@ChaosEngine and @artician (I will combine these two posts into one because I don't want it to be so long as I posted before.)

Chaos. Cops around these parts make about 46K to start, then max at 65K. That is without promotions. Lts. or above easily make 110K. If you make rank of command staff it is free health benefits for life. The benefits a cop has, while not free, are decent. And this isn't even the biggest area or highest paying city around here. From what I can tell this cop was making 55K, he was almost halfway to a decent retirement and had good benefits. (Really great pay if you ask me.)

Next to answer you art. Examples can be speculation. There is no inherent problem with this. Here is a real situation. A cop shoots an unarmed man on the ground. Murder? Well, possibly. Problem is his tazer was on the hip side that the gun was. In the heat of the moment he could have reasonably grabbed it and got ready to use it. That was his claim. Bam. Sad, yes. Murder? Proving that would be difficult. Manslaughter? Depends. Some States say no in a moment of adrenaline (For everyone btw.) But the outrage was enormous.

Scary, man... been so close to strikes and you can't get a better adrenaline rush!

the thrill of the hunt. It's fun, not only does it provide food, it's exhilarating. Stalking the target is the most fun style of hunting large game, as you have to stay down wind, stay quiet, and get close enough for a good shot.

it is "getting off" so to speak. The adrenaline is pumping, it even has a name you can google "Buck Fever" every hunter gets it. "Buck Fever" causes a lot of missed shots, the heart races, adrenaline pumps and you wind up missing or spooking them. But hunting is a ton of fun, if it weren't my kids wouldn't even be interested in it either. Not only does it provide cheap and plentiful food for family, which otherwise I would probably need food stamps to afford meat for family of 4, it's also fun, entertaining, and constantly trying to get better.

Similar to how fps gamers get addicted to keep getting better scores and "kill streaks" same for hunting, I hate missing a flock of quail, I love when we flush a flock of 5 or 6 quail and we can get them all, which rarely happens, usually 2 or 3 are dropped until next flush.

if hunting was not fun, there would be no point, just buy from store...
but it serves a purpose and it's fun as hell.

...Was that supposed to be poignant, or just an extremely obscure inside joke?

Anyway, this "debate" was a bit ridiculous. Howard Samuels was, as others have already pointed out, very clearly straw manning - at no point was it suggested that opposing party thought marijuana should be legalized for recreational use by big companies.

It should also be noted that while Samuels runs a rehab center and in fact has a personal history of fighting addiction, this also has a negative effect on his ability to form an opinion on this situation. For him, extreme vulnerability to addiction is the norm. He himself is probably very prone to addiction, and he exclusively works with other individuals who are also extremely prone to addiction. I would say that the only people for whom marijuana can be seen as a gateway drug is the sort of people for whom alchohol, caffeine, nicotine, adrenaline or really anything that could possibly be abused could be seen as a "gateway drug."

These are the sort of people who always go too far. They drink too much coffee, they take too many risks, they smoke too much and they are always that one guy who gets embarrassingly drunk at parties because he just doesn't know how to limit himself.

But these people shouldn't be seen as the norm because honestly, they simply aren't.

And because Samuels apparently does think that these people define the norm, his view cannot be seen as being comprehensive. He's only looking at the extreme ends of the spectrum, and even then, he's really only looking at the potential negative extremes, because that is where he used to be, and it's where the people he now tries to heal are stuck.

Wing-suiters aren't messing around, it takes some fit musculature and control, and definite body-mind-type reflexes under free fall conditions already plugged-in through a lot of parachute work. These guys are fit and professional that do the wing suits, I dare say if the novice strapped one on and jumped-off a cliff they'd drop like a rock without the kind of above experience mentioned.

I suggest getting to know your local airport and start a new hobby-Jumping from planes every weekend for a year or two, maybe join a chute club-Research the craft and travel to an event once the love of free-fall is all up in yer brain. You may soon claim your new drug of choice adrenaline!

yes, he could have tried that, except that the woman was with a group of 3 that continuously STOPPED on the track until they see him coming, then repeatedly the one in front (dad?) starts up again, so there's no way he could get in front of the 'jam'. They knew full well they were causing a slow down on a fast ride, and should have known that ruins if for many. Perhaps when they saw he caught them 30 sec into the ride, they could have asked him if he wanted to switch cars with the one in front (and again for the next guy, and the next guy...). Of course, that assumes it's possible to switch cars in mid-ride, which I think is not possible or safe, and also leaves a stopped jam in the middle of the track while they all switch cars over and over, ruining it for MORE people behind. Instead they take off, constantly riding the brake and completely stopping on a fast, blind corner track. Just plain stupid and dangerous. If the ride's too scary for you to ride, stay off it.
It's like the idiots that drive 30 mph on the freeway, thinking they are being safe by going slow. They are doing the opposite, making a dangerous situation, AND interfering with everyone else using the freeway properly as intended. In Houston, they had to implement minimum speed limits, and you get a ticket for blocking traffic if you can't drive near the limit. Now, I don't advocate ramming these people (but it happens daily by accident), but I do advocate removing their license if they can't drive near the speed limit or with the flow of traffic.
The same goes for those who want to do adrenaline filled activities, when they see it's too much for them and they are screwing up everyone elses time, they should remove themselves, not force others to be asshats until they realize their mistake.
I blame the leader of the group here, I hate people that take their kids on things they aren't prepared for and think nothing of screwing it up for everyone else without a second thought and usually with indignance.

Dude, the guys a douche: He should have asked the woman in front of him (who wasn't really into the adrenaline rush as much as he was) to trade frikkin' cars with her at the first opportunity-Whip-lashing her from behind when he could have braked....DOUCHEBAAAAAAG!

Yah, I am pretty wary of power abuse, but those cops are extremely cool and collected. This is definitely not some adrenaline pumped up abuse. That means either they felt they were very much in the right to enter (and some context as to why they felt that way would be very good) or they were the meanest jack booted Fascists yet. I get the distinct feeling it was the former.

Saskatchewan Bear Hunting Adrenaline Overload has been added as a related post - related requested by deathcow.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Saskatchewan-Bear-Hunting-Adrenaline-Overload

for an extended clip with 8 extra minutes

I used to hunt black tail deer on the west coast when I was a kid. We always referred to that adrenaline rush as "Buck Fever". What do bear hunters call it?

Who crafts the language of the law and the descriptive terminology used to codify offenders? The argument here (see out-dated scrap of guidelines) is when does your average Joe become the "exigent circumstance" and who decides what, when, who, how, and where such a circumstantial decision leading to action should be brought into play....and at that point, what action and where is the agreed-upon line drawn? The justification for a door-to-door in Boston this week did not come from the referenced, " American law of criminal procedure" which is quite possibly, a fluid, up-for-interpretation piece of horseshit.

At face value...Jack-boots in armor going door-to-door with adrenaline pumping leads to fucking chaos or police state, and, sorry men-in-black, there are better ways to looks for kooks. Fuck the po-lice and their newfangled ways of doing their half-assed assignments! The goddamn bomber would have found his own ass in 3 more hours trying to buy tampons to stick in his wounds if half the cops looking for him were on a 3-day-drunk ANYHOW!

Yeah-The fucking police violated rights and used some jihad-teen's actions and their own balls as license, don't care how the law reads.

So's a Sunday stroll. Magic moments, frozen in time. Free adrenaline.

Adrenalin and moonshine baby!
(and maybe a little hootch!)

These races always remind me of the raw adrenaline of group B rally cars.

Both are just spectacular.