Another thing to think about is manlands like inkmoth nexus. If it exiles to [currently creature] and persists, you could do stupid things with the right tools.
This isn't necessarily asynergistic with snapcaster mage; check it: a cheap, instant speed spell with cipher gets played, choose not to encode the first time, snap it, as it resolves encode it onto snaps or w/e and you've got at least a 2 for 1 AND hit encode, ciphering as part of the spell's resolution and therefore circumventing the other half of flashback.
I don't know if dismissals set jurisprudence. It is utterly ridiculous that assault is tolerated simply because speech can be found offensive- keep in mind that a depiction of the prophet Mohammed isn't in and of itself incendiary. We cannot tolerate physical assault and violence over petty things like this. If one were to analyze the intent of dressing up like zombie Mohammad, it should become clear that it's to make people laugh, and not to incite violence.
I want phasing. You can do amazing things with it, like have something disappear just when it's needed, only to come back; you can slap it on powerful things because it only does something half the time. Really neat.
Marijuana will never be legal to the public in our lifetime. There is simply not enough profit prospect for the private sector to invest in such an undertaking.
When people say, "just tax and regulate it", they have no idea the scale and scope of how difficult this is. It requires an entire dedicated infrastructure to coordinate a myriad of agencies; insurance companies, law enforcement, criminal justice systems, nfo, ama, fda, dept. of agriculture, atf, nsa, fbi... the list goes on and on. We're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars here, if not billions. Who pays for this? Tax payers? This will NEVER happen.
I am interested in the debate of medical marijuana, but this is a wholly independent issue from what I'm seeing discussed here. The only relevant debate is the one concerning the rights of doctors to prescribe to patients where they see fit.
I will concede that a secondary debate can be made concerning the decriminalization of it. Efforts to make recreational public possession a municipal offense have been successful, but these results have been achieved through the the vehicles of mobilization, petitioning, lobbying, voting, etc.
I apologize if I am alienating those who want to discuss the logistics, challenges, and possibilities surrounding "legalization", but it's sort of a dead horse and has been for a quarter century. I even heard someone here claim that addiction is characterized by "physical withdrawal symptoms", which is a notion that's been dead to the medical field for half a dozen decades.
What do the fbi and nsa have to do with a hypothetically legal agricultural product? How would they not be involved with medical if they would be involved with legal? Isn't the point to get law enforcement out of the cannabiz because they have no legitimate interest in keeping us safe or protecting our liberties? Don't the taxpayers shell out for every person tried for cannabis related crimes?
Its honestly insulting to say that legalization isn't coming because California got medical in '96.
I think there needs to be a focus on the subject of potency here. The main discussion centers around the demand for medicinal application and the restricting web of red tape concerning controlled/illicit substance laws.
This really isn't a civil liberty or social issues as most people would like it to be, which is actually a wicked headache for those trying to lobby on behalf of medical applications. It muddles the conversation and takes the issue at hand away from the state and into the dreaded realm of federal sanctioning. Anti-marijuana supporters love it when this happens.
The main concern surrounding medical marijuana is the genetic alteration of the thc molecule to stimulate stronger responses in the pleasure centers of the brain. Studies show that habit forming behaviors and the addictive phenomenon of craving occur when a drug begins to stimulate the brain into producing about 400% dopamine. Marijuana is rapidly approaching this mark, which is actually in the neighborhood of cocaine. Dopamine is a chemical positive reinforcement agent that facilitates basic human instincts like eating, socializing, and procreation. When dopamine production is amplified too much, the instincts and driving motivations behind human behavior become warped and very soon thereafter the user develops a mental health malady. This early state of illness is often dormant and hard to detect. Nonetheless it incubates in the mind and manifests slowly. This "disease of addiction", (and anyone who says addiction is not a disease or that marijuana is not addictive will be promptly slapped in the face with a giant herring), is progressive, baffling to treat, and ultimately chronic if recovery is not successful.
In these regards, the increasing potency of genetically enhanced cannabis sativa is in fact nearing a threshold where it is likely to have severely damaging effects on it's consumer.
The more you know..
This is speculative, and shows little knowledge of the substance of discussion.
It isn't hard to quit partaking of cannabis, even when one does it all day every day. There are no physical withdrawal symptoms-- and cannabis works on the cannabinoid receptors, not dopamine receptors.
The reality is that cannabis is about as addictive as caffeine. As a matter of fact, because thc metabolites stay stored in the body and tapir off, it is impossible to have an withdrawal symptoms like one gets with opiates, stimulants or alcohol.
It actually wasn't. My point was that the drug cartels don't engage in these activities because they're illegal. They engage in them because they are profitable. If we legalized marijuana, they would still be trafficking humans and hard drugs. Legalizing marijuana would have little or no impact on their activities. They'd still do it, because marijuana is a cash crop with relatively high return. Assuming that legalization would suddenly cause the price to plummet seems...speculative to me. Sure, people would start growing some of their own. But that doesn't mean that the demand wouldn't increase alongside the supply, as people had less to worry about when they decided to consume cannabis.
Harkius
Demand for drugs has been shown to be inelastic. Taking links out of the supply chain and reorganizing production would almost certainly reduce price, because you're meeting roughly the same demand with a larger supply pool with fewer operating costs. A person growing for themselves is likely to produce more bud than they can smoke-- the average plant produces at least a pound. So whether or not it remains profitable, it will almost certainly be less profitable legalized. If there is a conscientious consumer, that person will know not to buy from drug cartels- why would you go to the black market at all when there would be a surplus of product available not grown by cartels, sold in a storefront instead of on the streets?
In crimes where there's no incentive, there are no organized criminals participating. It was a strawman point and you know it. And that's beside the fact that at least half of what he mentioned were things in which criminal enterprises engaged. Do criminal enterprises engage in petty, personal crimes? No. Its irrelevant to mention because there isn't incentive.
None of those are things that criminals get involved with because they're illegal. I can hear your reply now..."But those aren't businesses." Not yet. But they could be. I can conceive of situations where an exchange of money for acts of vandalism would be...desirable, let's say.
I can think of cases where money might change hands in exchange for taking large quantities of...materials that are difficult to get rid of.
Yet...yet...I don't see the Zetas engaging in those businesses...
Harkius
Street gangs commit vandalism and theft all the time, the former to mark territory and the latter because it's profitable. But trafficking in illegal narcotics is obscenely profitable because it's illegal-- and using force becomes necessary when you have enemies both in rival gangs and militarized antinarcotics agents.
Illegal protesting? What even is that? And dumping? The mafia throws dead bodies in the river-- and may well be involved with other dumping activities simply to launder money.
If you've ever seen goodfellas, you'd know that Jimmy's favorite thing to do was steal. They don't commit petty theft, no-- it's about risk vs. Reward. They do stickups and hijacking. And when it comes to vandalism, if you're going to extort a business, vandalism becomes one of the ways in which it's possible.
So just off the top of your head have you got anything else?
So you're saying that violent criminals should be put in jail? I agree. But making distribution a hard felony makes the economic situation such that hard criminals have an advantage with their business model when they distribute cannabis. The correlation therefore exists like this: criminals sell drugs because it's an illegal business, and not that it's an illegal business because criminals sell drugs.
For random stoners, no. But the drug is sometimes distributed by large violent gangs, so I wouldn't want to take prison off the table completely.
Welcome to black market economics 101. This is a direct result of blanket prohibition. A legalized regulated model with legitimate businesses solves its problem with a lawyer and his briefcase rather than a thousand men with guns.
False dichotomy. Other options exist, including long-use initiatives [a person fixes their gizmos rather than buys a new one if at all possible], rebuilts [a person reproduces the gizmo, often with improved performance, out of the pieces of a discarded one], and small-scale reproductions [made by third-party companies who simply produce on too small a scale to make sweatshops a viable option]. These, as well as other options I'm specifically not including because they're illegal, are all viable and tend to reduce significant factors in the purchase of a "gizmo", such as cost and ecological footprint, all without turning "primitive."
Viable or not, the paradigm prefers labor the way it is. Nevermind the very real cultural consumerism that makes this profitable...
There is some zen in being self sufficient and not having to be constantly stimulated. Im not there- but it looks appealing. Where have gone the days where we could amuse ourselves? Perhaps the cat's no longer bagged.
Quite the dynamic etymology lesson. Where the further definitions of faith are concerned, it stems from belief that is validated in one's heart- and the definitions include the word belief because it more accurately describes what is the context. But that doesn't make faith in this case a commitment of conviction based on anything other than confidence and resolve. That kind of makes it a misnomer, non?
Renounce the tenants of civilized society, especially the importance of material possessions. Oh, wait, it's too comfortable. Other than regressing to a more primitive state of existence it's really kind of impossible to avoid- we don't have sovereignty or control over the ways kn which all this stuff is made. And its all virtually made under these conditions.
The color requirement doesn't even really matter with Realmwright.
Incidentally, laboratory maniac and biovisionary sit at the same CMC.
Though I could be wrong.
What do the fbi and nsa have to do with a hypothetically legal agricultural product? How would they not be involved with medical if they would be involved with legal? Isn't the point to get law enforcement out of the cannabiz because they have no legitimate interest in keeping us safe or protecting our liberties? Don't the taxpayers shell out for every person tried for cannabis related crimes?
Its honestly insulting to say that legalization isn't coming because California got medical in '96.
This is speculative, and shows little knowledge of the substance of discussion.
It isn't hard to quit partaking of cannabis, even when one does it all day every day. There are no physical withdrawal symptoms-- and cannabis works on the cannabinoid receptors, not dopamine receptors.
The reality is that cannabis is about as addictive as caffeine. As a matter of fact, because thc metabolites stay stored in the body and tapir off, it is impossible to have an withdrawal symptoms like one gets with opiates, stimulants or alcohol.
Demand for drugs has been shown to be inelastic. Taking links out of the supply chain and reorganizing production would almost certainly reduce price, because you're meeting roughly the same demand with a larger supply pool with fewer operating costs. A person growing for themselves is likely to produce more bud than they can smoke-- the average plant produces at least a pound. So whether or not it remains profitable, it will almost certainly be less profitable legalized. If there is a conscientious consumer, that person will know not to buy from drug cartels- why would you go to the black market at all when there would be a surplus of product available not grown by cartels, sold in a storefront instead of on the streets?
In crimes where there's no incentive, there are no organized criminals participating. It was a strawman point and you know it. And that's beside the fact that at least half of what he mentioned were things in which criminal enterprises engaged. Do criminal enterprises engage in petty, personal crimes? No. Its irrelevant to mention because there isn't incentive.
Street gangs commit vandalism and theft all the time, the former to mark territory and the latter because it's profitable. But trafficking in illegal narcotics is obscenely profitable because it's illegal-- and using force becomes necessary when you have enemies both in rival gangs and militarized antinarcotics agents.
Illegal protesting? What even is that? And dumping? The mafia throws dead bodies in the river-- and may well be involved with other dumping activities simply to launder money.
If you've ever seen goodfellas, you'd know that Jimmy's favorite thing to do was steal. They don't commit petty theft, no-- it's about risk vs. Reward. They do stickups and hijacking. And when it comes to vandalism, if you're going to extort a business, vandalism becomes one of the ways in which it's possible.
So just off the top of your head have you got anything else?
Welcome to black market economics 101. This is a direct result of blanket prohibition. A legalized regulated model with legitimate businesses solves its problem with a lawyer and his briefcase rather than a thousand men with guns.
Viable or not, the paradigm prefers labor the way it is. Nevermind the very real cultural consumerism that makes this profitable...
There is some zen in being self sufficient and not having to be constantly stimulated. Im not there- but it looks appealing. Where have gone the days where we could amuse ourselves? Perhaps the cat's no longer bagged.