I think you'll find that when clean, non-toxic heroin or morphine is easily available no one will use synthetic opioids. You blame the china white/MPTP phenomenon on its legality, but the only reason it existed at all is to get around the criminal status of traditional opiates. We see the same thing happening with synthetic cannabinoids now. And even the meth epidemic can largely be blamed on the expense and difficulty of obtaining cocaine.
If you want to approach drugs as a health problem, you have to accept that many drugs are safer than many activities we not only allow, but encourage. e.g. David Nutt was removed from the UK's drug policy advisory panel for saying that MDMA was safer than horseback riding. Drugs are just another recreational activity that comes with risk. Like cycling, or playing football, or scuba diving. Government exists to enable people to enjoy life in the way they choose, not to prohibit them. The important thing is that you don't prevent others from enjoying life in the way that they choose.
And why does a large proportion of the populace feel that way? Because they've been subject to decades of hateful propaganda by the government. They literally force their message of hate on schoolchildren.
If you are arguing that all drugs should be treated the same, you are a fool. I would rather have a rational policy that minimizes health risks, costs to society, crime, incarceration, etc. A simplistic blanket policy (ban or legalize) won't do that.
I too would prefer a rational policy. The data appears to show that legalization is that rational policy. The phenomenon we've observed is that prohibition doesn't affect drug use rates, but it does make drug use more harmful. This effect applies to all drugs, wherever it lies on the harm/addiction spectrum.
Except for petty crime by people too messed up to hold a job,
Addicts who are maintained on their drug of choice are actually able to hold down jobs. When the don't have to spend half the day looking for someone with drugs, they can hold down a job. When their next fix costs as much as a cup of coffee, they don't need to rob tourists to pay for it. When they have clean, metered doses of drugs, they can take advantage of tolerance to be clear headed during the work day.
no too messed up to steal from friends, neighbors, family to support their lifestyle
Assuming this kind of low level petty crime increases, and that's a big assumption, what are the costs of that increase? How does it compare to the cost of jailing more people than any other country on Earth?
Addicts are not known be be a productive and healthy bunch.
Which is due more to the laws against drugs than the drugs themselves. Caffeine, ethanol, and nicotine addicts are all productive members of society, why not add cannabis, morphine, and cocaine to that list?
They're not idiots. Lots of very powerful and well connected people profit from drug prohibition. They don't want the bottom to fall out of the market, and they don't want drug-funded gangs to go away. What they are doing is intentional.
Why do you assume lab grown meat is going to be more environmentally friendly? It's definitely going to require more energy input than cattle, which are essentially solar powered. All those climate controlled incubators have to run on something.
Try storing an encrypted container. When you want to access it, download it, decrypt it locally, do your work, reencrypt, and reupload. Unless your home PC is keylogged, you're safe. But if your PC is keylogged, whether you use cloud services is irrelevant.
including C range bounds checking (to make it as safe as Java),
Those extra cycles to make the code safer will cost an HFT firm tens of thousands of dollars. C is a better choice for these people *because* it allows them to cut corners. I mean, who cares if a bug in your program crashes the exchange when the exchange will just let you reverse the trades?
Begging the question as a term of logic IS a well established idiomatic expression. It predates, and is more useful, than a synonym for "raises the question".
if one does not know their rights, which many don't
Which is why it should be repeated as often as possible to as many people as possible. Never speak to the police, never consent to a search. Never, never, never, never.
Which means GP's argument that "begging the question" was "proper english" doesn't apply either. If it's plain english, then the formal logic sense of the term wins because of the argument I detailed above. If it's a figure of speech, then the formal logic sense of the term wins because of seniority AND utility
Shame on her husband for allowing jack booted thugs into their home. Never consent to a search, and never speak to the police, except to assert your right to remain silent and request a lawyer. Every citizen who consents to these searches encourages them to do more.
It's not a mistranslation. "petitio" in latin means request. It's cognate with the english "petition". Begging is a request.
As for proper english as she is spoke, I don't see what sense of "beg" means the same as "raise". It *might* make sense if you anthropomorphise the question, and say that the question begs to be asked. But by normal rules of grammar the phrase "begging the question" clearly has the question as the subject, not the object of the begging.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you'll find that when clean, non-toxic heroin or morphine is easily available no one will use synthetic opioids. You blame the china white/MPTP phenomenon on its legality, but the only reason it existed at all is to get around the criminal status of traditional opiates. We see the same thing happening with synthetic cannabinoids now. And even the meth epidemic can largely be blamed on the expense and difficulty of obtaining cocaine.
If you want to approach drugs as a health problem, you have to accept that many drugs are safer than many activities we not only allow, but encourage. e.g. David Nutt was removed from the UK's drug policy advisory panel for saying that MDMA was safer than horseback riding. Drugs are just another recreational activity that comes with risk. Like cycling, or playing football, or scuba diving. Government exists to enable people to enjoy life in the way they choose, not to prohibit them. The important thing is that you don't prevent others from enjoying life in the way that they choose.
That's what she said.
And why does a large proportion of the populace feel that way? Because they've been subject to decades of hateful propaganda by the government. They literally force their message of hate on schoolchildren.
If you are arguing that all drugs should be treated the same, you are a fool. I would rather have a rational policy that minimizes health risks, costs to society, crime, incarceration, etc. A simplistic blanket policy (ban or legalize) won't do that.
I too would prefer a rational policy. The data appears to show that legalization is that rational policy. The phenomenon we've observed is that prohibition doesn't affect drug use rates, but it does make drug use more harmful. This effect applies to all drugs, wherever it lies on the harm/addiction spectrum.
Except for petty crime by people too messed up to hold a job,
Addicts who are maintained on their drug of choice are actually able to hold down jobs. When the don't have to spend half the day looking for someone with drugs, they can hold down a job. When their next fix costs as much as a cup of coffee, they don't need to rob tourists to pay for it. When they have clean, metered doses of drugs, they can take advantage of tolerance to be clear headed during the work day.
no too messed up to steal from friends, neighbors, family to support their lifestyle
Assuming this kind of low level petty crime increases, and that's a big assumption, what are the costs of that increase? How does it compare to the cost of jailing more people than any other country on Earth?
Addicts are not known be be a productive and healthy bunch.
Which is due more to the laws against drugs than the drugs themselves. Caffeine, ethanol, and nicotine addicts are all productive members of society, why not add cannabis, morphine, and cocaine to that list?
They're not idiots. Lots of very powerful and well connected people profit from drug prohibition. They don't want the bottom to fall out of the market, and they don't want drug-funded gangs to go away. What they are doing is intentional.
Drug prohibition itself violates the 9th and 10th amendments.
No, Goldman Sachs will not curb the excesses of the NSA. They will find a way to profit from the excesses of the NSA.
Why do you assume lab grown meat is going to be more environmentally friendly? It's definitely going to require more energy input than cattle, which are essentially solar powered. All those climate controlled incubators have to run on something.
Try storing an encrypted container. When you want to access it, download it, decrypt it locally, do your work, reencrypt, and reupload. Unless your home PC is keylogged, you're safe. But if your PC is keylogged, whether you use cloud services is irrelevant.
Where did they get the stem cells from? Where did they get the foetal bovine serum from?
Well it *is* a parody of the news.
including C range bounds checking (to make it as safe as Java),
Those extra cycles to make the code safer will cost an HFT firm tens of thousands of dollars. C is a better choice for these people *because* it allows them to cut corners. I mean, who cares if a bug in your program crashes the exchange when the exchange will just let you reverse the trades?
It's a lot more disturbing that the head of IT doesn't know what IRC is than it is that they're snooping on your email.
Bring back Mutant League Football and this won't be a problem.
Begging the question as a term of logic IS a well established idiomatic expression. It predates, and is more useful, than a synonym for "raises the question".
we're worse than a country that hasnt had a real election in years
The US hasn't had a real election since they imprisoned Eugene Debs for protesting WWI during his campaign for president.
if one does not know their rights, which many don't
Which is why it should be repeated as often as possible to as many people as possible. Never speak to the police, never consent to a search. Never, never, never, never.
What exactly does it mean to have a right if the government can punish you for exercising it?
If the feds have compromised the CAs, that https gets you nothing.
Ooh, madlibs!
Also ssl doesn't matter if google is forking over the data internally.
SSL doesn't matter if the CAs are compromised by the feds too. Both of these are probably the case.
Which means GP's argument that "begging the question" was "proper english" doesn't apply either. If it's plain english, then the formal logic sense of the term wins because of the argument I detailed above. If it's a figure of speech, then the formal logic sense of the term wins because of seniority AND utility
Shame on her husband for allowing jack booted thugs into their home. Never consent to a search, and never speak to the police, except to assert your right to remain silent and request a lawyer. Every citizen who consents to these searches encourages them to do more.
It's not a mistranslation. "petitio" in latin means request. It's cognate with the english "petition". Begging is a request.
As for proper english as she is spoke, I don't see what sense of "beg" means the same as "raise". It *might* make sense if you anthropomorphise the question, and say that the question begs to be asked. But by normal rules of grammar the phrase "begging the question" clearly has the question as the subject, not the object of the begging.