Well, again, not exactly, since only last year supplies of homeopathic preparations (I can't call them "medicines", I just can't) originating in India were found to contain illegally high amounts of alcohol and heavy metals (http://tinyurl.com/3hcs9xo) and homeopathic pills marketed in the US to soothe teething babies were found to contain toxic quantities of belladonna (http://tinyurl.com/2cckjbd). Unlike real medicines, homeopathic preparations do not have to be vetted by the FDA before they go on sale. This is the reason why protest "mass overdoses" of homeopathic preparations like those seen in the 10:23 campaign in the UK last year (http://tinyurl.com/yj9v945) may not be all that wise - you just don't know what the homeoquacks have shoved into those bottles.

In any case, homeopaths don't give a shit about the possible side effects of their preparations - the manufacture of homeopathic preparations involves the dumping of huge amounts of homoepathically-activated waste solutions into the environment. If homeopathy really worked, this would be an industrial waste scandal that would put the oil wells of Nigeria in the shade. Fascinating article by Michael Edmonds on this subject at http://tinyurl.com/3msvpsk.
>> ^hpqp:

Hehe, of course. But the water/sugarpills homeopathic medicine itself shouldn't have any negative side effects...

>> ^quantumushroom:

"Americans in the top one percent, like Americans in most income brackets, are not there permanently, despite being talked about and written about as if they are an enduring 'class' — especially by those who have overdosed on the magic formula of 'race, class and gender,' which has replaced thought in many intellectual circles."

That “Top One Percent”
Not an enduring class.


Possessions are factored into wealth. So if you own an expensive house and then sell it, you don't get any wealthier, you just have more cash. Many of the wealthiest people in the world do not have a large amount of liquid assets. The mutilation of logic here is staggering.

DUUUUUHHHHH!!!!

>> ^quantumushroom:

"Americans in the top one percent, like Americans in most income brackets, are not there permanently, despite being talked about and written about as if they are an enduring 'class' — especially by those who have overdosed on the magic formula of 'race, class and gender,' which has replaced thought in many intellectual circles."

That “Top One Percent”
Not an enduring class.


HAHAHAHHA! Dude this article backfires...by saying what it does, it's claiming that the "controlling class" is even LESS than 1% because of statistical skewing...HAHAHAHAHAH DERP!

The article you link to is automatically untrue by the statement that if one owns a home in San Francisco and they sell it - they will become apart of the top 1% for that year. Having a million $$ in the bank these days does not constitute as the top 1%. So, unless you have a house that you can sell for much more than a mil you're no where near the amount someone in that bracket has. Supposedly, the top 1% earners make nearly a half mil a year, which probably doesn't include investments & bonuses. This is not the same as the wealthiest top 1% who have money in the family or were the CEO of Blizzard or Microsoft.

The wealthiest top 1% has owned 40%+ of wealth in the country since the late 20's. More and more people have been born, inflation soared through the roof yet the percentage of wealth to the same percentage of people remains nearly the same.

Face it, both the Republicans and Democrats are fraudulent, corporate, whores. They bend over backwards for these old goofballs who own the political spectrum. It's just a fucking fact, wake up!


>> ^quantumushroom:

"Americans in the top one percent, like Americans in most income brackets, are not there permanently, despite being talked about and written about as if they are an enduring 'class' — especially by those who have overdosed on the magic formula of 'race, class and gender,' which has replaced thought in many intellectual circles."

That “Top One Percent”
Not an enduring class.

"Americans in the top one percent, like Americans in most income brackets, are not there permanently, despite being talked about and written about as if they are an enduring 'class' — especially by those who have overdosed on the magic formula of 'race, class and gender,' which has replaced thought in many intellectual circles."


That “Top One Percent”
Not an enduring class.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'brad, nowell, lou dog, lovin, overdose' to 'brad, nowell, lou dog, lovin, overdose, sublime' - edited by DerHasisttot

I'm predicting suicide and/or overdose is declared the cause, he was known to have a drug and alcohol problem. I'm sure that Murdoch's people were never in contact with whoever sold Sean his last batch of drugs if that's what killed him.

At least they now have something to play at her funeral when she inevitably dies of a drug overdose.

Four reasons I want pot legalized:
1) Don't want a beer gut or a charred liver
2) No hangovers
3) Cheaper than booze
4) Nobody has ever died from cannabis overdose

>> ^Ryjkyj:

I think your unemployment office offers a pretty good slice of the overall picture, at least where female employees are concerned. My theory (if you could call it that) is that women take those jobs because they're used to being underpaid for shit work. They're also used to being treated like shit by people they serve, and to society having a negative view of them in general. And I'm not talking about the experience of a lot of todays pampered little princesses. I'm talking about a deeply embedded genetic instinct. Perhaps the situation of the black employees could be similar.
One thing's for sure, the women in the office you go to aren't there because of some female affirmative action plan, and yet they're still out of balance with the local population.

It's a possibility. And I can't prove one way or another as I could never find any specific information on what I'm about to repeat from others.


The state I am in requires people to work for their food stamps, medical coverage for their kids, any cash they may receive towards rent and other costs. They are called "Work Experience Program" (WEP) workers. When they are categorized into that program, they are basically required to work a fixed amount of hours each month or they get cut off to some extent. For single women these hours are drastically less (I would guess half or more) if they have kids because they would rather them be with their kids than have to pay for daycare. For instance some guy told me he was laid off from a job working for the county, they refused to pay unemployment and they could do so by law. So he didn't have any unemployment to buffer him while he looked for work and he had to go on welfare. Since he was married and had 2 kids, he was eligible for medical coverage on the kids, food stamps, and cash to help cover costs. For that he had to work something like 150 hours each month at Goodwill as a "WEP worker". So basically he was working a full time job and he told me it worked out to under 4 dollars an hour if his kids didn't need any medical stuff...which I will admit medical coverage could be a huge cost if his kids had something bad happen. So there's incentive to find work if you're a man because you're basically getting screwed hard for your time, but you're also required to work so many hours it's hard to find time to look for work unless you do it at night. He said they scheduled hours for him and he could miss hours and make them up on the weekends and sometimes in the evenings, but only if they had work for him and only if he got permission. Otherwise he fell short on his hours and would be potentially booted.

So for a single mother, these hours are cut down to half maybe more because they are expected to work only if they have someone to take care of their kid or while they are in school allowing for time for them to be there when they leave and be there when they get home. Which if they are forced to ride the bus, their hours are going to be even shorter of actual "work". But they would still get the same benefits as the married man from above. Now......there's another program I've heard about from my parents where one of their renter's claimed to be in it after she alluded otherwise. And it was semi-confirmed by a friend of my dad whose mother gets a home health care provider provided to her by the state.

I don't know the name of the program, but it basically puts single women receiving welfare into the role of home health care provider to some degree. Where they go to the senior citizens houses and stay there some portion of the day for some period of each week. Where they do some picking up, organizing, make sure the senior citizen is generally OK as far as they are able to determine and help them with tasks they might be able to do. The friend of my dad...his mom's home health care provider overdosed on pills while she was at his mom's house. Died on the couch. She called him up and told her the lady was dead on her couch and called 911 to tell them...then went to bed. There are suspicions of mine and my parents that these ladies steal drugs from the old folks and use em or sell em....they had problems with a lot of "visitors" at their rental when a lady there claiming to be a "home health care provider" on her application but then later admitted it was a government program...no idea what it's called. I have never heard of a man being in or being asked to be in this program.

So...they have programs which seemed to be tailored to women. I am more likely to believe that they also give preference to women in hiring. I will tell you one thing I did see while I was at those offices though. Young women especially if they are in fairly attractive get treated poorly by a lot of the women there. They also never once had any sort of training program, employment hunting assistance (beyond searching on their system yourself), or anything else to offer or suggest to me when I asked. But I heard them repeatedly tell women they offer programs to help find part-time work....if they are successful or not, I have no idea. I don't know if preference is given to people who have kids or not....didn't go around asking everyone if they had kids.

anger is something i am quick to as a result of my PTSD unfortunately, particularly on subjects i am passionate about. Therapy is a long ongoin process =)
apologies all around for my curt manner.

now, to the dialogue at hand.

well firstly those statistics, since you've conceded them to be mere presuppositions, are exactly that: presuppositions. There arent any real statistics that i could produce to rebut it, however, if we use alcohol consumption and prohibition as a model, one could expect as much as a 30% increase in heroin use with its legalization, which is to say, not much at all. the idea of everyone and their mom suddenly hopping on the heroin train is a ridiculous fantasy at best.

while you may be right about the lifelong heroin user, i dont have to speculate about long term alcohol abusers maintaining healthy lives. that being said, this defense (if youre using it as one) is a moot point unless you support alcohol prohibition as well.

putting away traffickers in the netherlands would be the same in the states were drugs regulated and controlled. again, alcohol is the model for this. You think its legal to traffic alcohol just because alcohol is made legal? nope, you'll still get canned for that. follow the model. sticking with heroin, were it to be made legal its not something you'd pick up at your local grocery store. if the government regulates and controls it, firstly you will have fewer overdoses because the potency will be precisely known and consistent (the same as alcohol). Overdoses from heroin (among other things) is largely due to unexpected higher than "normal" street potency's. The same thing occurred during prohibition with alcohol poisoning. Potency would be known in the same way alcohol content (proofs) and tar and nicotine content in cigarettes (labeled right on the packs and cartons).

Now, not anyone can purchase cigarettes or alcohol or a gun for that matter. precisely because of regulation and control. in the same way, not everyone should be able to purchase marijuana, heroin, or whatever your poison is. regulated and controlled.

now i flatly rejected your hypothetical position because it was absurd (much like my brain synapse one was). you and i could draw up all sorts of imaginative what-ifs but theyre not gonna serve any purpose other than drawing up a good laugh.

you know, i also believe personal freedoms end where harm to others begin. but this certainly doesnt support your prohibition stance at all. Looking at it another way, you have the right to drink as little or as much alcohol as you want. but if you get too drunk and drive (and get caught) you'll get arrested. so while you still have that freedom to drink alcohol, that same freedom does not infringe on my freedom to press charges should you become too intoxicated and harm me. i know that sounds a bit convoluted, im not as articulate as i'd like to be right now but you catch my drift ya?

in closing, every piece of your defense doesnt hold an ounce of water when held up to the model of prohibition of the 20's, it's "side effects", and it's eventual outcome.

sorry again for being so curt earlier. therapy for my condition takes a good while =)

>> ^shinyblurry:

I don't believe the government should regulate our personal lives. It's a fine line. Take the heroin example. Heroin is so dangerous, and so deadly. Overdosing is not hard, at all..and I personally know a lot of people who would probably become heroin addicts rather quickly if it was easy as picking it up in the convenience store.
An incontrovertible fact is, if heroin is legalized, people are going to die from it who wouldn't have otherwise. Is it worth lives to make a dangerous and deadly drug available to masses under the pretense of liberty? Why can't we be rational, and reasonable instead..and say, well the cause of liberty should outweigh the harm..but we will collectively decide that some of these are just so dangerous that it is worth impringing on our liberty to keep them illegal.
The bible says that everything is permisable(besides what is explicitly forbidden) but not everything is beneficial. Likewise, though liberty is valuable it is not always beneficial to the whole. Remember, when liberty is taken to the extreme you have anarchy.


Know what else is dangerous? Sky diving, bungee jumping, base jumping, some parkour, motorcycle racing, f1, trick motorcycle jumps, you fucking name it, we do it.

In my own personal opinion, it is not the place of a government to act as my mummy, taking dangerous toys off me, reprimanding me for doing something hazardous to my health. Human kind has lived for many long long years without that kind of omnipresent babysitter.

It is not government's job to say what you can and can't do with or to your own body as long as you are not directly harming anyone else in the act of doing it. Part of being free is having the responsibility for the effects of your actions on yourself and on the people you love.

(inb4 drugs harm others) The only reason drugs harm others right now is because they are illegal.

Edit:
Whoops i forgot to add - ron paul continues to say things that make absolute perfect undeniable sense! Can he come over here and run a political party please? I want to see/know more.

I don't believe the government should regulate our personal lives. It's a fine line. Take the heroin example. Heroin is so dangerous, and so deadly. Overdosing is not hard, at all..and I personally know a lot of people who would probably become heroin addicts rather quickly if it was easy as picking it up in the convenience store.

An incontrovertible fact is, if heroin is legalized, people are going to die from it who wouldn't have otherwise. Is it worth lives to make a dangerous and deadly drug available to masses under the pretense of liberty? Why can't we be rational, and reasonable instead..and say, well the cause of liberty should outweigh the harm..but we will collectively decide that some of these are just so dangerous that it is worth impringing on our liberty to keep them illegal.

The bible says that everything is permisable(besides what is explicitly forbidden) but not everything is beneficial. Likewise, though liberty is valuable it is not always beneficial to the whole. Remember, when liberty is taken to the extreme you have anarchy.

That could all be very well true, but it's not for me or you to decide, just for him. I defend his right as an adult to choose these things, choose them without having the entire world tell him it's not a choice that he made but a succumbing to some mental illness. If he leaves his children fatherless, I still would.

I didn't mean he was necessarily in control of them, that's why I also said some embrace their addictions. It's the complete unwillingness of other people to accept the fact an adult can make that choice that bothers me. If he had no wife? No children? Would his habits be acceptable then? It's not easy to admit but many find more solace in hedonistic pursuits than they do in what is generally accepted as healthy/productive/"good". And even when they "want" to quit, don't make the mistake of thinking that when they don't it's not at all the product of rational thought. Drugs are wonderful, they can take all your cares away, they can make you experience things you would be unable to without them. A user uses first and foremost because he enjoys using, accepting that is healthier than not.

>> ^spoco2:

>> ^NinjaInHeat:
Rocknroll Charlie boy. The only thing that bothers me about this interview is how much disdain this conforming bitch has for hedonism, that and the fact that he agreed to entertain this retarded interview in the first place, he should know better. Some people like to enjoy life, some people can't grasp that notion. I like how black and white "normal" people think the mind of a drug user is. As if when one is using he is immediately completely physically addicted, he is sick and needs help, he does everything not out of choice but as a result of having a sick mind. Some people choose to take drugs, some people manage their addictions and even embrace them to certain extents. If you don't understand that that's fine, no one asks you to understand, just accept.

Really? You seem to think that not being 'normal' is a noble thing, and it is. To be unique, different, original is great. But Charlie is not any of these things. He is just another person who has physiological issues and has chosen drugs and alcohol to treat them.
And now he has had an 'epiphany' and sees everything so clearly, and has fixed his own brain. Yeah, well, I'm sure he thinks he has at the moment, but will you be championing him in the near future when he has crashed back to reality and has discovered that what he thought was the answer to life, the universe and everything was bullshit, and that he will have to self medicate again and then, whoops, he's dead, he died via suicide or accidental overdose or combination of things that should never be combined?
Will you still be championing him then? When he has left his kids with no father? When they will forever look to their dad as a fuckup who didn't get the help he needed when he should have?
HE has not got his addiction under control, he has problems, they will end his life very early. That is not to be applauded.

>> ^NinjaInHeat:

Rocknroll Charlie boy. The only thing that bothers me about this interview is how much disdain this conforming bitch has for hedonism, that and the fact that he agreed to entertain this retarded interview in the first place, he should know better. Some people like to enjoy life, some people can't grasp that notion. I like how black and white "normal" people think the mind of a drug user is. As if when one is using he is immediately completely physically addicted, he is sick and needs help, he does everything not out of choice but as a result of having a sick mind. Some people choose to take drugs, some people manage their addictions and even embrace them to certain extents. If you don't understand that that's fine, no one asks you to understand, just accept.


Really? You seem to think that not being 'normal' is a noble thing, and it is. To be unique, different, original is great. But Charlie is not any of these things. He is just another person who has physiological issues and has chosen drugs and alcohol to treat them.

And now he has had an 'epiphany' and sees everything so clearly, and has fixed his own brain. Yeah, well, I'm sure he thinks he has at the moment, but will you be championing him in the near future when he has crashed back to reality and has discovered that what he thought was the answer to life, the universe and everything was bullshit, and that he will have to self medicate again and then, whoops, he's dead, he died via suicide or accidental overdose or combination of things that should never be combined?

Will you still be championing him then? When he has left his kids with no father? When they will forever look to their dad as a fuckup who didn't get the help he needed when he should have?

HE has not got his addiction under control, he has problems, they will end his life very early. That is not to be applauded.