more of all research grants are titled "Investigating Marijuana as a risk factor of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia", and the only way to have a grant renewed is to find some positive (that is, negative) effect, it is hardly surprising that 96% of all research results turn up something negative about pot. What is really interesting is that in spite of subjecting it to a microscope far more demanding than we have ever applied to any other substance under similar circumstances, so very little has been double-blind confirmed as a "risk" to pot smokers. It "interferes with" (but certainly does not "prevent") the formation of short term memory -- for the duration of the time you are high, with no long-term effects. It is indeed used as self-medication for lots of different kinds of dysphoria, and can by preventing or ameliorating dysphoria keep people from making beneficial life changes. Sometimes one does need to take action instead of endure when life sucks. Other times, its gonna suck regardless of what you do, and then sure, pot can help make it suck less.

The other really interesting thing about pot is the number of myths straight out of the War on Drugs are still being perpetuated by people who heard some pithy thing about it twenty or thirty years ago and never thought to doubt the veracity of their government or question its interest in the whole matter.

http://www.drfranklucido.com/p...

http://medicalmarijuana.procon...

The government itself is pretty schizophrenic on the issue. There are several places one can get to (compilations of) original papers on pot, and (allowing for the confirmation bias that is rampant in medical science these days, especially when reporting anecdotal "evidence" rather than double blind, placebo controlled studies) it really is pretty benign compared to ever so many other things that are quite legal. The same cop who arrests you, the judge who sits on your case, and the lawyer who gets you off can easily be functional alcoholics. I'm guessing alcohol and bipolar disorder or schizophrenia don't mix real well either -- but that is never mentioned or discussed, for some reason...

Boston is not in Florida. The only exception in FL apparently is this:

6. for educational purposes in 11 states
Example: students in culinary school
...
The law permits "the tasting of alcoholic beverages by a student who is at least 18 years of age" as part of a course at an accredited post-secondary educational institution, but the student may not "consume or imbibe" the alcohol.

http://drinkingage.procon.org/...

Tenure is absolute BS for grade school teaches who all to often get it in just three or four years of mediocre work.

In California, it takes only two years to get tenure: http://teachertenure.procon.or...

How about a source for your temperature claim? I claim the opposite: Anthropogenic Global Warming is occurring. Here's two sources:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
http://climatechange.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=003800

Two things:

1) There have always been marijuana studies (see here for a sampling). You must not have noticed them before.
2) You will see more studies in the future, because with it legalized, it is easier to study.

wrong, http://milk.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000661

There are *four* versions, and they all differ:

A. Catholics & Lutherans (Deuteronomy 5)
B. Jewish (Exodus 20, referring only to the delivery from Egypt)
C. Muslim (Qur'an-Citations refer to verses in the Qur'an)
D. Protestant (Exodus 20, referring only to graven images)

http://undergod.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000824

Seems like whichever version you post, someone might be unhappy with the choice. :-)

at best, that's a matter of opinion,
http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001000

Except, at least in the US, it is not necessarily cheaper to execute someone that to imprison them for life. Life without parole (LWOP) cases can cost more depending on how long the individual is imprisoned. However, it's really hard to know the true cost of either as there are different knock on costs from each type.

In the LWOP cases if the person receiving the sentence is really young then it will likely cost roughly between $1-$3 million to imprison that person for the rest of their lives. However, in California's recent past it was determined that executions cost about $3 million per execution. Some might argue that California wasn't very efficient at execution, unlike Texas, but the price for executions in Texas is comparable.

It's actually quite difficult to figure out the actual cost, but we do know a few details to help reason through the costs. Due to the legal system in the US we allow those sentenced to death to exhaust all legal appeal options before the execution. This means many more days in court than the LWOP (roughly 5-6 times as many court appearances).

A quick googling shows some stats (some with deeper links to actual studies):
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42
http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001000

Lifetime imprisonment is actually less expensive than the death penalty. California could save $1 billion over five years by replacing the death penalty with permanent imprisonment. California taxpayers pay $90,000 more per death row prisoner each year than on prisoners in regular confinement.

Source: http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42
Also see: http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001000

Actually, that isn't true - in Texas he can buy and drink alcohol in a bar, even, the caveat being he needs his parent's approval (source). Paradoxical considering he's an adult at 18.

In most states there are exceptions to the 21 drinking age. For instance, I could legally drink in my parent's house with their permission, but they were teetotalers, so I usually did at a friend's house because he had permission from his dad. Therefore, I was breaking the law, he wasn't.

TAX CHURCHES
(Posting as Anonymous Coward)

I wondered if churches are taxed in the U.S. and asked Google.
Here are the top 3 hits.

According to the first link below, Taxing churches would bring in $71 billion.
$71 is enough to send an Opportunity rover to Mars once every 2 weeks forever, to put that in perspective.
It could buy a lot of science and space. Could buy a good deal of longetivity and anti-cancer research too.
If you are 25 to 35 years old now, it might very well make the difference whether you live an extra 10 years or not.

$16 billion of the tax should be spent on charity if we want to replicate what the churches are doing.
(Though I would guess it could be done at least 40% more efficiently by buying in bulk, using the army organization, and not having to do proselytizing. Well, the army might proselytize at that.)

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/08/22/should-uncle-sam-tax-churches/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/20/us-churches-tax-exemption-faithbased-politics
http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org/

$71bn is nothing compared to the trillions destroyed through financial manipulations. Probably it is small compared to what could be gained by taxing financial transactions or gains that are as a matter of business stored outside the U.S., like hiding it in the Caymans, or apparently by doing business in Singapore or Luxembourg. But aside from Christmas and the Christian concept of charity which I like a lot (no I happen to be Jewish, though not practicing hardly at all), I haven't seen much good from religion.

Assorted name calling when I was little, my temple refusing to marry my sister in a mixed marriage, those are personal things. Muslim extremists and the President or TV preachers blessing troops, these are pretty sick. I figure religion is a personal thing and am very uncomfortable about when huge amounts of money and special treatment get tied to it. And fundamentalist religion is extremely scary, no matter what the religion.

So [personal opinion] these are just my anonymous (I hope.. hey this is a good reason for encryption which it would be nice if this site was SSL...) two cents, but it seems to me that Americans particularly tend to enslave themselves to pseudo-religious tricksters such as TV evangelists, and that this is a cancer on society, clearly so in the case of state legislatures attempting to legislate fundamentalist religion into the biology classroom when America needs to step up to becoming strong once again at biology and engineering in order to have a real future. Where churches are a spiritual force that is wonderful. But where they enforce ignorance, prejudice and insularity they are utterly evil. There is some connection between the apparent ascendancy of fundamentalist religion in America and the malaise of America.

[More personal opinion] I believe individuals who are brought up to make their own decisions based on the heart, logic, and common sense would probably believe in evolution and the scientific method, and the matter of religion they can also decide for themselves (though they probably will not be as extreme as their parents, being able to see the world through the Internet not just the local church and say Fox News). The point being that if you want to have a successful country, you cannot afford to maintain a parallel government that enforces ignorance, and you should not tax reasonable (non-extremist, non-ignorant) people to support evangelists and their zombie armies. So tax them, please. Thank you.

Yes, they do, in most cases - you should probably familiarize yourself with the actual laws governing the situation:

http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=286
http://www.justice.gov/pardon/collateral_consequences.pdf

If found guilty in Massachusetts, he would have lost his right to vote for "the term of his incarceration."

If he had accepted the plea bargain, he would have lost the right to vote for the 6 months of his incarceration. How many elections would he have missed, again?

http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001000

Weird, I have a felony conviction and I can still vote. Are we sure we're not confusing states and the US?

I did; thank you for the correction. mtm_king posted this chart: http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=286

In the USA a convicted felon is not even allowed to vote.

Wrong - http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=286

It hasn't been repeated as far as I know so the results haven't been verfied.

I'm pretty sure there have been additional studies since then.

Many related to health issues other than cancer. A majority of the double blind, human studies seem to show positive effects.