MigL

You were quite the party animal Stringy 😄 . It seems a lot of abusers are 're-born', and become the most vocal oppnents. I remember the first time I got drunk. On cherries preserved in alcohol, when I was 5 years old ! Growing up, wine and beer were always available to me, if I wanted any, so that when I turned 18 ( in the 70s ) I felt no need to go out and get intoxicated. Nor did I get any particular thrill out of it; I still treat liquor/beer/wine that way, and never felt the need to drink by myself. Never having gone through your experiences, I enjoy alcohol beverages like I do good company, or good food ( and a good discussion ).

Really? That seems an extreme form of birth control. Wouldn't it be easier to castrate the males? My bad. I should have use the more accurate term, female genital mutilation, Female genital mutilation - Wikipedia but it still does not get to become law when its proponents immigrate to any civilized part of the world.

Most liquor stores are not held up by alcoholics looking to steal booze. Most are held up by people wanting to seal money. That desease, greed, is a lot more common than alcoholism.

Female castration is a religious requirement in some parts of the world. It does not become law when they immigrate to America. As a matter of fact, this should have nothing to do with Religion. Our laws are based on rights, and the only consideration for an abortion is the rights of the fetus vs. the rights of the mother ( and possibly, father ). We can all agree on the rights of the mother ( and possibly father, responsible for support after birth ); what is the sticking point are the rights of the fetus, and when exactly those rights are aquired, further complicated by the fact that medical science keeps that goalpost moving. My nephew's partner had a severe medical condition that required her baby to be removed prematurely. She was barely two pounds and fit on one hand when born on Jan 2nd, but is now a beatiful, 7.5 pound, full-term baby girl.

Notice I did not say that. An abuser is anyone who overindulges, whether an alcoholic or a perma-stoner. That is who you want to compare. And that statistic of 40% of violent incidents being caused by alcoholics is also questionable. Does it include kids who get drunk one night and get in a fight ? Are they alcoholics because they succombed to peer pressure one night ? As Peterkin already explained, this statistic depends on how far you want to stretch the web of crime connected to usage. And yes, illegality has a lot of impact on the associated crime element, in much the same way it did during alcohol prohibition. I would think cannabis use should be compared to cigarette use rather than alcohol, but I do think it is rather strange that the new mantra is "Cigarettes are bad; pot is good for you". They both involve breathing byproducts of combustion ( there is a reason fire-fighters wear supplied air ), and smoking 20 joints a day will have equivalent ill effects as smoking a pack of cigarettes; plus, you'll be perma-stoned. All I'm asking for is like for like comparison. As for the 'harder' drugs, which bear comparison to alcohol yet no-one seems to mention comparative down-sides to health and society, I would love to see life expectancy numbers for an alcoholic compared to a heroin addict, or the negative impacts of either condition on family/society. Cannabis is legal in Canada, and I don't have a problem with that ( as long as they keep the stoned off the roads ), but saying the war on harder rugs has failed, and we should just legalize them, makes little sense. Wars on most all crimes are failing, because we still have most crimes; should we legalize all crimes ?

It was meant for all who were discussing the pain aspect. I quoted you because you put it most eloquently.

Why not compare like with like ? You are comparing alcoholics, who are abusers /addicts of alcohol, to social users of Cannabis. Only a minority of alcohol users become dependent, and have/cause problems; but there are an awful lot of users. Why not compare alcoholics to the perma-stoned users of cannabis ? The fact that a lot of alcohol users are not addicts/abusers, but simply have one or two drinks a day, is skewed by how you choose to define 'alcoholic'. I am reminded of going to my yearly medical, and being asked by the doctor how many drinks I'd have per week. To which I replied between 7 and 14. He then said that if I need a drink or two every day, I'm considered an alcoholic. To which I replied that I just drank on Saturday nights. And I won't even get into abusers of the 'harder; drugs.

I wish we could have better arguments, for and against, instead of just down-voting your disagreement. Please tell us why, else this is not a discussion.

This seems to have done a 90o turn and gone from a discussion about Supreme Court decisions and leaks, to abortion rights. Is that a criteria we want to use to determine candidacy for abortion ? As long as they feel no pan, they can be terminated ? I know you guys are a lot more nuanced than that. We need to first estabilish what is, and when, a 'person' ( baby or fetus ) acheives personhood, at which point the mother cannot have that 'person' killed in order to relieve the burden of having to carry around a 'collection of cells'. For some mothers, that 'collection of cells' is a burden even after birth, as evidenced by the number of babies/children given up for adoption. I, myself, am of the opinion that it is a personal choice that a woman must make, and live with. And that choice being a private matter is the gist of the '72 Roe vs Wade decision. But I also realize that others may feel more strongly one way or the other, and as a socety, we must strive for balance. It is not my place to dictate other's opinions or morals.

Speaking of sticker shock ... Most expensive Scotch I found at the duty free in the Toronto Airport was $9000. At the duty free in Rome I found one for the equivalent of almost $27000. No, I didn't buy either.

Always thought that, unlike Canada, prisoners in the US are allowed to vote, even though it is very difficult to do so.

Gun violence in the US is directly tied to poor education in that area. We're not even allowed to spend taxpayer funds on studies of gun violence in the US. Our leadership refuses to turn the light on, so how can we see what's wrong? If we had a healthcare system that supported early mental and physical health standards, and educated kids about the dangers we consider inherent in our society, I think many of our problems would disappear. Sorry, I didn't communicate that very well ... Both gun violence and drug use/abuse are big problems in the US. Both are currently illegal. Since keeping them illegal is not currently working, one proposed solution is to make drug use legal ( or decriminalized ) and focus resources on mitigating consequences of usage. I'd like to explore using that approach for other currently illegal activities, such as gun violence.

None of those graphs which show the harm to society take into account the widespread use of alcohol as compared to other less used drugs. We also have an obesity/diabetes problem in North America, not because sugar is harmful, but because it is present in everything we consume. I do agree with Swansont's suggestion on the previous page that a society with a representative Government is free to choose what it makes legal or illegal, simply by preference and majority rule. And I found this line interesting ... Would you suggest the same approach with gun violence in the US ?

Directly proportional implies a linear relationship between two variables. If you double the one variable, the other doubles. If you triple it, the other variable also triples. And so on ... For F=ma,you have three variables, and the correct reading is Force and acceleration are directly proportional when mass is constant. IOW, it would not work for a rocket which changes mass as it expels fuel. Nor would it work in relativistic situations.

Some Canadian politicians have already commented that American women would be welcome to undergo the procedure in Canada.

And I think Gay marriage rights should have also been enacted as Federal law. That could be next on the agenda.

Not to pick on Democrats, again ... There have been plenty of opportunities during the last 50 yrs. to turn the SC decision into law at the federal level. All that time, Democrats have held the naive notion that the Roe vs. Wade decision was settled law, and failed to enact actual law. I would think it is much easier to overturn a previous opinion, rather than an enshrined law. We are failed by our elected Governments, and we blame the SC when they change their mind.

Not at the rate they are being pushed back. So much for the vaunted Russian Armed Forces. I guess V Putin won't be having his cancer surgery anywhere in the West. Let us hope that while he's out, saner heads prevail.

I'm not overly familiar with the Constitution ( Canadian ), but I don't see how an imaginary line between States determines that one American has the right to an abortion, while anothe American does not. Maybe the SC can interpret what exactly it means 'to be American', and what rights cannot be taken away by a State, according to the Constitution.

Maybe Justice Alito is looking for a way that the SC can avoid the responsibility ithas had for the last 50 yrs. of maintaining the status quo, and place it where it belongs; on the shoulders of our elected representatives. I have always thought that a society has the right to set the rules that it lives by, and not have unelected intelligentsia determine those rules. I think abortion could be one of those rules. That being said, most of those rules should apply to the greater society of the country, and not be a mix'n'match at the state level. An American should not have one set of rights in one state, and another set in the next. Nor should travel between states be a problem. That is the absurd situation. And I get the feeling the SC will be dragged back into this debate, at least, to decide what it means to be American, and how some Americans have rights other Americans are denied.

I was just reading that ... Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows - POLITICO and that last line caught my eye. “The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion,” the draft concludes. “Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.” I would think this puts the onus on elected representatives to make appropriate laws and not rely on Supreme Court decisions to do it for them. Unfortunately I also see more polarization in the US, and more women suffering as a result. Also note that in the '72 Roe vs. Wade decision, Republican appointed Justices sided with Democrat appointed Justices in making that decision. Sadly, those days of reasonable Republicans are gone.

I suggested that about a week ago ... The Lakota may not have had 'criminals' or jails, simply because they had no laws. They did however, have societal responsibilities, and failiure to meet these responsibilities meant banishment from the tribe. Jailing them would have kept them captive but in the tribe, while banishment was almost a death penalty.

I know what the stsndard definition of solipsism is, but I'm not sure I know what it is. And I'm sure if you asked 25 people you would get 25 different definitions. Physics doesn't work like that.

For what it's worth, I have repeatedly said the subject of the OP was not particularly upsetting to me. Ultimately J Biden made a good choice in KBJ, but could have handled the preannounced selection criteria in a more politically correct fashion. This has now gone completely off topic, with some telling me they are offended by my use of certain words which may ( depending on location ) offend a third party. MSC then berates them because he is offended that they are offending me. When did being offended for other people become a 'thing' ? Well I am not offended, so can we all take a deep breath and calm down. @MSC While I appreciate you sticking up for me, I assure you, it is not needed. INow and I are constantly tussling, and we both seem to enjoy it. Also keep in mind that INow ( and Peterkin ) are probably older than I am. ( and not as good looking, intelligent, or modest 😄 )

Peterkin has all the facts, but can't seem to draw the proper conclusion from them. That is correct. And especially in the Southern US, the term 'colored' was associated with black people, and eventually came to be seen as a racisl slur. This is all explained in INow link, if you are so interested. That is also correct. But in Canada the term still refers to People of Color, or anyone who is visibly not a white Caucasian. It does not refer only to Black Canadians, and I suspect, the situation is similar in other parts of the World that don't share US southern history. The conclusion he draws, that the border is 'porous', and we slowly embrace American characteristics, is false. I don't own a gun, even though every American TV show depicts gun use. We don't project power ( and attitude ) around the world, mostly because we have no equipment for our Armed Forces, but we do watch a lot of American war movies. Almost half of us don't think D Trump's Presidency was the 'second coming', and almost all of us Canadians think he's an idiot, even though Fox News is available in Canada. And even our Prime Minister, who likes to 'signal virtue', ( but then wears black face make-up ) has used the term 'coloured' ( notice the Canadian spelling ). Are you trying to 'out-signal' Justin, Peterkin ?