Awesome to have real concrete information presented in a way that seems very distinct from what you'd get from sources on the far ends of the spectrum, like High Times or the DEA.

I'm quite surprised that smoking pot seems to carry an increased risk of bronchitis, like tobacco, but apparently NOT lung cancer (unlike tobacco). Are the carcinogens in tobacco cigarettes all from additional ingredients? Could people be growing their own tobacco and rolling their own cigarettes and avoiding one of the biggest health consequences? If so, shouldn't there be a market for tobacco cigarettes without any added ingredients?


I have never smoked pot OR tobacco. A lot of my reasons for avoiding either come down to a hatred of and pretty real sensitivity to / negative reactions to exposure to smoke. Some of my bias against that transfers into bias against pot in general, since smoking it is the default method.

At the same time, it seems ridiculous to me that pot is double-secret schedule 1 illegal while alcohol and tobacco are both perfectly legal. Especially when it seems apparent (although I don't really know what I'm talking about since I've never used it myself) that the intoxicating effects of pot are comparable to but generally LESS dangerous than alcohol, and the negative health consequences of pot are FAR LESS than either alcohol OR tobacco.

Getting real facts and knowledge out there like this video is doing has to have a positive effect on that very questionable policy.

What the actual f*ck? There had to be drugs or alcohol involved?

tldr: The decisions made in creating and rearing offspring are subject to a different set of moral criteria than all others because those decisions affect everyone.

Here's the problem with that thought. You didn't just make a decision that affected your life. Or even one that affected the lives of yourself and others you know. You intentionally created another sentient being. Because of human nature, that sentient being is now not just your responsibility, but everyone else's as well. Your decision quite literally affected the entire species. Or should I say infected.

There is no other decision anyone can make that has such an extent of repercussions (with the possible exception of murder). Whether you further choose to be responsible for your offspring is, from a decision making point of view, completely separate from the decision to create that offspring. And likewise, the decisions you make regarding the care of that offspring are entirely separate from the decision to create it. Those decisions are, whether you like it or not, subject to critique. You may not like it, and you may in fact see the entire process (conception, birth, weaning, rearing, etc...) as a single act. Either way, the entirety of the species is now constrained by your initial act of creation. The question is not whether you are a “good parent”. The question is how much of a burden upon or boon to the species will you be.

Just to make this contrast clear…. if I, as thinking adult, decide to consume alcohol in such excess that it causes my liver to fail, I can ask the species to help me to the point of giving me a new liver - which may or may not be granted based on my own words and actions. If you ask a similar favor on behalf your offspring, however, it’s an entirely different moral calculus.

Very interesting, but I have some questions about the efficacy of those rules/laws with regards to actually keeping the uncensored versions out of German hands.

Here in Thailand, since 2008 all GTA games are specifically banned (after a nutter who killed a taxi driver said he was influenced by GTA), along with any games with "excessive violence" or sexual content. In spite of that, the majority of male students in the High School where I teach have played GTA5 or other GTA games. There are no legit physical copies for sale in stores (I assume they are also removed from Steam for Thai users but I dunno), but like with all media here piracy is rampant and kids either torrent/download pirated copies of the games for themselves or buy a pirated copy of the game on DVD from vendors that can be found in markets in every city or village.

The rampant piracy also circumvents Thai censorship laws that require movies to blur out people smoking, drinking alcohol, or nudity / sexual content. Legit copies (which are rare) adhere to the rules, but most people end up with pirated copies that are more often than not sourced from uncensored versions and therefore don't follow the local rules.

Pretty weird situation. Makes me wonder if now in the internet age many German consumers might have no moral qualms with buying legit German-censored versions of things and then downloading pirated / cracked versions from the internet that circumvent the censorship.

At .15 you would have around half a pint of alcohol in your system, so at .28 he would have around a pint of alcohol circulating in his blood. The average male has around 10 pints of blood total. My math was off obviously, as he would have 1/10th of his blood as alcohol, not 5/20.

http://www.washtenawwatchdogs.com/wcso-lt-brian-filipiak-arrested-for-drunk-driving

http://www.washtenawwatchdogs.com/sheriff-lieutenant-brian-filipiak

This isn't the first time and the dude blew a .28 after the ride to the station and going through booking. That isn't a typo, literally over 1/4 of the blood in his body was actually alcohol. Death from alcohol poisoning can occur at .37 or higher.

The scary thing is that his tolerance must be massive, because he was still somewhat capable of speech and movement. Usually .25 to .30 level drinkers display general inertia, near total loss of motor functions, little response to stimuli, inability to stand or walk, vomiting, and incontinence.

Eh its all about moderation. Having a bit of scotch with your ganja toke isn't going to be harmful, and can be quite pleasant. Overdoing weed or alcohol, nevermind both, leads to bad and potentially dangerous experience. Enough with either/or puritanism.

Dubai & the UAE:
Shari'a
Torture
Slavery
Homosexuals, adulterers and apostates can be stoned to death.
Abortion, blasphemy, public displays of affection, premarital sex, all illegal and punishable by flogging.
Domestic violence against women is legal.

Qatar:
Shari'a
Sodomy, extramarital sex, alcohol consumption, blasphemy, apostasy, proselytism all illegal and punishable variously by flogging or imprisonment.

Kuwait:
Blasphemy, homosexuality, transgenderism, public displays of affection, eating or drinking in public during ramadan, alcohol, pornography and 'sending immoral messages' are all illegal.
Domestic violence and marital rape is legal.

Indonesia:
Islamist violence against religious minorities is widespread.
Muslims are pushing hard to criminalise homosexuality.
Female applicants to the military and police are subjected to 'virginity tests'.
Shari'a in Aceh province includes the flogging of homosexuals among its atrocities.

Tunisia:
Homosexuality and blasphemy are illegal.
Persecution of the LGBT by both government and private groups is common and increasing.

Mali:
~90% prevalence of FGM
Half the country under islamist control, with all the oppression, murder, torture and rape that implies.

OK, assuming what you say is correct (I'm not taking the time now to check) you have a point, but the stats, even if only 1/2 as bad as it seems, still show there's absolutely no equivalence.

Well, if you ate like that, no wonder you think meat is deadly. Eating like that, it is. Eaten in moderation, meaning <50g of CURED meats, and probably less than 1/3 lb of non cured lean red meats, the conclusion I came to is reasonable....that it's in no way comparable to smoking in it's danger. it's not even comparable if you eat 5 times the studied portion of cured meats, although it is clearly not healthy to do so. I eat < 1/2 lb of steak, on the rare occasions I eat it. I eat 1/2 a chicken breast on a normal day, baked. Because I eat good meat, properly prepared, in moderation, there's little to no statistical increase in danger to my health over eating pure vegetarian.

No sir, your stats are wrong....here's direct from the WHO.....
http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
12. How many cancer cases every year can be attributed to consumption of processed meat and red meat?

According to the most recent estimates by the Global Burden of Disease Project, an independent academic research organization, about 34 000 cancer deaths per year worldwide are attributable to diets high in processed meat.
Eating red meat has not yet been established as a cause of cancer. However, if the reported associations were proven to be causal, the Global Burden of Disease Project has estimated that diets high in red meat could be responsible for 50 000 cancer deaths per year worldwide.
These numbers contrast with about 1 million cancer deaths per year globally due to tobacco smoking, 600 000 per year due to alcohol consumption, and more than 200 000 per year due to air pollution.

So, it's 34000 cancer deaths for cured meats (and IF the correlative results with red meat are in fact causative, another 50000 worldwide for red meat) VS 1000000 cancer tobacco deaths. So no, it's not 2/3 there, it's at best, IF red meat is the cause of cancers at the highest level possible (not at all proven) it's 1/12 of the way there....around 8.4%. Agreed, that's not good, but no where near what you (and he) claims.

Cholesterol and saturated fat only MAY cause heart disease and diabetes, not 'do without a doubt', and then usually only in high levels (in normal people). They raise the risk factor for those diseases, but do not automatically cause heart disease and/or diabetes, even in people with incredibly high levels.

Research indicates that you missed the mark with the 644000 number, it's more like 34000 (and maybe another 50000, unproven) according to the WHO, I'll take the stats of the organization whose study is being discussed.

So if you look at the real numbers, it's still not comparable at all. Cancer, and death rates are orders of magnitude different, far more than 10 times higher for smoking with every possible benefit of a doubt given to meats toxicity/effects, so not at all easily matched. Sorry.

(and you also appear to be 100% wrong about cancer survivability)
http://www.Cancer.org -Colon cancer-For stage IIB cancer, the survival rate is about 63%. The 5-year relative survival rate for stage IIIA colon cancers is about 89%. For stage IIIB cancers the survival rate is about 69%, and for stage IIIC cancers the survival rate is about 53%.
http://www.lung.org - Lung cancer-The five-year survival rate for lung cancer is 54 percent for cases detected when the disease is still localized (within the lungs). However, only 15 percent of lung cancer cases are diagnosed at an early stage. For distant tumors (spread to other organs) the five-year survival rate is only 4 percent.

So, to summarize, colon cancer 53%-89% survivability (depending largely on when it's caught) VS lung cancer 4% (for 85% of cases, and 54% for the 15% of lucky few with early detections)

I did the "master cleanse" once for about a week. After that I felt like I was doing more harm then anything beneficial.

The most important thing is a healthy diet. The past month I have literary been detoxing.... really, I should have gone to rehab - that is how bad my alcohol problem has been The key to my success (10+ years of drinking 5+ drinks -pretty much every single day) - I started drinking two Kombucha's a day. There is no real evidence that Kombucha has health benefits (it even contains a small amount of alcohol). But, it has been a fine replacement for alcohol and has worked for me, it also doesn't contain many calories, so I've been sober, feeling good, losing a little weight and probably saving some money. It may be a "pseudo-scientific" product, but it's way better than any of the alternatives, as the fermented tea is a little like having an actual drink.

Another detox product is a herb called Kratom. This can be used in place of an alcohol or opiate addiction to overcome sometimes deadly withdrawal symptoms. Some people in the medical profession even use it for their aches & pains as they do not want to be on pharmaceutical drugs... but the DEA is going to be scheduling it as a Schedule I drug. Fucking... idiots....

sign the peitiion: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/please-do-not-make-kratom-schedule-i-substance

Nor to drink alcohol. Try stopping me though, motherfucker. See how well you deal with my chronic dairy-induced aggressivism.

Sad, but not really surprising.
Did she not know they treat the LGBT community as criminals in most of the middle east?
It is important to do at least a little investigation before going to a completely different culture, and be prepared if you find out that simply who you are is a crime.
It could have been worse if she had brought some alcohol with her, that can get you serious prison time. My dad spent lots of time in Saudi Arabia in the 70's, and he used to say he never went somewhere where alcohol was so seriously banned and criminalized, or where more people drank. Apparently even though it's treated like heroin, everyone has a bar at home and drinks like a fish in private. Go figure.

I'm glad she wasn't put in jail over this, but she got lucky. Ignorance of the law, or thinking that the law is immoral and wrong is no excuse and won't keep you out of prison.

When I got mine, I had to get 2 passport photos, submit a fingerprint, take a day long class, take a written test, and pass a range test with my preferred CCW handgun. There are a bunch of other restrictions which I'll list below; not all states have these but Texas is one of the easiest states to get licensed in, so this should give you an idea for a baseline. When it comes to 'may issue' states like the ones I listed earlier, they have the same hoops to jump through generally, but the main one is you have to prove good cause to a police entity to carry. In many cases, those entities are either 'suggested' or blatantly told "Do not give out any permits". I suppose power or money could get around that, but you would still have to pass the other requirements.

Texas CCW pre-reqs:

A person is eligible for a license to carry a concealed handgun if the person:

is a legal resident of this state for the six month period preceding the date of application,

is at least 21 years of age (military 18 - 21 years of age now eligible - 2005 Texas CHL Law change),

has not been convicted of a felony,

is not currently charged with the commission of a felony, Class A or Class B misdemeanor, or equivalent offense, or an offense under Sec. 42.01 of the penal Code (Disorderly Conduct) or equivalent offense,

is not a fugitive from justice for a felony, Class A or Class B misdemeanor, or equivalent offense,

is not a chemically dependant person (a person with two convictions within the ten year period preceding the date of application for offenses (Class B or greater) involving the use of alcohol or a controlled substance is ineligible as a chemically dependant person. Other evidence of chemical dependency may also make an individual ineligible for a CHL),

is not incapable of exercizing sound judgement with respect to the proper use and storage of a handgun,

has not, in the five years preceding the application, been convicted of a Class A or Class B misdemeanor, or equivalent offense, or an offense under Section 42.01 of the Penal Code (Disorderly Conduct) or equivalent offense,

is fully qualified under applicable federal and state law to purchase a handgun,

has not been finally determined to be delinquent in making child support administered or collected by the attorney general,
has not been finally determined to be delinquent in the payment of a tax or other money collected by the comptroller, state treasurer, tax collector of a policital subdivision, Alcohol Beverage Commission or any other agency or subdivision,

is not currently restricted under a court protective order subject to a restraining order affecting a spousal relationship,

has not, in the 10 years preceding the date of application, been adjudicated as having engaged in delinquent conduct violating a penal law in the grade of felony,

has not made any material misrepresentation, or failed to disclose any material fact, in an application submitted pursuant to Section 411.174 or in a request for application submitted pursuant to Section 411.175.

P.S. if you screw up on any of the above 'after' you get your ccw, it gets suspended until you go before a board for review. My instructor said when I took the class, almost every single review case is denied.

Your video, Stephen Colbert Endorses Savage Cock 190 Proof Grain Alcohol, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.