I'll buy it. Weed snobbery is stupid. Pick out the seeds and smoke the rest. It gets you high and costs less per gram of smokable material.
The problem with outdoor mexican weed isn't the seeds. It's the handling. Pick it off the plant and dry it and cure it properly, and it's just as good as sensi. Smash it into a brick and store it in bales of hay, and it's pretty disgusting.
It's still illegal federally. Possession of any amount is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year in PMITA prison. Now the feds don't have the resources to widely enforce that, but they can pick and choose. It's technically still illegal across the entire country, just not regularly enforced.
Notice how in the two cases where Cannabis is legal, it was legalized by referendum and not an act of the legislature. IOW, it was legalized by the people, not by the government. So my statement stands.
You're right. The correct thing to do is openly advocate for legal recreational Cannabis. There are absolutely no sensible arguments against it, which is why the government won't even discuss the issue.
I think the number of countries without some sort of limitation, whether substance, quantity, purity, purpose, or other, is going to be very small.
The number of non-oppressive countries is very small. That doesn't change the fact that drug prohibition is oppressive.
Guantanamo is pretty much down to the hardcore cases now.
So? They still imprisoned hundreds of innocent people for no reason.
Of the "innocents" that were outright released, instead of transferred to prison in another country, at least 27% have been found back on the battlefield engaging in Jihad. Several of those released have engaged in infamous attacks.
Exactly. The US is manufacturing the terrorists it claims it wants to get rid of. Wouldn't you hold a grudge against a foreign occupying nation that held you without cause for years? If released, wouldn't you join the opposition?
It could be a war crime . . . if they were protected persons. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, "enemy combatants" are protected persons.
That would fall under the "theater of war" following the "battlefield or" part.
Ah, so everyone unfortunate enough to live in Afghanistan should leave or it's their own fault when the US blows them up. Really winning over their hearts and minds there.
Explain this to me. Why is it OK for the US to blow up a wedding party in afghanistan, but it's not OK for Afghans to blow up a wedding party in the US?
On the other hand, the Taliban propagandists aren't shy about accusing NATO forces of attacking "wedding parties" that consist of solely Taliban fighters. Of course, they have their own problems with weddings.
I'm not defending the Taliban. It's possible for both the US and the Taliban to be evil. I for one want to live in a country that takes the high road.
They are imprisoned for what are recognizable as ordinary criminal offenses, such as drug offenses. People in the United States are not imprisoned for things like singing songs that insult the president, such as this.
Drug offences are not "ordinary criminal offences". Assault, fraud, and theft are ordinary criminal offenses. Drug prohibition is simply oppressive.
You are referring to Prisoners of War.
No, we're referring to innocent people being wrongly held. Most of those in Guantanamo are known not to pose a threat, and about a third of them are known to be entirely innocent.
The US waterboarded a total of three people, the most recent of which was 10 years ago.
Which is a war crime. When are the prosecutions going to start?
Killing people on the battlefield or in the theater of war isn't summary execution, but simply killing, and in no way illegitimate
"On the battlefield"? How about "attending a wedding party"?
drivers with BACs between 0.01 and 0.03 were involved in more fatal accidents than drivers with BACs between 0.08 and 0.10
I'd imagine that's because there are more drivers with BACs of.02+/-.01 than BACs of.09+/-.01. What matters is the accident rate per capita, which Reason conveniently forgot to mention.
How can this be modded insightful. 100 countries have adopted 0.05 due to the carnage caused by drunk drivers.
Because insight requires a little more thought than "50,000 frenchmen can't be wrong". Try doing an actual risk benefit analysis. How many additional people will we imprison by moving to 0.05 per year? What are the social costs of that? Is it more or less than the cost of losing 800 people a year? Are there ways we could save 800 people per year that cost less? Do those first.
This is the kind of reasoning that needs to go into an insightful comment on the issue. As it is, I doubt anyone has done this.
On second thought, this is the country that thinks so little of mass shootings in schools that they refuse to regulate the access to firearms. Deaths on the road due to drunk drivers is nothing when compared to that.
Actually, mass shootings kill less than 100 people per year. If the NTSB is to be believed, lowering the BAC limit to.05 would save eight times as many lives as if we eliminated all mass shootings in the US. But I'm not sure I believe the NTSB.
But you're right, we do think so little of mass shootings that we refuse to regulate the access to firearms. And we are absolutely correct to do so. 100 deaths per year in a country of 300 million is negligable. You'll save orders of magnitude more lives if you regulate fructose instead of guns.
Perhaps, but my freedom to spend my money as i see fit, on the candidate or candidates of my choosing, is protected under the 1st Amendment.
The first amendment only guarantees that the government will not interfere with your speech. It does not guarantee that the government will assist your speech by making legal entities such as corporations available to you.
True, but when the government decides to regulate corporations, they have a right to speak, like the individual person does.
No, a corporation is a fictional entity, it has no rights. Only individual human beings have the right to free speech.
So by all means you are free to speak. You are free to pay others to speak for you. You are free to pool your money and use that to pay others to speak for you. But if you want recognition from the government in the form of incorporation, there's nothing forcing the government to give that to you. Nothing, except an extremely corrupt SCOTUS that is.
Does it matter? Money is a corrupting influence no matter what. The only thing a Senator should concern himself with is the merit of the arguments for and against.
Donations to public officials should be completely illegal for this reason. Fund campaigns with public money exclusively, and you'll save a lot more than you spend when you reap the benefits of good policy.
Can junk DNA be seen as "potentially useful junkyard parts" that some random mutation might re-activate into a gene or part of a gene?
Yes! Even if the junk DNA doesn't serve a functional purpose in an organism, keeping it around can increase genetic diversity and potentially increase the adaptability of the species as a whole. Many of our functional coding genes have incomplete copies known as pseudogenes stuck in random places in the genome. It is possible for these genes to get reactivated with the right mutations.
Are those fruits and vegetables starting to look good yet? And before you answer keep in mind that raw or rarely cooked meat can contain some nasty parasites.
Most food borne illnesses are caused by fruits and vegetables these days. Why? Because no one eats raw meat, lots of people eat raw vegetables.
Who cares what's there? It's delicious and it's safe. I would suck the shit right out of a grasshopper's ass if it tasted half as good as shrimp intestines.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering a trillion dollars worth of security fraud goes completely unpunished, this is way out of scale.
"Google and them" is not "the internet".
Yars Revenge used its own game code as pseudorandom data to animate the neutral zone.
because someone long ago wanted to make hemp illegal. They had controlling share of an opposing market and wanted to eliminate the competition
The "someone" here is William Randolf Hearst, who was heavily invested in both newspapers and forestry.
I'll buy it. Weed snobbery is stupid. Pick out the seeds and smoke the rest. It gets you high and costs less per gram of smokable material.
The problem with outdoor mexican weed isn't the seeds. It's the handling. Pick it off the plant and dry it and cure it properly, and it's just as good as sensi. Smash it into a brick and store it in bales of hay, and it's pretty disgusting.
It's still illegal federally. Possession of any amount is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year in PMITA prison. Now the feds don't have the resources to widely enforce that, but they can pick and choose. It's technically still illegal across the entire country, just not regularly enforced.
Domain blocking has been so successful already. No one will figure out how to use alternative DNS servers, or simply type in the IP address manually.
Notice how in the two cases where Cannabis is legal, it was legalized by referendum and not an act of the legislature. IOW, it was legalized by the people, not by the government. So my statement stands.
You're right. The correct thing to do is openly advocate for legal recreational Cannabis. There are absolutely no sensible arguments against it, which is why the government won't even discuss the issue.
I'll believe that this is a good judge when he starts punishing DAs for doing the same thing Voltage Pictures is doing here.
That makes it even worse. Being extorted into accepting a prison sentence is far, far worse than being extorted into paying money.
Not intimidation, more like a protection racket.
You pay $7500 or you pay a lot more to a lawyer and risk losing.
What's the difference between this and plea bargaining? e.g. "You take 6 months or you pay a lot to a lawyer and risk 10 years"
I think the number of countries without some sort of limitation, whether substance, quantity, purity, purpose, or other, is going to be very small.
The number of non-oppressive countries is very small. That doesn't change the fact that drug prohibition is oppressive.
Guantanamo is pretty much down to the hardcore cases now.
So? They still imprisoned hundreds of innocent people for no reason.
Of the "innocents" that were outright released, instead of transferred to prison in another country, at least 27% have been found back on the battlefield engaging in Jihad. Several of those released have engaged in infamous attacks.
Exactly. The US is manufacturing the terrorists it claims it wants to get rid of. Wouldn't you hold a grudge against a foreign occupying nation that held you without cause for years? If released, wouldn't you join the opposition?
It could be a war crime . . . if they were protected persons.
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, "enemy combatants" are protected persons.
That would fall under the "theater of war" following the "battlefield or" part.
Ah, so everyone unfortunate enough to live in Afghanistan should leave or it's their own fault when the US blows them up. Really winning over their hearts and minds there.
Explain this to me. Why is it OK for the US to blow up a wedding party in afghanistan, but it's not OK for Afghans to blow up a wedding party in the US?
On the other hand, the Taliban propagandists aren't shy about accusing NATO forces of attacking "wedding parties" that consist of solely Taliban fighters. Of course, they have their own problems with weddings.
I'm not defending the Taliban. It's possible for both the US and the Taliban to be evil. I for one want to live in a country that takes the high road.
They are imprisoned for what are recognizable as ordinary criminal offenses, such as drug offenses. People in the United States are not imprisoned for things like singing songs that insult the president, such as this.
Drug offences are not "ordinary criminal offences". Assault, fraud, and theft are ordinary criminal offenses. Drug prohibition is simply oppressive.
You are referring to Prisoners of War.
No, we're referring to innocent people being wrongly held. Most of those in Guantanamo are known not to pose a threat, and about a third of them are known to be entirely innocent.
The US waterboarded a total of three people, the most recent of which was 10 years ago.
Which is a war crime. When are the prosecutions going to start?
Killing people on the battlefield or in the theater of war isn't summary execution, but simply killing, and in no way illegitimate
"On the battlefield"? How about "attending a wedding party"?
drivers with BACs between 0.01 and 0.03 were involved in more fatal accidents than drivers with BACs between 0.08 and 0.10
I'd imagine that's because there are more drivers with BACs of .02+/-.01 than BACs of .09+/-.01. What matters is the accident rate per capita, which Reason conveniently forgot to mention.
How can this be modded insightful. 100 countries have adopted 0.05 due to the carnage caused by drunk drivers.
Because insight requires a little more thought than "50,000 frenchmen can't be wrong". Try doing an actual risk benefit analysis. How many additional people will we imprison by moving to 0.05 per year? What are the social costs of that? Is it more or less than the cost of losing 800 people a year? Are there ways we could save 800 people per year that cost less? Do those first.
This is the kind of reasoning that needs to go into an insightful comment on the issue. As it is, I doubt anyone has done this.
On second thought, this is the country that thinks so little of mass shootings in schools that they refuse to regulate the access to firearms. Deaths on the road due to drunk drivers is nothing when compared to that.
Actually, mass shootings kill less than 100 people per year. If the NTSB is to be believed, lowering the BAC limit to .05 would save eight times as many lives as if we eliminated all mass shootings in the US. But I'm not sure I believe the NTSB.
But you're right, we do think so little of mass shootings that we refuse to regulate the access to firearms. And we are absolutely correct to do so. 100 deaths per year in a country of 300 million is negligable. You'll save orders of magnitude more lives if you regulate fructose instead of guns.
So what if you could detect the effect of alcohol on eye movement? Who cares? What's important is the effect of alcohol on driving ability.
Perhaps, but my freedom to spend my money as i see fit, on the candidate or candidates of my choosing, is protected under the 1st Amendment.
The first amendment only guarantees that the government will not interfere with your speech. It does not guarantee that the government will assist your speech by making legal entities such as corporations available to you.
True, but when the government decides to regulate corporations, they have a right to speak, like the individual person does.
No, a corporation is a fictional entity, it has no rights. Only individual human beings have the right to free speech.
So by all means you are free to speak. You are free to pay others to speak for you. You are free to pool your money and use that to pay others to speak for you. But if you want recognition from the government in the form of incorporation, there's nothing forcing the government to give that to you. Nothing, except an extremely corrupt SCOTUS that is.
Not all Muslims are religious fanatics.
The news is almost already entirely lies. Adding fake images doesn't affect its trustworthiness at all.
Does it matter? Money is a corrupting influence no matter what. The only thing a Senator should concern himself with is the merit of the arguments for and against.
Donations to public officials should be completely illegal for this reason. Fund campaigns with public money exclusively, and you'll save a lot more than you spend when you reap the benefits of good policy.
Can junk DNA be seen as "potentially useful junkyard parts" that some random mutation might re-activate into a gene or part of a gene?
Yes! Even if the junk DNA doesn't serve a functional purpose in an organism, keeping it around can increase genetic diversity and potentially increase the adaptability of the species as a whole. Many of our functional coding genes have incomplete copies known as pseudogenes stuck in random places in the genome. It is possible for these genes to get reactivated with the right mutations.
Are those fruits and vegetables starting to look good yet? And before you answer keep in mind that raw or rarely cooked meat can contain some nasty parasites.
Most food borne illnesses are caused by fruits and vegetables these days. Why? Because no one eats raw meat, lots of people eat raw vegetables.
Who cares what's there? It's delicious and it's safe. I would suck the shit right out of a grasshopper's ass if it tasted half as good as shrimp intestines.
"It's a distribution problem", which is to say "It's a capitalism problem".