for example one that comes to mind: ammonia. common, polar
but not carbon dioxide (not polar, so no complex chemistry probably)
and howabout something very exotic and improbable but imagination grabbing: say a possible life-evolving chemistry on a planet based on the complex interplay of liquid/ solid/ gaseous heavy metals
what i'm getting at: we should classify these triple points, based on elemental abundance/ observed concentrating trends in certain plantary belts, and look for these triple points specifically, to maximize our ability to find life
the national faces of the right now appear to be somewhere between rush limbaugh, dick cheney, and sarah palin, all 3 with obvious problems appealing to anyone besides screeching rightards
then we have the birthers and their paranoid schizophrenic thinly veiled racism. dividing, discouraging and polarizing the right wing base, so wacky they make 9/11 truthers look levelheaded
and now the principle propaganda wing of the right is committing fiscal suicide because the boss is so old and venal and out of touch with the reality of modern media
seriously, can it get any better?
i am really quite amazed at how fast the right wing has imploded after the presidential election
buffoons and absurdities, all that seems to be on the landscape on the right right now. hilarious and wonderful. i'm actually looking forward to the next act of seppuku on the right
oh look, here it is!:
If you live in or around Pensacola, it just got harder to be a creationist who wants to see giant statues of dinosaurs. Dinosaur Adventure Land, which was packed with educational exhibits devoted to unmasking the lies of evolution, will be no more. No longer will children be taught how dinosaurs walked the earth 6000 years ago. All because park's owners, Kent and Jo Hovind, owed the IRS just under half a million dollars in employee taxes.
According to the Pensacola News Journal:
[Kent Hovind] was found guilty in November 2006 on 58 counts, including failure to pay employee taxes and making threats against investigators. The conviction culminated 17 years of Hovind sparring with the IRS. Saying he was employed by God and his ministers were not subject to payroll taxes, he claimed no income or property.
huzzah!
keep it up, angry, ineffectual low iq losers on the right
but you meant to say "liver" instead of "kidney" everywhere in the third paragraph. the liver creates bile that empties into the gallbladder, not the kidneys
this argument was about driving under the influence of marijuana
"What I DONT agree with is using that reality as an argument against the full legalization of drugs as soft as marihuana."
no one is doing that. no one serious is doing that. no one you should take seriously is doing that. and no one is doing that in this thread. we have no disagreement
is because in modern life, we just don't get beat up that much
that is, early, more primitive man was probably getting the shit kicked out of him a lot, from the environment, and other humans. such that you needed a repository of monocytes at the ready for immediate damage repair a lot more often, as a survival advantage
civilized more sedentary life, meanwhile, with all of the medical support that affords, means we could not easily see why removing the spleen had any jeopardy attached to it
we can survive just fine, even without this organic built-in trauma preparedness kit, as long as we have trauma inpatient units at the hospital close by
Physiological Effects of Marijuana The active ingredient in pot is THC. That's short for delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol.
THC is rapidly absorbed after smoking a joint. Within minutes, THC and the other substances in marijuana smoke cause short-term medical effects.
Signs of using marijuana include:
rapid heart rate increased blood pressure increased rate of breathing red eyes dry mouth increased appetite, or "the munchies" slowed reaction time These effects are reduced after three or four hours. However, marijuana hangs around in your system for as long as 24 hours after smoking. The lingering effects mean you're impaired for several hours after the high wears off.
now tell me with a straight face this is someone you have no problem with getting behind the wheel of a car
is that enough of a real argument for you asswipe?
the ad hominem on my part comes from complete and utter zero respect for anyone who can't figure out the fucking blindingly obvious: no one should drive after taking marijuana. to think any differently is to have some combination of complete stupidity and complete delusion
how do you feel about people who believe obama was born in kenya? how do you feel about people who believe 9/11 was an inside job?
people who believe that driving under the influence of marijuana is ok fall into the exact same category in my mind: low iq and delusional
in other words, such a person is completely immune to your "real argument". they're trolls or their complete fucktards
its not baseless insults. its a sober and objective characterization of the quality of their minds: shit
i'm sorry if you are offended by my langaueg, but i believe in brutal honesty. and when if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, its a duck
if you believe marijuana doesn't impair your judgement enough that you shouldn't drive, you are complete and utter deluded moron
but the use of highly addictive drugs: cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, is such that the negatives on society because of the war on drugs is LESS than the negative effects of the drug use itself. with those highly addictive (and inebriating: nicotine is highly addcitive but doesn't inebriate, so you can still hold a job/ family life) drugs you get a much greater rate of irresponsible behavior as an inevitable result of the inevitable biochemical addiction. addiction to plenty of substances/ behavior is more due to psychology/ habituation. but some drugs feed directly into biological reward pathways no human is immune to, such that addiction is inescapable and inevitable. in other words, with the highly addictive/ highly inebriating drugs, you wind up with an impossibility for responsible behavior. it simply takes over and destroys your life
meanwhile, people who claim to use heroin/ coke/ meth and maintain a job/ family life are kind of like the guy who claims to drive 100 mph all the time and never get in an accident: yeah, wait until tomorrow
the arguments against marijuana are ignorant. marijuana's illegal status is a xenophobic legal hangover from the 1800s when it was loco weed used only by mexicans and the fieldhands needed to be more dependable (meanwhile, grandaddy was good proper irish/ german drunk: familiarity, therefore legality). there is no scientifically pharmacologically valid reason for marijuana to remain illegal, none whatsoever
however, the argument against cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin: these drugs are so biochemically addictive that they would do more damage to society than the war on drugs is doing damage to society
The main psychological effect of smoking pot is euphoria. Getting high or "stoned" is the reason most pot smokers use marijuana.
Other short-term psychological effects of pot include:
distorted sense of time paranoia magical or "random" thinking short-term memory loss anxiety and depression
These psychological signs of using pot also generally ease after a few hours. But residual effects can last through the next day.
it should 100% be illegal to drive while stoned. how anyone with the slightest bit of intellectual honesty could believe otherwise is completely beyond my understanding
where everything is legal unless explicitly stated otherwise
that doesn't make texting while driving right, and so the law is merely dragging behind technological change, and texting while driving will be illegal someday, and rightfully so
do you honestly want to fucking express anything different? how stupid do you want to appear?
i am not in any way off in this argument, in the least. you, apparently, on the in the other hand, are seemingly operating under two really fucking moronic assumptions:
1. marijuana doesn't impair driving 2. no one will ever be irresponsible and get behind the wheel while stoned, whether marijuana were legal or not
do you really think we need no road side tests for drugs? do you really believe that?
"This device isn't for finding drunk drivers, it's for filling our prisons with 'intoxicated' pot smokers and making the private prison complex, the court system, and the LE system richer"
yes, you apparently do. you're a deluded moron
make believe that the american system of justice is just a vast orwellian human processing machine for slave labor on arbitrary and illogical premises, in the worst recesses of your fear addled little mind
in such a world, people will still get stoned and kill innocents from behind the wheel! REGARDLESS OF LEGALITY
do you really believe otherwise? do you really?!
look, i'm being serious: it would help the marijuana legalization effort if complete morons like yourself were hogtied and hid in a basement until it is legalized. because when you open your mouth, you hurt the marijuana legalization effort. because you're an idiot
as someone who would like to marijuana legalized, please shut up, so marijuna will be legalized. the argument for legalization should proceed in logic and reason, and not be drowned about by the braying of complete retards like yourself on the issues
you have every right to express your political opinion. in a totalitarian society you don't, but the arguments for why you shouldn't express your political opinion, as expressed by totalitarian societies, are logically invalid upon examination
you do not have every right to use any drug you want. in a free and open democratic society, the pluses and minuses have been put up for debate, and it is found that those who use certian substances hurt society in myriad ways, far worse than any way laws against those drugs could hurt society. the reasons put forth for why you shouldn't use certain drugs are logically valid upon examination
you have to understand that every freedom, actual and theoretical, exists in tension with other people's freedoms. for example: freedom of expression. in most cases you should have it. but should you be free to shout fire in a crowded theatre? of course not, because you put other people's freedoms, namely, the right to live, in jeopardy. see? there is a natural logical reason to limit your freedom of expression, no fascist dystopian government need apply
there will ALWAYS be a limit on your freedoms, in EVERY society, real and theoretical. what you have to do is stop looking at every limit on your freedom as some sort of march of fascism. its intellectually dishonest of you. some limitations on your freedom are perfectly valid and completely logical and completely unlike your unfounded fears of some mythical march of fascism
in the minds of intellectual simpletons, the difference between an unfree society and an free society is the difference between george orwell and complete anarchy: ridiculous simplistic extremes
in REALITY, the difference between a free and unfree society is a CONTINUUM of RELATIVE limitations and guarantees on freedom, in which there will ALWAYS be some limitations that will ALWAYS exist out of simple logical and reason stemming from the undeniable fact that your freedoms exist in tension with other people's freedom
example: your right to listen to music as loud as you want. my right to get a good nights sleep
example: your right to drive as fast as you want. my right to live
example: your right to set off fire works. my right to not have my roof catch fire
etc., etc., etc.
please understand the issues surrounding innate freedoms more logically, and think of it less in terms of your unbridled fears of marching fascism
aside from huge expense and huge technical complication, the negatives of the three gorges dam are completely unlike the negatives of the large... hardon
it impairs less than alcohol, certainly, but it still IMPAIRS
do you honestly want to suggest otherwise and sound like a complete moron?
look, i'm being serious: it would help the marijuana legalization effort if complete morons like yourself were hogtied and hid in a basement until it is legalized. because when you open your mouth, you hurt the marijuana legalization effort, because you're an idiot
as someone who would like to marijuana legalized, please shut up
from marijuana, which is a no brainer it should be legal, to methamphetamine, which no one with a straight face could ever say should be legal
but lets pretend for a moment all drugs are legal
question: should you drive an automobile under the influence of drugs?
answer: obviously not
question: is everyone going to act responsibly with drugs?
answer: obviously not
question: is everyone going to refrain from operating an automobile while on drugs, regardless of whether they were all legal or all illegal?
answer: obviously not
question: should law enforcement officers just randomly guess if someone who is driving erratically is under the influence?
answer: obviously not
so what exactly is the problem you have with this testing device again?
because all i see in your words above is a giant red herring. i can hear battle hymn of the republic and ride of the valkyries while you go off on your holier-than-thou fire and brimstone speech about drugs and legality and absurdity, and you completely miss the whole fucking point of this testing device
this is the fucking point of the fucking testing device:
people don't act responsibly. your opinion about drugs and complete freedom to their access would be valid if everyone acted responsibly with drugs
but people don't act responsibly with drugs, and so they must be controlled, simply because it cuts down on pointless tragedies
you could counter that limiting people's freedoms is not a justifiable trade-off for making the world a safer place. and i agree with you, in general. but on a case-by-case basis, there are certain freedoms which aren't essential freedoms at all. freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of political opinion, etc: these are essential freedoms for the living of a complete life. but freedom to take drugs? not essential, and therefore completely valid for limitation and control
you could also counter that the tragedy i linked to wasn't prevented by drug laws. but i don't think the war on drugs will ever be won, and i don't think they will prevent every tragedy. they will just decimate the number of pointless tragedies we would see if access to certain drugs was unfettered. drug control is like taking the trash out every thursday at your house: a maintenance function of civilization, not a holy crusade that will ever achieve any victory. so to criticize the war on drugs in that fashion is to not understand the whole point of it in the first place. there is no war on drugs, really, bad description. there is just taking the trash out every week. and that never ends
and i also think marijuana should be completely legal, but do i want someone stoned driving? do YOU want someone stoned driving?
so give your law enforcement personnel the tools to combat this behavior, and get off your holier-than-thou rant that assumes ridiculous notions about human behavior. your ridiculous notion: that we all act responsibly with drug use
as a matter of unchanging ironclad fact of human nature, there will always be people who use drugs irresponsibly, like get behind the wheel stoned or drunk, and such people need to be monitored, controlled, and punished
the setbacks are part and parcel of such a complicated effort
keep up the hard work, you are broadening mankind's knowledge, the expense and the hard work are as valid an endeavour as any other that can be proposed
Slashdot Mirror
so the chemistry there couldn't get very complex
so its most probably dead
now the triple point of ammonia on the other hand...
but i wonder if anyone has made a study of this:
fruitful pressure/ temperature triple points to look for
for example, earth is the right temperature/ pressure for water to be a gas/ solid/ liquid all over
this allows for complex thermodynamic interflow and mixing and dynamicism, which can lead to life
additionally, water is polar, so unlike methane, for example, chemical interactions can be even more complex
additionally, water is a very common chemical in the universe
so what i'm getting at: other fruitful triple points out there of common, polar chemicals for us to look for?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_point
for example one that comes to mind: ammonia. common, polar
but not carbon dioxide (not polar, so no complex chemistry probably)
and howabout something very exotic and improbable but imagination grabbing: say a possible life-evolving chemistry on a planet based on the complex interplay of liquid/ solid/ gaseous heavy metals
what i'm getting at: we should classify these triple points, based on elemental abundance/ observed concentrating trends in certain plantary belts, and look for these triple points specifically, to maximize our ability to find life
is you don't actually read any of my posts
you kind of sorta figure out the gist of where i am going, and then you shoehorn me into certain stereotypical ways of thinking
you then deduce the most ridiculous implication of the most absurd corner of thoughts from what i am saying
and then you react to that, as if i had said that, or stood for it, or even was remotely talking about that
you need to actually read and listen to people
you don't do that. you shoehorn people into stereotypical bogeymen that only exist in your head
i probably believe about 2% of what you think i believe
which should be obvious to any slashdot reader:
fusion power from sticky tape!
(give me funding)
the national faces of the right now appear to be somewhere between rush limbaugh, dick cheney, and sarah palin, all 3 with obvious problems appealing to anyone besides screeching rightards
then we have the birthers and their paranoid schizophrenic thinly veiled racism. dividing, discouraging and polarizing the right wing base, so wacky they make 9/11 truthers look levelheaded
and now the principle propaganda wing of the right is committing fiscal suicide because the boss is so old and venal and out of touch with the reality of modern media
seriously, can it get any better?
i am really quite amazed at how fast the right wing has imploded after the presidential election
buffoons and absurdities, all that seems to be on the landscape on the right right now. hilarious and wonderful. i'm actually looking forward to the next act of seppuku on the right
oh look, here it is!:
huzzah!
keep it up, angry, ineffectual low iq losers on the right
all the news is cheer nowadays
enjoy your march into the sunset
but you meant to say "liver" instead of "kidney" everywhere in the third paragraph. the liver creates bile that empties into the gallbladder, not the kidneys
this argument was about driving under the influence of marijuana
"What I DONT agree with is using that reality as an argument against the full legalization of drugs as soft as marihuana."
no one is doing that. no one serious is doing that. no one you should take seriously is doing that. and no one is doing that in this thread. we have no disagreement
is because in modern life, we just don't get beat up that much
that is, early, more primitive man was probably getting the shit kicked out of him a lot, from the environment, and other humans. such that you needed a repository of monocytes at the ready for immediate damage repair a lot more often, as a survival advantage
civilized more sedentary life, meanwhile, with all of the medical support that affords, means we could not easily see why removing the spleen had any jeopardy attached to it
we can survive just fine, even without this organic built-in trauma preparedness kit, as long as we have trauma inpatient units at the hospital close by
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/marijuana-use-and-its-effects
now tell me with a straight face this is someone you have no problem with getting behind the wheel of a car
is that enough of a real argument for you asswipe?
the ad hominem on my part comes from complete and utter zero respect for anyone who can't figure out the fucking blindingly obvious: no one should drive after taking marijuana. to think any differently is to have some combination of complete stupidity and complete delusion
how do you feel about people who believe obama was born in kenya? how do you feel about people who believe 9/11 was an inside job?
people who believe that driving under the influence of marijuana is ok fall into the exact same category in my mind: low iq and delusional
in other words, such a person is completely immune to your "real argument". they're trolls or their complete fucktards
its not baseless insults. its a sober and objective characterization of the quality of their minds: shit
i'm sorry if you are offended by my langaueg, but i believe in brutal honesty. and when if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, its a duck
if you believe marijuana doesn't impair your judgement enough that you shouldn't drive, you are complete and utter deluded moron
not a baseless insult
motherfucking objective fact
but the use of highly addictive drugs: cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, is such that the negatives on society because of the war on drugs is LESS than the negative effects of the drug use itself. with those highly addictive (and inebriating: nicotine is highly addcitive but doesn't inebriate, so you can still hold a job/ family life) drugs you get a much greater rate of irresponsible behavior as an inevitable result of the inevitable biochemical addiction. addiction to plenty of substances/ behavior is more due to psychology/ habituation. but some drugs feed directly into biological reward pathways no human is immune to, such that addiction is inescapable and inevitable. in other words, with the highly addictive/ highly inebriating drugs, you wind up with an impossibility for responsible behavior. it simply takes over and destroys your life
meanwhile, people who claim to use heroin/ coke/ meth and maintain a job/ family life are kind of like the guy who claims to drive 100 mph all the time and never get in an accident: yeah, wait until tomorrow
the arguments against marijuana are ignorant. marijuana's illegal status is a xenophobic legal hangover from the 1800s when it was loco weed used only by mexicans and the fieldhands needed to be more dependable (meanwhile, grandaddy was good proper irish/ german drunk: familiarity, therefore legality). there is no scientifically pharmacologically valid reason for marijuana to remain illegal, none whatsoever
however, the argument against cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin: these drugs are so biochemically addictive that they would do more damage to society than the war on drugs is doing damage to society
but it does impair
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/marijuana-use-and-its-effects
it should 100% be illegal to drive while stoned. how anyone with the slightest bit of intellectual honesty could believe otherwise is completely beyond my understanding
9/11 was an inside job
obama was born in kenya
anazing completely retarded "facts" i've learned from complete fucking morons on teh intarwebs
you seriously don't believe marijuana impairs driving?
you are a genuine ignorant piece of shit, you know that?
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/marijuana-use-and-its-effects
you are an irresponsible loser
please educate yourself about the blindingly fucking obvious before you hurt someone, including yourself, please, you piece of shit twatstain
where everything is legal unless explicitly stated otherwise
that doesn't make texting while driving right, and so the law is merely dragging behind technological change, and texting while driving will be illegal someday, and rightfully so
oh yeah, there you go:
http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/Politics/story?id=8246302&page=1
marijuana impairs driving far less than alcohol. marijuana still IMPAIRS driving
http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_driving.shtml
do you honestly want to fucking express anything different? how stupid do you want to appear?
i am not in any way off in this argument, in the least. you, apparently, on the in the other hand, are seemingly operating under two really fucking moronic assumptions:
1. marijuana doesn't impair driving
2. no one will ever be irresponsible and get behind the wheel while stoned, whether marijuana were legal or not
do you really think we need no road side tests for drugs? do you really believe that?
"This device isn't for finding drunk drivers, it's for filling our prisons with 'intoxicated' pot smokers and making the private prison complex, the court system, and the LE system richer"
yes, you apparently do. you're a deluded moron
make believe that the american system of justice is just a vast orwellian human processing machine for slave labor on arbitrary and illogical premises, in the worst recesses of your fear addled little mind
in such a world, people will still get stoned and kill innocents from behind the wheel! REGARDLESS OF LEGALITY
do you really believe otherwise? do you really?!
look, i'm being serious: it would help the marijuana legalization effort if complete morons like yourself were hogtied and hid in a basement until it is legalized. because when you open your mouth, you hurt the marijuana legalization effort. because you're an idiot
as someone who would like to marijuana legalized, please shut up, so marijuna will be legalized. the argument for legalization should proceed in logic and reason, and not be drowned about by the braying of complete retards like yourself on the issues
you have every right to express your political opinion. in a totalitarian society you don't, but the arguments for why you shouldn't express your political opinion, as expressed by totalitarian societies, are logically invalid upon examination
you do not have every right to use any drug you want. in a free and open democratic society, the pluses and minuses have been put up for debate, and it is found that those who use certian substances hurt society in myriad ways, far worse than any way laws against those drugs could hurt society. the reasons put forth for why you shouldn't use certain drugs are logically valid upon examination
you have to understand that every freedom, actual and theoretical, exists in tension with other people's freedoms. for example: freedom of expression. in most cases you should have it. but should you be free to shout fire in a crowded theatre? of course not, because you put other people's freedoms, namely, the right to live, in jeopardy. see? there is a natural logical reason to limit your freedom of expression, no fascist dystopian government need apply
there will ALWAYS be a limit on your freedoms, in EVERY society, real and theoretical. what you have to do is stop looking at every limit on your freedom as some sort of march of fascism. its intellectually dishonest of you. some limitations on your freedom are perfectly valid and completely logical and completely unlike your unfounded fears of some mythical march of fascism
in the minds of intellectual simpletons, the difference between an unfree society and an free society is the difference between george orwell and complete anarchy: ridiculous simplistic extremes
in REALITY, the difference between a free and unfree society is a CONTINUUM of RELATIVE limitations and guarantees on freedom, in which there will ALWAYS be some limitations that will ALWAYS exist out of simple logical and reason stemming from the undeniable fact that your freedoms exist in tension with other people's freedom
example: your right to listen to music as loud as you want. my right to get a good nights sleep
example: your right to drive as fast as you want. my right to live
example: your right to set off fire works. my right to not have my roof catch fire
etc., etc., etc.
please understand the issues surrounding innate freedoms more logically, and think of it less in terms of your unbridled fears of marching fascism
aside from huge expense and huge technical complication, the negatives of the three gorges dam are completely unlike the negatives of the large... hardon
marijuana obviously impairs judgment
you should not drive while stoned
it impairs less than alcohol, certainly, but it still IMPAIRS
do you honestly want to suggest otherwise and sound like a complete moron?
look, i'm being serious: it would help the marijuana legalization effort if complete morons like yourself were hogtied and hid in a basement until it is legalized. because when you open your mouth, you hurt the marijuana legalization effort, because you're an idiot
as someone who would like to marijuana legalized, please shut up
http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_driving.shtml
from marijuana, which is a no brainer it should be legal, to methamphetamine, which no one with a straight face could ever say should be legal
but lets pretend for a moment all drugs are legal
question: should you drive an automobile under the influence of drugs?
answer: obviously not
question: is everyone going to act responsibly with drugs?
answer: obviously not
question: is everyone going to refrain from operating an automobile while on drugs, regardless of whether they were all legal or all illegal?
answer: obviously not
question: should law enforcement officers just randomly guess if someone who is driving erratically is under the influence?
answer: obviously not
so what exactly is the problem you have with this testing device again?
because all i see in your words above is a giant red herring. i can hear battle hymn of the republic and ride of the valkyries while you go off on your holier-than-thou fire and brimstone speech about drugs and legality and absurdity, and you completely miss the whole fucking point of this testing device
this is the fucking point of the fucking testing device:
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20090804/NEWS/90804012/Wrong-way-Taconic-crash--Driver-Schuler-was-drunk&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL
try to understand what is really at stake here next time you want to puff up your chest and wax poetic please
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20090804/NEWS/90804012/Wrong-way-Taconic-crash--Driver-Schuler-was-drunk&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL
people don't act responsibly. your opinion about drugs and complete freedom to their access would be valid if everyone acted responsibly with drugs
but people don't act responsibly with drugs, and so they must be controlled, simply because it cuts down on pointless tragedies
you could counter that limiting people's freedoms is not a justifiable trade-off for making the world a safer place. and i agree with you, in general. but on a case-by-case basis, there are certain freedoms which aren't essential freedoms at all. freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of political opinion, etc: these are essential freedoms for the living of a complete life. but freedom to take drugs? not essential, and therefore completely valid for limitation and control
you could also counter that the tragedy i linked to wasn't prevented by drug laws. but i don't think the war on drugs will ever be won, and i don't think they will prevent every tragedy. they will just decimate the number of pointless tragedies we would see if access to certain drugs was unfettered. drug control is like taking the trash out every thursday at your house: a maintenance function of civilization, not a holy crusade that will ever achieve any victory. so to criticize the war on drugs in that fashion is to not understand the whole point of it in the first place. there is no war on drugs, really, bad description. there is just taking the trash out every week. and that never ends
and i also think marijuana should be completely legal, but do i want someone stoned driving? do YOU want someone stoned driving?
so give your law enforcement personnel the tools to combat this behavior, and get off your holier-than-thou rant that assumes ridiculous notions about human behavior. your ridiculous notion: that we all act responsibly with drug use
as a matter of unchanging ironclad fact of human nature, there will always be people who use drugs irresponsibly, like get behind the wheel stoned or drunk, and such people need to be monitored, controlled, and punished
do you honestly believe there is any other way?
is also usually hard to do
the setbacks are part and parcel of such a complicated effort
keep up the hard work, you are broadening mankind's knowledge, the expense and the hard work are as valid an endeavour as any other that can be proposed
1. you get a tingly feeling every time you sit on the toilet, and its not from your feet falling asleep
2. if your septic tank overflows you're in danger of electrocuting the family dog
3. you also have to be careful where you piss, or you'll know what its like to urinate on the third rail of light rail system
1. technology that enables mankind to do things that weren't possible before
2. technology that enables mankind to do less and become gelatinous balls of jelly
the car is #1, the segway is #2
now they all have abandonware/ vaporware
mmm... block island
salt water taffy, clams, lobster...
http://www.blockislandguide.com/cuisine.html
sorry, its 11:52 am right now on the east coast
time to go to lunch i think