"By simply dividing the savings in dollars by the number of deaths, we derive a current value for an American life at about $1.2 million. That is far less than previous estimates, but now we know at least what McConnell and Senate Republicans believe a life is worth. And we can use this information for other important budgetary issues. "
Here's an overview of the value of human life for australia, russia, the united states, and new zealand.
It's below minimum wage for many jobs. It's about $125 a week a month for manufacturing jobs.
Why are the chinese hiring humans? They are still cheaper than robots.
Plus chinese workers are often injured on the job (often permanently) because their safety standards for working with chemicals is still worse. In part, because life is still worth less in china. In the U.S. republicans appear to value human lives at about 1.2 million (based on the regulations they pass). democrats and the courts appear to value human life at about $8 million (based on the regulations and laws they pass and court judgements.)
I think the first is too low (it used to be 2 million) and the second is too high. It used to be about 2 million-- I expected it to be about 3-4 million when I researched this post.
In china, it looks to be about $5,000 to $10,000 currently tho it is more expensive if the person lives but is injured/crippled.
The price is not set based on costs but on what the market will pay.
For some items like life saving drugs we can argue that if people are dying then we are not going to allow you to charge that much for the drug since you are benefiting from the existing market, police, and legal system to protect your business (especially from people who could copy your drugs for pennies.)
The market in this case is not responsive to ordinary citizens at all. It's highly responsive to the rich and powerful.
Part of the reason the government makes it so hard to get new drugs on the market is due to the influence of the wealthy and the powerful.
We have evidence from about 1 billion people in 26 other first world nations that a more socialist approach which is more responsive to citizens than a few wealthy corporate owners is much less expensive (30-40% the cost) with better outcomes (higher infant and adult mortality).
I've had a complete failure of my gut three times in my life. The first took months to recover naturally. The other two, I recognized and bought a bottle of "yellow" and "purple" gut bacteria, and contrary to the labels simply took one of each capsule type (they wanted you to take one daily). I recovered within 48 hours after taking the pills on those two occasions.
So for me- it worked very well on two occasions.
I do not consume pro-biotics on a regular basis tho I do eat yogurt about 30 days a year just for the flavor, not for the health benefits.
I've read they make about $35k to $50k recycling one windmill. That helps to reduce the $150k to $200k cost of removing one. The cost of removing one is already well understood standard demolition. You should be able to find the article if you google windmill recycling.
You do need to force the companies to escrow money out of profits along the way which many municipalities do these days.
What you are saying is totally plausible. If no escrow was done, then the windmill owners took the profits and walked away leaving something that costs more to take down than it will yield to recycle.
However, a well written contract ensures that the windmill operator makes a profit *and* escrows the cost of recycling it on an annual basis. Often enough that after demolition, the windmill operator gets some cash back.
Brinstonâ"While some critics of wind turbines howl that the cost of the eventual teardown of a turbine is astronomical, the actual cost today would be $30,000 to $100,000, per turbine.
The bigger issue is, who is going to pay for it.
Municipalities are on the hook to ensure companies tear down or, in industry jargon, decommission a turbine, unless theyâ(TM)ve got a binding agreement with the wind power company. Some municipalities demand from wind turbine companies ongoing payments into protected (or escrow) accounts or bonds to set money aside annually to pay for decommissioning.
Some municipalities require a letter of intent from wind turbine companies to ensure they will be responsible for decommissioning. Some municipalities have no agreement at all, including Wolfe Island, said its mayor, Denis Doyle. TransAlta communications manager Stacey Hatcher said the decommissioning plans are between the company and the landowner and because of that, the info is confidential. [See editorâ(TM)s note #1]
The 86 turbines on Wolfe Island, on the St. Lawrence River at Kingston, were built by Canadian Hydro Developers, later purchased by Trans Alta and there is no bond or escrow account in place. The company does, however, reimburse the island about $100,000 per year for hosting the project. Based on current decommissioning projects around the world, it can cost $30,000 to $10,000 [sic] to dispose of a turbine. If it were to cost $50,000 to remove each turbine on Wolfe Island, it would cost $4.3 million to remove them all. Of course, that price goes up over time. [See Editorâ(TM)s note #2] Hatcher said the company plans to repower or recontract when they [sic] current contracts are up.
There are 10 three-megawatt wind turbines at Brinston, between Kemptville and Winchester, and the power company ProWind [see Editorâ(TM)s note #3] pays $1,000 per megawatt per year over the next 20 years into an escrow account that will rack up $600,000 to pay for decommissioning. [Editorâ(TM)s note #4]
Please understand... I'm not a fan of wind or solar or etc. particularly.
Wind, solar, etc. business people are going to present them as perfect and then do everything they can to externalize their costs just like every other group of business people. For example, big oil externalizes the cost of security... it didn't pay two *trillion* dollars to protect it's oil fields in the middle east. Coal *doesn't* pay the cost of it's pollution cleanup (including huge mercury pollution plumes stretching close to a hundred miles downwind from the older plants which were only finally forced to comply with the anti pollution laws in 2015- previously being grandfathered).
Solar is *may* have problems with nano pollution and leaching of toxic metals.
Wind may alter local climates as it extracts energy that would have driven weather.
Nuclear has a problem with it's radioactive waste. The main problem with nuclear is that humans are greedy and stupid.
The underlying problem is *too* *many* *people*. Seriously-- it's like the frog in the boiling water. It gets worse every year- they are talking about having to eat insects- many activities open to everyone are now mostly only open to the super-wealthy (because 7 billion people can't go to disneyworld or Steamboat Ski Resort so willingness to pay $300 a day for disney land complete with "cut in line" privileges or $300 a day to ski at Steamboat becomes the way we decide who gets to enjoy that leisure activity).
But that said- short of something breaking (ala club of rome's "limits to growth" (which were NOT JUST FOOD and POLLUTION. SHEESH! There were many limits to growth) or Calhoun's rat universe experiments (which may be playing out in the higher population density areas already with human "beautiful ones" becoming more common), we are going to need more power.
You also need to figure in *actual* decommissioning costs.
Wind turbines are highly recyclable and have well understood decommissioning costs so the money can be put in escrow.
Nuclear plants have cost up to two orders of magnitude more than originally estimated to decommission. And the result is a surcharge on current consumers for plants no longer in operation as well as flat out support by the tax payers ala Diablo Canyon. The decomissioning costs are *still* not well understood after decades and do *not* include the roughly $8 million dollar per year cost of providing security for just one nuclear plants waste. That's currently projected to continue for well over a 100 years. Broken turbines are not useful to make dirty bombs and dirty radiation terror weapons.
Short of entombment (which is kicking the can down the road for a future generation as the concrete rots from radiation), it's just very expensive to take a part a nuclear plant because so much of it has become radioactive.
Plus... Big Nuclear plants require lots of relatively cool water and don't work well during droughts.
The biggest problem is *humans*. They *always* eventually get careless, cut costs, make mistakes. And you just can't afford to take those risks with nuclear power. It's even worse with "profit motive" private companies but the government is bad enough.
I was unaware that everyone within 25 miles downwind of the downed turbine was evacuated, a plume of wind turbine pollution stretched all the way to the united states, and cleaning up the downed wind turbine was going to be 20 trillion yen ($180 billion dollars, £142 billion pounds) and was the root cause of 573 deaths.
Capitalism can be immoral. There's not an issue with having somewhat higher prices. The issue is having high prices for a captive market. Usually from a monopoly or duopoly.
Say you can dance. And you want $50 an hour.
Is it moral for everyone else to say, "Nope $10 is fair and you *must* dance 40 hours a week to entertain us as long as it doesn't hurt you physically"? I don't think so- that's a form of slavery which is also immoral.
Capitalism breaks down when individual actors get too big. As long as you have 10 people competing then some will overcharge and some will undercharge. Once you get to one to three people, then capitalism often breaks down.
OTH, if some idiot wants to pay $750 to see a concert from the front row middle seat or a basketball game from half court center, I don't think it's moral to stop them.
There is truth in what you are saying but it's also simplistic. i get that- it's the internet. I hope that in real life you are a little more nuanced and realistic tho.
I agree. eBooks are a pure cash grab. An example of, "Charging as much as the market will pay" rather than charging a "reasonable profit".
Meanwhile, editing has gone to crap for books with terrible grammar and spelling errors increasingly common.
One caveat, I do understand that the publisher *may* (and I do mean *may*) pay for some duds where they lose money and those losses have to be covered by the hits or else the publisher goes out of business. But book prices are too high.
When I was making about $5 an hour, books were $1.25. Today, eBooks cost close to a full hour of work at minimum wage.
Yes of course supply and demand applies unless you have a monopoly.
It's why I use an opensource stack on Windows and when windows goes to a subscription based operating system where they are the owners, I'll go to linux 100%. I may go sooner than that actually.
I *OWN* my computer damn it.
So while I have a bright shiny Windows 2010 full Office install DVD, it sits unopened and i use Libreoffice writer, calc, etc. And Gimp. And Audacity, VLC.
Anyone who would like to recommend any other good open source cheap/free software let me know.
I don't mind paying a couple bucks but I want to *own* the thing. Not *rent* it.
Once you start renting it, they can raise the price any time they want. They can delete content (ala Amazon) anytime they want.
it's hard to say... they use "obese" and "overweight".
And the standard for that changes constantly.
Like for diabetes, 10 years ago 125 was "pre diabetic". Now it's "diabetic". Like for "binge" drinking. Having 5 drinks in 5 hours is "binge" drinking. "Binge" sounds horrible... but 5 drinks in 5 hours would not even give you a buzz.
As an actual geek, they "caricatures" of geeks presented ring extremely true with geeks as of when the show started. Perhaps geek culture has changed.
There were so many moments in the show where I and my friends would laugh at with self recognition. Geeky arguments, arrogance combined with shyness, and so on.
It's also possible culture has changed. Folks are a lot less easy going than 12 years ago. They find offense in everything. Not just geeks either.
And it's possible the growth of the women into full characters divided the screen time below that of the main audience. I don't know the demographics of BBT but if it was 90% geeky males, they might have drifted off as their favorites lost screen time. I like Leonard the most. I don't think he gets as much screen time as he used to.
I don't get the nerd/geek hate I see lately. It was a fabulous show with wonderful references to science and geek culture. But people get used to something and then expect more.
I watched it about 9 seasons. But it got overly focused on Sheldon who was better as a spice than a main course.
I find nothing implausible about geeks living together and sharing a place. I have two nerdy friends who share a house at 50. If you don't marry, it becomes a decent option if today's irregular and insecure job market . People shared houses until the 70s quite often. It's *EXPENSIVE* to live on your own. I can only do it because I was successful and also got lucky in the timing of the housing market.
Anyway, it was a good show. It focused a bit too much on sheldon so I stopped watching it. I guess some other folks don't like it because the characters grew up into adults, got married, had kids, etc.
(Pure alcohol consumption among persons (age 15+) in liters per capita per year, 2010) Japan averages 7.2 liters of pure alcohol per 15+ citizen per year. Ireland averages over 11 liters of pure alcohol per age 15+ citizen per year.
France is also high on lifespan and alcohol consumption. Italy isn't bad either.
Alcohol is pretty bad on it's own in terms of killing you by having too much too often.
But, prohibiting alcohol has been found to be terribly destructive to people, property, and incredibly corruptive to law enforcement officers, judges, and congressional representatives (as well as governors).
Prohibiting drugs has produced huge numbers of murders.
I ask because one of the challenges with pot enforcement is that tests show it in your system for weeks.
Testing positive for drinking alcohol or smoking booze even the day before is meaningless. (for the nitpickers- let's specify 24 hours). If you could get enough in your system to still be intoxicated 24 hours later- you'd be dead from booze. I'm not sure it's possible with pot either tho few die from pot use.
You do not need to vaporize or atomize pot to consume it. It's easy to cook with. Colorado has a major edibles market with well controlled dosing. The carbs are more of a problem than the various cannabinoids.
Slashdot Mirror
I did *one* google search and found multiple sources.
Your google fu apparently sucks or you are in a terrible info bubble.
Here is my search term: "republicans regulations 1.2 million dollars value of human life"
https://morningconsult.com/opi...
"By simply dividing the savings in dollars by the number of deaths, we derive a current value for an American life at about $1.2 million. That is far less than previous estimates, but now we know at least what McConnell and Senate Republicans believe a life is worth. And we can use this information for other important budgetary issues. "
Here's an overview of the value of human life for australia, russia, the united states, and new zealand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Russia is low at $40,000 to $2 million.
I expect China will be similar to russia only lower on the low end and higher for party members.
It's below minimum wage for many jobs. It's about $125 a week a month for manufacturing jobs.
Why are the chinese hiring humans? They are still cheaper than robots.
Plus chinese workers are often injured on the job (often permanently) because their safety standards for working with chemicals is still worse. In part, because life is still worth less in china. In the U.S. republicans appear to value human lives at about 1.2 million (based on the regulations they pass). democrats and the courts appear to value human life at about $8 million (based on the regulations and laws they pass and court judgements.)
I think the first is too low (it used to be 2 million) and the second is too high. It used to be about 2 million-- I expected it to be about 3-4 million when I researched this post.
In china, it looks to be about $5,000 to $10,000 currently tho it is more expensive if the person lives but is injured/crippled.
The price is not set based on costs but on what the market will pay.
For some items like life saving drugs we can argue that if people are dying then we are not going to allow you to charge that much for the drug since you are benefiting from the existing market, police, and legal system to protect your business (especially from people who could copy your drugs for pennies.)
I'll be staying at a beachhouse in october.
Use of the complex pier to fish is extra. I can fish from the shore for free.
Tiered pricing has been a thing for two generations. I don' t know why people are pretending they never heard of it now.
ah the good old days.
Don't give them ideas. Luggage used to be free too. And sodas. And full leg room (which is now "premium" leg room).
The government is weakly responsive to voters.
The market in this case is not responsive to ordinary citizens at all. It's highly responsive to the rich and powerful.
Part of the reason the government makes it so hard to get new drugs on the market is due to the influence of the wealthy and the powerful.
We have evidence from about 1 billion people in 26 other first world nations that a more socialist approach which is more responsive to citizens than a few wealthy corporate owners is much less expensive (30-40% the cost) with better outcomes (higher infant and adult mortality).
I've had a complete failure of my gut three times in my life. The first took months to recover naturally. The other two, I recognized and bought a bottle of "yellow" and "purple" gut bacteria, and contrary to the labels simply took one of each capsule type (they wanted you to take one daily). I recovered within 48 hours after taking the pills on those two occasions.
So for me- it worked very well on two occasions.
I do not consume pro-biotics on a regular basis tho I do eat yogurt about 30 days a year just for the flavor, not for the health benefits.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Mahatma Gandhi
This field is moving so fast compared to the 90s.
I've read they make about $35k to $50k recycling one windmill. That helps to reduce the $150k to $200k cost of removing one. The cost of removing one is already well understood standard demolition. You should be able to find the article if you google windmill recycling.
You do need to force the companies to escrow money out of profits along the way which many municipalities do these days.
What you are saying is totally plausible. If no escrow was done, then the windmill owners took the profits and walked away leaving something that costs more to take down than it will yield to recycle.
However, a well written contract ensures that the windmill operator makes a profit *and* escrows the cost of recycling it on an annual basis. Often enough that after demolition, the windmill operator gets some cash back.
Not at all.
One of the biggest challenges of a decision to evacuate people is that evacuating people will also result in deaths.
Here's the full report.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
However, it doesn't cause the suicides among those whose lives were disrupted.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/n...
Mercury poisoning from burning coal doesn't immediately or outright kill you.
If you look at my other thread, you'll see that I'm cool with Nuclear in limited circumstances.
The implication that nuclear is safer and less expensive than wind power is equally absurd. It's not telling the entire story.
https://ottawawindconcerns.com...
Brinstonâ"While some critics of wind turbines howl that the cost of the eventual teardown of a turbine is astronomical, the actual cost today would be $30,000 to $100,000, per turbine.
The bigger issue is, who is going to pay for it.
Municipalities are on the hook to ensure companies tear down or, in industry jargon, decommission a turbine, unless theyâ(TM)ve got a binding agreement with the wind power company. Some municipalities demand from wind turbine companies ongoing payments into protected (or escrow) accounts or bonds to set money aside annually to pay for decommissioning.
Some municipalities require a letter of intent from wind turbine companies to ensure they will be responsible for decommissioning. Some municipalities have no agreement at all, including Wolfe Island, said its mayor, Denis Doyle. TransAlta communications manager Stacey Hatcher said the decommissioning plans are between the company and the landowner and because of that, the info is confidential. [See editorâ(TM)s note #1]
The 86 turbines on Wolfe Island, on the St. Lawrence River at Kingston, were built by Canadian Hydro Developers, later purchased by Trans Alta and there is no bond or escrow account in place. The company does, however, reimburse the island about $100,000 per year for hosting the project. Based on current decommissioning projects around the world, it can cost $30,000 to $10,000 [sic] to dispose of a turbine. If it were to cost $50,000 to remove each turbine on Wolfe Island, it would cost $4.3 million to remove them all. Of course, that price goes up over time. [See Editorâ(TM)s note #2] Hatcher said the company plans to repower or recontract when they [sic] current contracts are up.
There are 10 three-megawatt wind turbines at Brinston, between Kemptville and Winchester, and the power company ProWind [see Editorâ(TM)s note #3] pays $1,000 per megawatt per year over the next 20 years into an escrow account that will rack up $600,000 to pay for decommissioning. [Editorâ(TM)s note #4]
Please understand... I'm not a fan of wind or solar or etc. particularly.
Wind, solar, etc. business people are going to present them as perfect and then do everything they can to externalize their costs just like every other group of business people. For example, big oil externalizes the cost of security... it didn't pay two *trillion* dollars to protect it's oil fields in the middle east. Coal *doesn't* pay the cost of it's pollution cleanup (including huge mercury pollution plumes stretching close to a hundred miles downwind from the older plants which were only finally forced to comply with the anti pollution laws in 2015- previously being grandfathered).
Solar is *may* have problems with nano pollution and leaching of toxic metals.
Wind may alter local climates as it extracts energy that would have driven weather.
Nuclear has a problem with it's radioactive waste. The main problem with nuclear is that humans are greedy and stupid.
The underlying problem is *too* *many* *people*. Seriously-- it's like the frog in the boiling water. It gets worse every year- they are talking about having to eat insects- many activities open to everyone are now mostly only open to the super-wealthy (because 7 billion people can't go to disneyworld or Steamboat Ski Resort so willingness to pay $300 a day for disney land complete with "cut in line" privileges or $300 a day to ski at Steamboat becomes the way we decide who gets to enjoy that leisure activity).
But that said- short of something breaking (ala club of rome's "limits to growth" (which were NOT JUST FOOD and POLLUTION. SHEESH! There were many limits to growth) or Calhoun's rat universe experiments (which may be playing out in the higher population density areas already with human "beautiful ones" becoming more common), we are going to need more power.
You also need to figure in *actual* decommissioning costs.
Wind turbines are highly recyclable and have well understood decommissioning costs so the money can be put in escrow.
Nuclear plants have cost up to two orders of magnitude more than originally estimated to decommission. And the result is a surcharge on current consumers for plants no longer in operation as well as flat out support by the tax payers ala Diablo Canyon. The decomissioning costs are *still* not well understood after decades and do *not* include the roughly $8 million dollar per year cost of providing security for just one nuclear plants waste. That's currently projected to continue for well over a 100 years. Broken turbines are not useful to make dirty bombs and dirty radiation terror weapons.
Short of entombment (which is kicking the can down the road for a future generation as the concrete rots from radiation), it's just very expensive to take a part a nuclear plant because so much of it has become radioactive.
Plus... Big Nuclear plants require lots of relatively cool water and don't work well during droughts.
The biggest problem is *humans*. They *always* eventually get careless, cut costs, make mistakes. And you just can't afford to take those risks with nuclear power. It's even worse with "profit motive" private companies but the government is bad enough.
I was unaware that everyone within 25 miles downwind of the downed turbine was evacuated, a plume of wind turbine pollution stretched all the way to the united states, and cleaning up the downed wind turbine was going to be 20 trillion yen ($180 billion dollars, £142 billion pounds) and was the root cause of 573 deaths.
So wow- worse than Fukishima!
Capitalism can be immoral. There's not an issue with having somewhat higher prices. The issue is having high prices for a captive market.
Usually from a monopoly or duopoly.
Say you can dance. And you want $50 an hour.
Is it moral for everyone else to say, "Nope $10 is fair and you *must* dance 40 hours a week to entertain us as long as it doesn't hurt you physically"? I don't think so- that's a form of slavery which is also immoral.
Capitalism breaks down when individual actors get too big. As long as you have 10 people competing then some will overcharge and some will undercharge. Once you get to one to three people, then capitalism often breaks down.
OTH, if some idiot wants to pay $750 to see a concert from the front row middle seat or a basketball game from half court center, I don't think it's moral to stop them.
There is truth in what you are saying but it's also simplistic. i get that- it's the internet. I hope that in real life you are a little more nuanced and realistic tho.
I agree. eBooks are a pure cash grab. An example of, "Charging as much as the market will pay" rather than charging a "reasonable profit".
Meanwhile, editing has gone to crap for books with terrible grammar and spelling errors increasingly common.
One caveat, I do understand that the publisher *may* (and I do mean *may*) pay for some duds where they lose money and those losses have to be covered by the hits or else the publisher goes out of business. But book prices are too high.
When I was making about $5 an hour, books were $1.25. Today, eBooks cost close to a full hour of work at minimum wage.
Yes of course supply and demand applies unless you have a monopoly.
It's why I use an opensource stack on Windows and when windows goes to a subscription based operating system where they are the owners, I'll go to linux 100%. I may go sooner than that actually.
I *OWN* my computer damn it.
So while I have a bright shiny Windows 2010 full Office install DVD, it sits unopened and i use Libreoffice writer, calc, etc. And Gimp. And Audacity, VLC.
Anyone who would like to recommend any other good open source cheap/free software let me know.
I don't mind paying a couple bucks but I want to *own* the thing. Not *rent* it.
Once you start renting it, they can raise the price any time they want. They can delete content (ala Amazon) anytime they want.
it's hard to say... they use "obese" and "overweight".
And the standard for that changes constantly.
Like for diabetes, 10 years ago 125 was "pre diabetic". Now it's "diabetic".
Like for "binge" drinking. Having 5 drinks in 5 hours is "binge" drinking. "Binge" sounds horrible... but 5 drinks in 5 hours would not even give you a buzz.
As an actual geek, they "caricatures" of geeks presented ring extremely true with geeks as of when the show started. Perhaps geek culture has changed.
There were so many moments in the show where I and my friends would laugh at with self recognition. Geeky arguments, arrogance combined with shyness, and so on.
It's also possible culture has changed. Folks are a lot less easy going than 12 years ago. They find offense in everything. Not just geeks either.
And it's possible the growth of the women into full characters divided the screen time below that of the main audience. I don't know the demographics of BBT but if it was 90% geeky males, they might have drifted off as their favorites lost screen time. I like Leonard the most. I don't think he gets as much screen time as he used to.
I don't get the nerd/geek hate I see lately. It was a fabulous show with wonderful references to science and geek culture. But people get used to something and then expect more.
I watched it about 9 seasons. But it got overly focused on Sheldon who was better as a spice than a main course.
I find nothing implausible about geeks living together and sharing a place. I have two nerdy friends who share a house at 50. If you don't marry, it becomes a decent option if today's irregular and insecure job market . People shared houses until the 70s quite often. It's *EXPENSIVE* to live on your own. I can only do it because I was successful and also got lucky in the timing of the housing market.
Anyway, it was a good show. It focused a bit too much on sheldon so I stopped watching it. I guess some other folks don't like it because the characters grew up into adults, got married, had kids, etc.
Here's a list of life expectancy by country...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Japan... not teetotalers (longest lifespan).
Hell.. IRELAND (where they get drunk at 14 on Seagram Ice) has a life expectancy of 81.4 years and is 19th highest life expectancy in the world.
Here's a list of countries by alcohol consumption
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
(Pure alcohol consumption among persons (age 15+) in liters per capita per year, 2010)
Japan averages 7.2 liters of pure alcohol per 15+ citizen per year.
Ireland averages over 11 liters of pure alcohol per age 15+ citizen per year.
France is also high on lifespan and alcohol consumption. Italy isn't bad either.
Alcohol is pretty bad on it's own in terms of killing you by having too much too often.
But, prohibiting alcohol has been found to be terribly destructive to people, property, and incredibly corruptive to law enforcement officers, judges, and congressional representatives (as well as governors).
Prohibiting drugs has produced huge numbers of murders.
And they will start a great Youtube Channel called the "Try" channel.
*Fact Channel.. R.I.P.
At what levels?
I ask because one of the challenges with pot enforcement is that tests show it in your system for weeks.
Testing positive for drinking alcohol or smoking booze even the day before is meaningless. (for the nitpickers- let's specify 24 hours). If you could get enough in your system to still be intoxicated 24 hours later- you'd be dead from booze. I'm not sure it's possible with pot either tho few die from pot use.
You do not need to vaporize or atomize pot to consume it. It's easy to cook with. Colorado has a major edibles market with well controlled dosing. The carbs are more of a problem than the various cannabinoids.
Seriously...