I don't shed any tears for the slain Iranian nuclear scientists. In fact, my reaction is right on! Iran is a center for terrorism and fascism on Earth. Iranian leaders are savages. I think that Israel has the right to do everything within their power to reduce Iran.
Certainly the world would be a better place without Iran's tyrannical regime. The only thing Iran ever does is torture, imprison and kill good people, and assist terrorists and dictators like Assad and their own dictator. Iran is the embodiment of evil on earth.
This is one area where I do sympathize a bit with the Republican front-runners. However, I'm not sure. I have doubts that probably never occur to Republicans. My main issue is cost. Can Iran be reduced at low cost, or will it mean another trillion dollars gone?
It may become necessary to nuke Iran in order to prevent nuclear terrorism. The ultimate source of Iranian nuclear scientists is the Iranian people. Why pick off one nuclear scientist at a time, when you can eliminate the source?
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Russian Irony
Since the 1917 Revolution, Russia has supported tyrants around the world that make Tsar Nicholas look like an enlightened monarch. Lenin would be turning over in his grave to know that Putin supports Assad.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Obama is Safe
The only reason the right wing hasn't assassinated Obama is that they perceive he is one of their own: mediocre and conservative. In the U.S., only the best and the brightest get assassinated. Ours is a mediocracy.
The Right Way to Treat Pets and Children
The right way to treat a pet is as a member of the family, with gentleness and compassion. Always make sure the animal has enough to eat, clean water, and a good place to poop. What I'm against is the practice of chaining a dog to a tree for years, to the point where he has to walk around his own feces, or placing a dog in a small fenced area less than thirty feet squared. I have known even liberal and educated people to do this to their dog, and I thought it was indicative of mental illness. To see their dog wallowing around in a tiny area filled with feces made me think that the owners were lunatics or at any rate not very pleasant.
I also think that corporal punishment, e.g. a swat on the hind end, should be an exceedingly rare event. Especially when the human being is much bigger and stronger than a small pet, such as a cat, there are ethical problems with hitting. A cat loses all respect for an abusive owner. Most important between cat and human is the bond of trust. The cat realizes that the human being is bigger, stronger, and smarter. But if the human being is also perceived as mean or hurtful, then the cat will seek to evade the human being at all times, and then the relationship between pet and owner is over, and the value of the pet is nil. It is important to be a gentle giant. Always use strength in positive and helpful ways. When I visit a person and find that their cat is in hiding and will only come out to eat, then I know the owner is an abusive owner and not a very pleasant person. What pets say about their owners can be more revealing than anything else.
With an average animal, ninety-nine times out of a hundred, tone of voice or a hand gesture is sufficient to ensure compliance with basic instructions. The only scenario where I might swat a cat is when they have destroyed property, and even then one must be moderate and use restraint, because the difference in strength between humans and cat is very great. At all times I remind myself that I am a giant, enormous in their eyes, and I think of how I might feel if I were the cat. It is important to empathize with other creatures and try to understand them. I think the same general philosophy applies to the rearing of children. Total abolition of corporal punishment probably is not desirable, but it should be used sparingly if at all. I remember at work a couple of people would tell me that the whippings they received made them the great people they are today. But I did not think they were so great. I rather thought that they were insensitive, cold and taciturn. If a race of brutes is desired, then acts of brutality certainly will help to achieve that end.
I also think that corporal punishment, e.g. a swat on the hind end, should be an exceedingly rare event. Especially when the human being is much bigger and stronger than a small pet, such as a cat, there are ethical problems with hitting. A cat loses all respect for an abusive owner. Most important between cat and human is the bond of trust. The cat realizes that the human being is bigger, stronger, and smarter. But if the human being is also perceived as mean or hurtful, then the cat will seek to evade the human being at all times, and then the relationship between pet and owner is over, and the value of the pet is nil. It is important to be a gentle giant. Always use strength in positive and helpful ways. When I visit a person and find that their cat is in hiding and will only come out to eat, then I know the owner is an abusive owner and not a very pleasant person. What pets say about their owners can be more revealing than anything else.
With an average animal, ninety-nine times out of a hundred, tone of voice or a hand gesture is sufficient to ensure compliance with basic instructions. The only scenario where I might swat a cat is when they have destroyed property, and even then one must be moderate and use restraint, because the difference in strength between humans and cat is very great. At all times I remind myself that I am a giant, enormous in their eyes, and I think of how I might feel if I were the cat. It is important to empathize with other creatures and try to understand them. I think the same general philosophy applies to the rearing of children. Total abolition of corporal punishment probably is not desirable, but it should be used sparingly if at all. I remember at work a couple of people would tell me that the whippings they received made them the great people they are today. But I did not think they were so great. I rather thought that they were insensitive, cold and taciturn. If a race of brutes is desired, then acts of brutality certainly will help to achieve that end.
One Trillion of Taxpayer Dollars
These are the brainiacs that George Bush and Obama thought were worth $1 trillion of taxpayer dollars to "liberate".
The people of Afghanistan are ignorant savages only capable of rule by dictatorship, if at all. It is pointless to invest even a penny in that blighted nation of bandits. They have not had a republic in ten thousand years. Anyone that wanted a republic was killed. Once the U.S. leaves, business as usual returns. All of this is obvious. I wish our leaders would wise up and cut our losses now rather than later. Pride is an awfully expensive bad habit to maintain.
The people of Afghanistan are ignorant savages only capable of rule by dictatorship, if at all. It is pointless to invest even a penny in that blighted nation of bandits. They have not had a republic in ten thousand years. Anyone that wanted a republic was killed. Once the U.S. leaves, business as usual returns. All of this is obvious. I wish our leaders would wise up and cut our losses now rather than later. Pride is an awfully expensive bad habit to maintain.
Syria is the Dog of Nations
I wouldn't want to be an Alawite or a Christian in Syria, that's for sure. For that matter, I wouldn't want to be anyone in Syria. That country makes our country look good from every angle. Syria is one of the lowest dogs of the nations: led by a stupid thug of a dictator (eye doctor or not, he lacks the capacity to see the problem with clear eyes), isolated from the world, torn by civil war, and with Iran and Russia its two friends. Iran and Russia! One would think a clue would be due from having such friends. Any reflective person (which Assad is not) would look at Iran and feel a sense of nausea.
And I don't think Syria is going to get better in the next twenty years. Too much blood has been spilled. There will be vengeance on the minds of men for generations to come.
And I don't think Syria is going to get better in the next twenty years. Too much blood has been spilled. There will be vengeance on the minds of men for generations to come.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
The Government of Arizona
I never hear about Arizona in the news except more reports indicating that the Arizona government is composed of barbarians without understanding or intelligence.
Death is a Good Thing (in Dungeon Crawl)
I"m glad death is so cheap in Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup, because it forces a break in play. Otherwise, one could keep going at it all day long.
However, the constant dying reinforces the feeling I have that the game is pointless; every single character dies no matter what strategy is pursued. In fact, I would say one in a thousand could possibly succeed, if every turn was played in the perfect manner with knowledge of what would happen next. Without foreknowledge, one in a trillion characters might succeed. I doubt I will live long enough to see such a character. So, I am looking around for a game to replace Crawl.
However, the constant dying reinforces the feeling I have that the game is pointless; every single character dies no matter what strategy is pursued. In fact, I would say one in a thousand could possibly succeed, if every turn was played in the perfect manner with knowledge of what would happen next. Without foreknowledge, one in a trillion characters might succeed. I doubt I will live long enough to see such a character. So, I am looking around for a game to replace Crawl.
Dungeon Crawl is Literary
Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup is a literary game. I find delightful excerpts from all sorts of interesting poems and history books that I should have read long ago. Perhaps it is an educational game in some respects.
Food Lion Sux
Food Lion is a thoroughly detestable grocery store. One of those spoiled-milk stores went out of business recently, and everything was marked down 25%. I decided to stock up on laundry detergent at the 25% off Food Lion.
A week later, I discovered that my brand of laundry detergent was on sale at Publix, so I did a cost comparison. Even with 25% off, the Food Lion detergent was more expensive. Moral of the story: Food Lion sucks. If they don't get you with their spoiled milk and rotting meat, they will get you with their tricky pricing.
A week later, I discovered that my brand of laundry detergent was on sale at Publix, so I did a cost comparison. Even with 25% off, the Food Lion detergent was more expensive. Moral of the story: Food Lion sucks. If they don't get you with their spoiled milk and rotting meat, they will get you with their tricky pricing.
I Could Be a Republican
If twenty points were subtracted from my I.Q., and I abandoned ethics, I could vote Republican.
The race for the G.O.P. nominee interests me only for its soap opera value.
I'd like to see a real challenger to Obama from the left, not the right. The Republicans are in a race to nominate someone that is worse than Obama.
The race for the G.O.P. nominee interests me only for its soap opera value.
I'd like to see a real challenger to Obama from the left, not the right. The Republicans are in a race to nominate someone that is worse than Obama.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Another Great SEAL Team Rescue
The real deal is much better than a Hollywood movie. I'd like to see a documentary with interviews with each hero of the SEAL team.
Note that even on an important article like this one, and even with computerized spell-checkers, the mainstream media could not avoid grammatical errors.
Note that even on an important article like this one, and even with computerized spell-checkers, the mainstream media could not avoid grammatical errors.
Passing My Piss-Test
There is a contradiction in a Republic when unreasonable search and
seizure is being conducted against bodily fluids. Piss tests are
something that no patriot who loves his country could ever support. They
are demeaning and degrading and aimed only at workers, not at the rich
and privileged owners and leaders who actually make the decisions that determine our national destiny.
If I am wrong, and urinalysis is right, then members of Congress and all CEO's should be piss-tested on a random basis for drugs and alcohol, and the results should be accessible on the web. Their jobs are far more important than ours and have far more impact on our nation's destiny. If checking urine is so important, then the urine of a CEO is more to the point than the urine of a Wal-Mart greeter. Have CEO's and Congress as a whole performed particularly well over the last twenty years? You tell me.
Sometime while I was ranting against the immorality of urinalysis tests, companies and government quietly decided to loosen their standards. I don't know when this happened and I don't know why. Old research indicated that marijuana could be detected in the urine for as long as 30 days after use, which seemed unfair, given that harder substances such as meth become undetectable much sooner. The "30 days" bit is an oft-repeated talking point. The reality, I have found, is rather different.
Recently, I was offered a job, contingent upon passing urinalysis. I researched NORML to learn more about the state of the art in regard to piss-tests. NORML is my go-to source for any questions regarding cannabis, and I regard it as the very best source on the Internet. Google should rank NORML as the #1 result for any search of "marijuana," but it doesn't. Instead, mainstream media sites with articles about pot busts are cited, followed by Wikipedia, a couple of other sites and then NORML around #7. I am not sure whether my Google results are the same as everyone else's, because Google is getting too smarty-pants, customizing their results for individual users.
Today, companies and government tend to have a cutoff point of 50 nanograms of THC metabolites per milliliter. Any amount in excess of 50 ng / ml triggers a "positive" result, with negative consequences for the poor soul being tested. However, recent research has found that this 50 ng / ml cutoff allows more leeway than previously thought and that people can pass piss-tests even if they have used marijuana two weeks prior. Marijuana remains the most easily detected substance, and the situation is still unfair. However, the "30 days" business only holds true for heavy daily users with high residual levels, the wake-and-bake crowd. A chronic daily user with a slow metabolism might test positive for as long as two months after the last use! However, an occasional, once-a-week user with a normal metabolism has little to fear after a dozen days of strict abstinence. I assume that this 50 ng / ml cutoff was established in order to eliminate the possibility of false positives, an occasional problem with urinalysis in the past.
For occasional users facing preemployment tests, there is an advantage to delaying the test as long as possible in order to increase the number of days of abstinence and reduce the metabolite concentration in the body. When an email is received with an invitation to test, there is typically a deadline to respond to the invitation. The moment the invitation is accepted, a piss-test "date" is made three days in advance. Thus, it is advantageous to wait until the very last day of that deadline before accepting the invitation. I wouldn't wait until the last hour, because the Internet may be down.
I considered substituting someone else's urine in the place of my own, but I was reluctant to blemish my record of having never cheated in all my life. I believe it is ethical to cheat on a piss-test, for the same reason that it is ethical for a nation to engage in espionage during wartime. Piss-tests are wrong, and thus any method that can circumvent them seems to me fair game. Anyone with the least amount of imagination could invent a dozen different ways to conceal and substitute another person's urine while maintaining a plausible temperature for the urine. Nevertheless, I just don't like the idea of cheating, even though I can't explain why. It is just a personal preference of mine. I prefer beating the test if possible through abstinence and background research of the testing technology. That is my way, because I'm a techie.
In the end, after researching NORML, I determined I would pass the test without any difficulty. I am an occasional user with a normal metabolism and do not drink. The test was scheduled exactly twelve days after my last use. According to the consensus of all my sources, the chance of my failing a piss-test with a 50 ng / ml cutoff was miniscule.
I did not bother with any vitamins or supplements and did not exercise any more than usual. I think that there is a lot of pseudoscientific hogwash about ways to defeat piss tests, with various vitamins and herbs promoted that have little or no actual effect but may make certain vendors rich.
I only did what NORML recommends--on the day of the test, I voided my bladder several times prior to my arrival at the clinic. This helps, because it is well-established and often repeated that the greatest concentration of metabolites is found in the first void of the day. Also, by drinking plenty of fluids, one dilutes the concentration of metabolites. The sample I provided contained only urine deposited in my bladder during a narrow 2-3 hour window. It had little or no color, because I had been drinking about double the usual amount of tea and water that day in preparation for the test.
I had no doubt whatsoever that I passed. The clinic never informed me, because their master is the employer, not me. However, the employer offered me a job, so there's my answer.
If I am wrong, and urinalysis is right, then members of Congress and all CEO's should be piss-tested on a random basis for drugs and alcohol, and the results should be accessible on the web. Their jobs are far more important than ours and have far more impact on our nation's destiny. If checking urine is so important, then the urine of a CEO is more to the point than the urine of a Wal-Mart greeter. Have CEO's and Congress as a whole performed particularly well over the last twenty years? You tell me.
Sometime while I was ranting against the immorality of urinalysis tests, companies and government quietly decided to loosen their standards. I don't know when this happened and I don't know why. Old research indicated that marijuana could be detected in the urine for as long as 30 days after use, which seemed unfair, given that harder substances such as meth become undetectable much sooner. The "30 days" bit is an oft-repeated talking point. The reality, I have found, is rather different.
Recently, I was offered a job, contingent upon passing urinalysis. I researched NORML to learn more about the state of the art in regard to piss-tests. NORML is my go-to source for any questions regarding cannabis, and I regard it as the very best source on the Internet. Google should rank NORML as the #1 result for any search of "marijuana," but it doesn't. Instead, mainstream media sites with articles about pot busts are cited, followed by Wikipedia, a couple of other sites and then NORML around #7. I am not sure whether my Google results are the same as everyone else's, because Google is getting too smarty-pants, customizing their results for individual users.
Today, companies and government tend to have a cutoff point of 50 nanograms of THC metabolites per milliliter. Any amount in excess of 50 ng / ml triggers a "positive" result, with negative consequences for the poor soul being tested. However, recent research has found that this 50 ng / ml cutoff allows more leeway than previously thought and that people can pass piss-tests even if they have used marijuana two weeks prior. Marijuana remains the most easily detected substance, and the situation is still unfair. However, the "30 days" business only holds true for heavy daily users with high residual levels, the wake-and-bake crowd. A chronic daily user with a slow metabolism might test positive for as long as two months after the last use! However, an occasional, once-a-week user with a normal metabolism has little to fear after a dozen days of strict abstinence. I assume that this 50 ng / ml cutoff was established in order to eliminate the possibility of false positives, an occasional problem with urinalysis in the past.
For occasional users facing preemployment tests, there is an advantage to delaying the test as long as possible in order to increase the number of days of abstinence and reduce the metabolite concentration in the body. When an email is received with an invitation to test, there is typically a deadline to respond to the invitation. The moment the invitation is accepted, a piss-test "date" is made three days in advance. Thus, it is advantageous to wait until the very last day of that deadline before accepting the invitation. I wouldn't wait until the last hour, because the Internet may be down.
I considered substituting someone else's urine in the place of my own, but I was reluctant to blemish my record of having never cheated in all my life. I believe it is ethical to cheat on a piss-test, for the same reason that it is ethical for a nation to engage in espionage during wartime. Piss-tests are wrong, and thus any method that can circumvent them seems to me fair game. Anyone with the least amount of imagination could invent a dozen different ways to conceal and substitute another person's urine while maintaining a plausible temperature for the urine. Nevertheless, I just don't like the idea of cheating, even though I can't explain why. It is just a personal preference of mine. I prefer beating the test if possible through abstinence and background research of the testing technology. That is my way, because I'm a techie.
In the end, after researching NORML, I determined I would pass the test without any difficulty. I am an occasional user with a normal metabolism and do not drink. The test was scheduled exactly twelve days after my last use. According to the consensus of all my sources, the chance of my failing a piss-test with a 50 ng / ml cutoff was miniscule.
I did not bother with any vitamins or supplements and did not exercise any more than usual. I think that there is a lot of pseudoscientific hogwash about ways to defeat piss tests, with various vitamins and herbs promoted that have little or no actual effect but may make certain vendors rich.
I only did what NORML recommends--on the day of the test, I voided my bladder several times prior to my arrival at the clinic. This helps, because it is well-established and often repeated that the greatest concentration of metabolites is found in the first void of the day. Also, by drinking plenty of fluids, one dilutes the concentration of metabolites. The sample I provided contained only urine deposited in my bladder during a narrow 2-3 hour window. It had little or no color, because I had been drinking about double the usual amount of tea and water that day in preparation for the test.
I had no doubt whatsoever that I passed. The clinic never informed me, because their master is the employer, not me. However, the employer offered me a job, so there's my answer.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Preppers
I accept a slight possibility that the U.S. economy and even civilization as we know it may collapse in the near future. Too many of our leaders are corrupt, incompetent, or misguided. Corruption is perhaps the most common problem among both Republicans and Democrats. The Republicans are the worst, but that doesn't let the Democrats off the hook. This whole country has been going down the tubes for a long time. It is simply not possible for tens of millions of Americans to get a job in this economy, and that's a big deal that is going to cause social problems for generations to come. When so many able-bodied people are out of work, yes, that's a major problem, no matter what kind of government is in power. I expect higher rates of every variety of societal ill. I am glad I did not have children. The middle class is disappearing, particularly among the young, and people are becoming poorer and poorer. The old have it better, entrenched in their cushy jobs or rolling in their retirement funds. The young have it worse by far. The young cannot find decent jobs. The young wait tables, bag groceries, flip burgers at best.
"Preppers" are the survivalists of 2012. In a way I view them as sheep. They are stockpiling food in a kind of fortress mentality, thinking they will always be safe in their basement. If they have a lot of resources, and people know that they have a lot of resources, then they will not be safe. People will rob them.
I take a fatalistic view. If civilization collapses, then all bets are off anyway. The world will become much less pleasant, much less comfortable, much less enjoyable. Life will become cheaper, death and injury more common. In such a world, is it really important to survive?
I think it is better to assume that things will remain more or less as they always have. I don't think it is possible to prepare for an Apocalypse. In the event of societal collapse, it may become necessary to move at great speed, leaving one's possessions behind. All the food that one has stockpiled may become a burden rather than an asset. How can one predict the nature of an Apocalypse? I think it is a bit morbid and cheerless to prepare for such a thing in the absence of any direct and compelling evidence.
"Preppers" are the survivalists of 2012. In a way I view them as sheep. They are stockpiling food in a kind of fortress mentality, thinking they will always be safe in their basement. If they have a lot of resources, and people know that they have a lot of resources, then they will not be safe. People will rob them.
I take a fatalistic view. If civilization collapses, then all bets are off anyway. The world will become much less pleasant, much less comfortable, much less enjoyable. Life will become cheaper, death and injury more common. In such a world, is it really important to survive?
I think it is better to assume that things will remain more or less as they always have. I don't think it is possible to prepare for an Apocalypse. In the event of societal collapse, it may become necessary to move at great speed, leaving one's possessions behind. All the food that one has stockpiled may become a burden rather than an asset. How can one predict the nature of an Apocalypse? I think it is a bit morbid and cheerless to prepare for such a thing in the absence of any direct and compelling evidence.
Microwave Popcorn
Microwave popcorn is overpriced, bad for health, and contributes to obesity. A good food with a solid nutritional profile is rendered fattening and bad for health by cynical manufacturers who despise their customers.
It is both simple and cheap to pop kernels without oil by using nothing more complicated than heated air.
It is both simple and cheap to pop kernels without oil by using nothing more complicated than heated air.
The Solar Flare
I felt a bit odd last night and into Monday morning. I just had a feeling that conditions were unfavorable. It was almost as though there was too much noise in the background. Perhaps I have a pseudo-scientific explanation at hand. I just read that there was a massive solar flare Sunday night, and the Earth has been and continues to be bombarded with radiation. I wonder whether solar flares cause any psychological effects in human beings. I have a little hunch that solar flares may increase or accentuate the negative, that is to say the unpleasant and anti-social emotions, but it is only a hunch, and nothing I've read in reputable media gives any credence to that opinion. Lacking evidence, I must classify the notion that solar flares effect human psychology as a highly suspect hypothesis. But I think the question merits a bit of research by a graduate student or two. Most of all, I think a survey would be effective, asking a thousand people whether they felt better overall or worse on the day that the Earth is impacted by a solar flare. I felt a bit worse, and I think other people did as well. Some researchers merely analyze crime reports, because it's an easy thing to do. Feeling worse does not necessarily mean that rates of crime or violence will increase. In fact, the opposite may hold true; people may withdraw or isolate themselves when they feel bad, thus reducing rates of crime or violence.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Meth is the Most Difficult Drug
If I take the position that we should legalize drugs, then that means all drugs, even the very worst, such as meth, which is popular among stupid people. My position is that fools will find their poisons. It is pointless to take extraordinary measures (that result in loss of life, money and health) trying to protect a fool from himself. I say that in the case of drugs, let evolution take its course.
Here's a consequence of meth being illegal: burn victims. It would be kinder to let the meth user purchase meth at a meth store than to compel him to play around with volatile chemicals that he little understands.
Meth is the most harmful recreational street drug in existence and requires special sanctions, even if legalized. Meth should be manufactured to 99.9% purity in order to devastate the black market and drive the criminal class out of business. If all meth users know that the State offers the best and cheapest meth, then the drug dealers will be out of business. Meth should be taxed at a rate sufficient to compensate the government for the social costs it creates, and sold to adults at a single location, one per state, in small quantities suitable for seven days of moderate personal use. Those who purchase it should be required to be sterilized, so that they will not produce future generations, undergo testing for STDs, forfeit their drivers' licenses, vehicle registration, government benefits, children and firearms, and their names should be registered and made available to law enforcement. The dedicated meth user would be willing to do all of these things in exchange for a nearly pure, cheap and legal source of product. Those meth users that would not be willing to do these things would comprise a relatively small percentage, because the drug overwhelms the brain's faculty for reason.
This plan would greatly reduce the problems associated with the illegal black market in meth and reduce the number of accidental fires, burnings and overdoses. Fools would continue ruining their lives with meth, but there would be fewer cases of collateral damage against innocent bystanders, children, law enforcement, or the public health system. Fools would enjoy their highs until their deaths with less impact to the community.
An alternative to this plan would be to require prescriptions for the cold medicines that contain pseudoephedrine, because the criminal class lacks the competence to manufacture the key ingredient in meth. I would be in favor of reducing the availability of pseudoephedrine, because that would represent an effective method to eliminate meth from the world. Right now there is not an effective method to eliminate meth from the market. Who is against the ban of pseudoephedrine? Big Pharma. They want to continue making the big money associated with their cold medicines.
Here's a consequence of meth being illegal: burn victims. It would be kinder to let the meth user purchase meth at a meth store than to compel him to play around with volatile chemicals that he little understands.
Meth is the most harmful recreational street drug in existence and requires special sanctions, even if legalized. Meth should be manufactured to 99.9% purity in order to devastate the black market and drive the criminal class out of business. If all meth users know that the State offers the best and cheapest meth, then the drug dealers will be out of business. Meth should be taxed at a rate sufficient to compensate the government for the social costs it creates, and sold to adults at a single location, one per state, in small quantities suitable for seven days of moderate personal use. Those who purchase it should be required to be sterilized, so that they will not produce future generations, undergo testing for STDs, forfeit their drivers' licenses, vehicle registration, government benefits, children and firearms, and their names should be registered and made available to law enforcement. The dedicated meth user would be willing to do all of these things in exchange for a nearly pure, cheap and legal source of product. Those meth users that would not be willing to do these things would comprise a relatively small percentage, because the drug overwhelms the brain's faculty for reason.
This plan would greatly reduce the problems associated with the illegal black market in meth and reduce the number of accidental fires, burnings and overdoses. Fools would continue ruining their lives with meth, but there would be fewer cases of collateral damage against innocent bystanders, children, law enforcement, or the public health system. Fools would enjoy their highs until their deaths with less impact to the community.
An alternative to this plan would be to require prescriptions for the cold medicines that contain pseudoephedrine, because the criminal class lacks the competence to manufacture the key ingredient in meth. I would be in favor of reducing the availability of pseudoephedrine, because that would represent an effective method to eliminate meth from the world. Right now there is not an effective method to eliminate meth from the market. Who is against the ban of pseudoephedrine? Big Pharma. They want to continue making the big money associated with their cold medicines.
Euthanasia
I've always been in favor of the right to die, also known as euthansia or mercy-killing. A recent case illustrates my opinion. I think it is barbaric that doctors are prohibited from easing the suffering of the distressed. One of the reasons that medical costs are so high in Western countries is that our governments foolishly prohibit mercy-killing. Herculean efforts are made to preserve the life of those who would, if given the choice, prefer death. Meanwhile, poor people who want to live die due to lack of basic medical resources.
Iraq Vs. Iran
Bush probably invaded Iraq due to dyslexia. He thought Iraq was Iran. At any rate, wrong country, wrong time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)