jcd11235

From the Constitution of the united States of America, Article I, Section 8: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations; Just out of curiosity, are you at all familiar with The Law of Nations? The founding fathers gave Congress quite a lot of power with that clause. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Good. Then you realize your "case in point" is a bogus example with which you attempted to mislead readers by referencing Gore's means of presentation instead of his means of calculation. Nice revision of science. It's funny how the "junk science" side of the issue is the one backed by evidence and peer reviewed studies, while the other side of the issue is represented by blogs and editorials, but very few, if any, studies published in respected, peer refereed journals. If that were true, you would be criticizing Gore's critics, not his documentary, for it is his critics who are espousing the nonsense. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Good luck with that. Bad PSU's often take things like motherboards out with them when they go bad. I hope yours survived. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Be careful that you don't confuse the means of calculation with the means of presentation. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Define theory. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

No. Whether it be caffeine, cannabis, cocaine, wine, etc., most people have their vice(s). Of those, I suspect most of them derive some pleasure from the vice, generally without harm to others. I believe there is such an inherent liberty. When I was a kid, we had too matching barstools. One of them had a much looser bearing, and would spin pretty much freely. My older brother and I would fight over that one. We could get it spinning quickly and experience a head rush. I believe it is human nature to seek out means of taking breaks from sobriety. I don't think it is inherently unhealthy, provided one is not trying to avoid sobriety entirely. I've done lots of things in my life in the name of a rush. Street racing, skydiving, chess, gambling, pool, and, yes, drugs, to name a few. I don't think it is realistic to consider drugs to be inherently more dangerous than endogenous means of altering my brain chemistry. I think it could be argued that, at least with respect to some drugs, one is often better able to think clearly "as oneself" while under the influence than when sober. In vino veritas. Prohibition does not work. Harm reduction is a better philosophical approach to policy. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Considering we haven't seen the country without drug prohibition in about three quarters of a century or longer, there are more relevant comparisons that could be made. The source lost credibility by making a claim of increased usage for which sufficient evidence did not exist. Incorrect. As with any such analysis, mistakes are made. It is very relevant. And, there has been quite a lot of research done since then. I think you'll find a search of these forums will offer other threads in which they've already been posted. Per 100,000 users, alcohol and tobacco both kill more than any commonly used recreational drug. They produce a higher death rate, not just more in absolute numbers. Apparently you are not familiar with alcohol poisoning. Literally, that's probably true, since, by weight, alcohol dosage is far greater than that of most controlled substances. But, since dosage size is not constant among different drugs, a pound for pound comparison isn't very meaningful. Having extensive personal experience with most of the substances being discussed, I can say with great confidence that you're mistaken about the relative dangers and effects of alcohol being less than "hard drugs." Alcohol is the hardest drug. Until one comes to terms with that fact, "the larger social and psychological factor" cannot even be understood; it certainly cannot be accurately taken into account. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

> http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/123/6/461 "The current U.S. policy options on drug use are reviewed in the context of the history of drug policy in the United States." That's a nice strawman they've set up. > http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/extract/330/5/361 written in response > http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;249/4976/1513 "It is concluded, from a cost-benefit analysis based on pharmacologic, toxicologic, sociologic, and historical facts, that radical steps to repeal the prohibitions on presently illicit drugs would be likely, on balance, to make matters worse rather than better." Really? An 18+ year old cost-benefit analysis? I wonder how many assumptions and estimates have proven to be incorrect during the interim. > http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=JPmZMbPvl9Vvhz7ydBYL9q6bMxyFkpqL3nLwZ1cBpVl5l8rMx12k!111030713!1507451015?docId=5010967148 There was nothing in that excerpt except some guy talking about how he disagreed with certain aspects of an essay that somebody else wrote. I fail to see the relevance. > http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/124/8/777-a "Legal drugs cost society far more than illegal drugs in terms of medical care, lost productivity, death, crime, and the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) ($66.9 billion compared with $170 billion)." … Finally, no one has yet shown any system that reduces the legal use of alcohol or tobacco or their associated harms while simultaneously reducing constraints or controls on those substances. Because these agents cause the most harm to society, this would be a good place to begin true harm reduction. I'm not quite sure how that supports your argument. Weren't you claiming that illegal drugs are more harmful than legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco? >Others are usually economists who look at only the supply/demand >concept of drug legalization and usually don't consider the multifacet >aspect of drug problems that trump their theories. I didn't see anything among those sources you provided that "trumped their theories." Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

There wasn't any part of it that looked credible. All conveniently without links, I see. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I don't want to be the one to point this out, but the Drug Enforcement Agency has not earned a reputation for being forthright with the facts and objective conclusions with their drug war propaganda. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Agreed. They were selling securities, for one reason. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Sure, there are other people at fault too (and those aren't aliens from Jupiter either). However ultimately the starting point was the guy who signed up for the mortgage he knew he cannot afford. Then it went to the banks, then to the Wall Street or Fannie, and now the rest of us is paying for that. It started before that. If no one had offered a mortgage they knew he could not afford, he couldn't have signed up for it, and the mortgage could not have been resold. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Do you have evidence to support your claims about the respective majorities? I'm not sure I believe such a correlation exists. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I have been around a wide variety of drugs. The one that stands out as the *most* incapacitating, and causes the *most* violent, unpredictable behavior, is alcohol. Don't try to tell me marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc are more dangerous. Agreed 100%, also from direct experience. IIRC, statistical evidence bears that out as well; alcohol takes a larger proportion of its users' lives each year, compared to cocaine, heroin, cannabis, etc. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Agreed. Ignoring the valid answer and continuing to claim that dark matter and dark energy are not detectable, however, is intellectually dishonest. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Yes. Had you followed the links I provided, you would know that instead of "undetectable shit", scientists have instead relied on things that are detectable, such as dark matter and dark energy. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That is incorrect. Ignoring that fact in order to make an incorrect argument more convenient won't make the assumptions upon which you base your argument correct. You are kidding yourself if you think that our difficulty of observing credible evidence of dark energy and dark matter is of the same order of magnitude as our difficulty of observing credible evidence of a supernatural creator. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

We haven't had a terrorist attack on the US since 9/11/2001. … Maybe not the greatest example … Probably not. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

The only reasons it wouldn't make sense is if there was significant evidence indicating that the incidence of attempted crime is constant or dependent on size of the police force, increasing proportionately. Do you have such evidence? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Because creationism is not a competing theory in science. Claiming otherwise only demonstrates that, not only does the person making the claim not understand science, but is also ignorant of the definition of theory on the context of science. Creationism does not exist outside of religion. Ignoring that fact won't make it go away. Yet, you are advocating ignoring facts in favor of touchy touchy feel good measures that restrict teachers' ability to critique students' understanding of facts when those facts might conflict with superstitions held by those students. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That would be inconsistent with the previous two Democratic Presidents' terms, but consistent with the last 3-4 Republicans' terms. So if I were to say that public debt now as a percentage of GDP is roughly the same now as in 1997, would that change your thinking? And that with the exception of two years during the Clinton Admin (which I give equal credit to him and the Congress) gross debt has skyrocked. Would that change your thought that the deficits decreased during the Clinton presidency? I'll put it this way - debt increased in Carter's admin, Reagan's, Bush's, Clinton's and Dubya's, as well. I would have liked to see the number continue to plummet like they did in 97 and 98. But they didn't. They picked up sharply again before Clinton left office. Government is not in the business of cutting costs. You're looking at the wrong numbers if you're trying to support your assertion. An increase in debt does not imply that deficits grew more rapidly than revenues. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That would be inconsistent with the previous two Democratic Presidents' terms, but consistent with the last 3-4 Republicans' terms. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Here's the second one, from Washington Times: Clicky I couldn't find the proper url for the first source. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I think it's hard to argue that Iraq are better off today than pre-invasion. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Untie my shoes, grab some scissors, and take off running. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!