Not with regard to the vowel sound represented by the o in each of those words, even in those dialects in which the following r is turned into an approximant. In all cases, the vowel in "work" is fronted (as well as made rhotic, if you're going by the NBC Handbook of Pronunciation), while that in the other two is not.
1. Drug charges != drug use: Drug charges are for possession, sale, or distribution. Whether you actually used the stuff yourself is of no consequence.
2. Lack of drug charges != lack of drug use: You don't get charged for not getting caught.
I mean really, the whole reason weed was against the law in the first place was to protect our law enforcement officials from the truly dangerous criminals.
Um, no. The whole reason weed was made illegal was to keep our innocent White girls from being seduced by those unscrupulous Negroes.
It is not challenged that the brain needs some time to recover from a stoned weekend. And by time I do not mean a day.
I'll challenge it. I can drink three beers on Saturday night,and still feel like crap at noon on Sunday. I can spend the entire weekend stoned, stop smoking about 10:00 Sunday night, and function perfectly well Monday without any noticeable effect except to be a little more relaxed than most Mondays.
You do realise you directly contradict yourself in the bolded sentence, don't you?
When I was a heavy user, I used to rationalise in a similar vein.
A person's BAC or THC level is irrelevant, what's important is their ability to control a vehicle.
Back in the late 70s, Car & Driver magazine did an informal study (with a couple of professional test drivers) which was later reprinted in High Times, IIRC.
Their results appeared to indicate that small amounts of cannabis actually improved the pros' driving performance slightly and for a very short while, after which performance fell rapidly to much less than normal. They found in addition that using more than a small amount also quickly caused the pros' driving performance to decrease to much less than normal.
Slashdot Mirror
Plus [iPad] has a bigger screen that's much more suitable for textbooks.
I wanted to test this claim for myself, so I just measured the screen of my fiancée's iPad 2 and that of my Samsung Tab 10.2 with a tape measure.
iPad--20x15cm=300sqcm
Samsung--22x14cm=308sqcm
So--if you're talking about screen area--no, it's not.
If I misunderstood what you were comparing, my apologies. But in any case my curiosity is now satisfied.
Or perhaps not. Think about it.
I've been using Skype on Linux for years, and it's always worked pretty well for me.
(The latest update to the Android phone client, however, is a complete train wreck.)
I'm not going to waste my time having the wrong argument, over a flawed analogy. Have a nice evening.
Good luck driving from LA to Honolulu. Let us know how that works out for you.
When you decide the Constitution is not subject to reinterpretation, then you've demonstrated that you're a fundamentalist idiot.
Then you conveniently missed that the eventual outcome was still impaired function, regardless of dosage.
Not with regard to the vowel sound represented by the o in each of those words, even in those dialects in which the following r is turned into an approximant. In all cases, the vowel in "work" is fronted (as well as made rhotic, if you're going by the NBC Handbook of Pronunciation), while that in the other two is not.
And he claims--or at least at one point claimed--to be a registered Republican, IIRC. Life is full of surprises.
Interesting, yes.
Did this take into account all the folks who got gunned down, poisoned by bathtub gin, or imprisoned during Prohibition?
If Bill Maher ran for public office, I might start voting again.
To their credit, the NYT did publish a retraction.
Eventually.
Logic fail. Let me spell it out for you:
1. Drug charges != drug use: Drug charges are for possession, sale, or distribution. Whether you actually used the stuff yourself is of no consequence.
2. Lack of drug charges != lack of drug use: You don't get charged for not getting caught.
Next time I feel like pinning the blame for a bombing on some kid who likely committed suicide weeks before the event, I'll be sure to. Thanks!
"Let 100 Flowertops Bloom", eh?
I mean really, the whole reason weed was against the law in the first place was to protect our law enforcement officials from the truly dangerous criminals.
Um, no. The whole reason weed was made illegal was to keep our innocent White girls from being seduced by those unscrupulous Negroes.
ProTip: Hitting someone with a joint doesn't usually inflict grievous bodily harm. Unless your rolling papers are steel-jacketed, perhaps.
So...
Everyone who wanted to overturn alcohol prohibition was an alcoholic, right?
And all who advocate equality for LGBT folks must be one of those weirdoes themselves.
Riiiight....
It is not challenged that the brain needs some time to recover from a stoned weekend. And by time I do not mean a day.
I'll challenge it. I can drink three beers on Saturday night,and still feel like crap at noon on Sunday. I can spend the entire weekend stoned, stop smoking about 10:00 Sunday night, and function perfectly well Monday without any noticeable effect except to be a little more relaxed than most Mondays.
You do realise you directly contradict yourself in the bolded sentence, don't you?
When I was a heavy user, I used to rationalise in a similar vein.
I was admiring the "DestroyerOfWo" part, myself. :)
You don't know too much about Norway, or many people from there, do you? "Røgeberg" is a completely legitimate Norwegian surname.
BTW, Ø is not zero; it's the Norwegian (and Danish) equivalent of Ö.
How such research is conducted.
Researcher: Have you used marijuana?
Dumb pot user: Yes
Smart pot user: No
Right.
The only real way to confirm this is to check for a history of drug related charges, which will only be present for the dumbest of the dumb.
Wrong.
(Try actually testing them for the presence of cannabinoids in their systems, maybe?)
And I challenge your statement that
A person's BAC or THC level is irrelevant, what's important is their ability to control a vehicle.
Back in the late 70s, Car & Driver magazine did an informal study (with a couple of professional test drivers) which was later reprinted in High Times, IIRC.
Their results appeared to indicate that small amounts of cannabis actually improved the pros' driving performance slightly and for a very short while, after which performance fell rapidly to much less than normal. They found in addition that using more than a small amount also quickly caused the pros' driving performance to decrease to much less than normal.
Reagan didn't do shit. The USSR was already moribund.
I hadn't thought about it, but, now that you mention it, you're right. Thanks for pointing that out.