Good point. She was a MILF before the term was invented!

erm. I liked that show when I was 14, too... When I tried to watch a rerun a while back, though, I realized that every single show has the same fucking plot.

To wit:

1. Tim [says,does] something stupid

2. Tim [tries to hide it,says more stupid stuff making it worse]

3. Jill [finds out,sulks]

4. Tim talks to Wilson, who gives good advice which Tim ineptly tries to follow and fails

5. Tim and Jill resolve whatever the issue was

That was a troll? Really? I could see modding it redundant, but I don't understand how this could be considered a troll.

/me waits for this post to be modded OT.

A better question is why it was loaded? Responsible gun owners always keep their guns locked in a safe, with the ammunition locked up separately. It is far more likely that a family member will accidentally find an unlocked, loaded weapon, and harm themselves or someone else than it is that one can successfully repel a home invader with it.

To me the most compelling argument is the moral one. There is a clear correlation between Prohibition and increased homicide rates. Of course we know that correlation is not causation, but the pattern repeats in the US in the 1920's, then again after RMN's declaration of war against drug users, and of course in Columbia in the 1990's and Mexico since the Merida Initiative.

The question becomes one of morbid calculation. We trade three murders (give or take) in the (false) hopes of avoiding one overdose death. The really disheartening aspect is the fact that we know that prohibition actually increases the harms to users as well!

At this point we usually hear "Think of the Children!!1!" As you so eloquently pointed out: when drugs are outlawed only outlaws will have drugs. So de facto criminals are in charge of deciding who gets to buy them. What possible incentive would they then have to avoid selling to minors? It seems obvious to me that people whose brains have not fully developed should not have access to mind-altering substances for recreational purposes. For that reason, it is in society's interest to keep minors from using drugs. Unfortunately, this goal is impossible to achieve under prohibition.

Great analogy! I'm having trouble understanding it though... Do you think you could compare it to a car instead?

I don't think this is the best way to implement legalization. In Washington State liquor can only be sold from state-run stores, which decreases our alcohol consumption here and better avoids sales to minors -- this would be a far better way to tax and regulate cannabis.

As for usage going up, I'm not so sure. Maybe for a short period of time, but the Netherlands has the most liberal cannabis laws in Europe while enjoying the smallest percentage of users. Though, in my opinion, the world would be a better place if everybody smoked it ;) Certainly they would be healthier if they switched from alcohol to cannabis.

Very well put! I wish I had some mod points for you.

The part that I love about talking drug reform on the internet is the hugely disproportionate debating and writing abilities between the two camps. I have been following this issue for something like a decade, and I have yet to see any well-written or well-reasoned arguments from the prohibitionist side. It's really telling that they always have to resort to ad-hominem attacks or appeals to authority, and their grammar is much more likely to be atrocious. This is why we will win, eventually.

Uhm... they couldn't really be ancestors if they didn't survive... Redundant pedantry, I'm guilty too.

No technology is cheap when it's first mass produced. I came across a Computer Shopper from 1990 awhile back, 286 systems for $2000!

Indeed, I knew when I was in third grade and being hounded about my penmanship to the point that I never wanted to write another word that content is the most important thing about communication. Form is constantly mutable while the thoughts themselves are constant. It's the same song whether it's sung by Soundgarden or Johnny Cash, Stevie Wonder or The Red Hot Chili Peppers.

Not to mention the fact that I can type at a much closer rate to my train of thought than I can and still maintain legible handwriting. Now the only time I need to write by hand is when I wake up in the middle of the night with an idea, because if I'm the only one who needs to read it then it scrawls itself across the paper encrypted by the hand of glarbl_blarbl.

How much did it cost to get lessons and a license? Was it comparable to the requirements for driving a car legally? Also, doesn't a private plane cost a lot more to buy than a car?

I'm genuinely curious, my dad flew big planes in the Navy before retiring to work for American Airlines and now a leasing company. I've been in the cockpit with him a couple of times, and it looks like a really exhilarating mode of travel if you're in charge of the ride.

I was thinking fat chance with Peak Oil in sight. Then I remembered we're talking about thermite and shit. Peak Oil only applies to those jetliners.

just re-read your post. You didn't say I was attacking you X-P.

On that point, I don't think you were directly attacking me. In fact, I doubt it was an attack at all. I just think it was somewhat thoughtless, and I felt the need to correct it since it is in a public forum. I see a lot of misconceptions about people on the spectrum on the internet, when I'm involved in an online discussion about the subject I feel compelled to make sure the information is accurate.

Thanks for the apology, it is appreciated. I don't have a problem with the word "impaired", in fact it seems apt. On the other hand, I find the word "retarded" to be hateful and pejorative. That's all I'm saying.

Words have specific meanings. When you call an entire class of people a word that has become a slur, you should expect that you're hurting someone's feelings. I don't think I'm asking too much here to keep that in mind. And I also think that we're having a relatively civilized discussion, how do you think I attacked you?