genital mutilation is not an islamic thing but an africans natural religions/tribal thing.
I mean, maybe you could say that it's African in that it is most prevalent in countries in Africa. But it is significant in Iran and Iraq, as well. You can check out this link I painstakingly researched: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
Legalization means you can walk into a hospital/pharmacy/police station and ask where a good place for addiction assistance is without worrying that they'll call the cops or arrest you on the spot.
That's what decriminalization means, and it only deals with half of the problem. 2 possible outcomes:
1) Drop in addicts is such that selling drugs is no longer profitable. Drug cartels go home, take up another profession.
2) The number of addicts drops by some percentage, leaving the other percentage of the addicts still buying from and still ultimately empowering some very undesirable people. In this case, you get to endlessly continue the war on drugs.
Or you could legalize, as in, make drugs actually legal, to buy, sell, use, make - and affordable to the point at which cartels can't make the kind of money they do now. If we're lucky, number 1 above takes care of this for us; if we're not lucky, the drugs remain a profit maker for cartels and the like.
There is a point at which media competing for your attention reaches saturation. After that, you can keep buying into services, but the time you spend on any one goes down and the overall value is diluted (unless you have some specific need from each service).
Consumers aren't going to drive companies to improve. It's going to take competitors trying to one up each other, to offer better service at the same price, to make people want to use their product. Until then, it doesn't matter that the consumers are infecting their computers and giving scammers their login information; the NSA is just going to be using their dirty backdoor tricks to get what they want (plus whatever exploits they copy from the scammers).
Once you have the scammers and the NSA back on a level playing field, then you can get back to status quo where the user is the biggest unseen threat.
The obvious number one downside is the potential for an increase in number of addicts. I never really had the answer for how to counter that. Social stigma? Government monitoring program on those who buy from the "drug store" that encourages rehabilitation? But maybe if you make the harder drugs extra affordable in an outpatient setting like you describe, it offers a way out for the addicts, while making it inconvenient for dabblers and college kids to get into the really nasty stuff. You could still sell (and tax, of course) the less addictive/destructive drugs, as you would alcohol and tobacco.
And bonus points if this reduces violent crime rates by people trying to get money to fuel their need.
To this day I still do not understand what makes this such a difficult and complex issue to tackle.
I don't see why it can't be as simple as:
Spam call comes in, I dial a report number, telecom system flags the call and the origin. After 10 reports, 100 reports, that number is blocked. Further outgoing calls from the number are directed to a message to contact a fraud line to get the number reinstated. The longer a number has belonged to a legitimate company, the more immunity it is granted by the system to prevent abuses from angry consumers. The shorter the number has been in service, the more scrunity it is under.
Are the robocallers really able to shield their call origins from the telecoms? That just seems like such a ridiculous concept.
Also, rouge agent steals your makeup, rogue agent steals your data.
This does nothing to evaluate the actual mood of the person - they might be posting positive things only to compete, or to give the appearance of being positive.