haven't deep dove on any of this, but i think its kind of bunk to talk about how hospitals are receiving more "marijuana related incidents" as a result of legalization when they quite probably were receiving the exact same number of visits they just weren't being told the truth of the incident due to the legality.

now people are more honest with doctors about their marijuana use so of course the sheer # is increasing.

I think you have a point about that, although I would guess that if use is up then hospital visits are also probably up, even accounting for that. I wouldn't say that's a strong argument against legalization in and of itself though.

If use is up then incidents will be up.

But what were these new users doing instead before it was legal. Drink? Other illegal drugs?

The lives no longer effected by prohibition, can they be counted?

In other news, did you hear the one about the cross being a secular symbol? That’s not even the punch line. If you disagree, that’s hostile towards religion and you hate the troops of WW1.

Seems entirely reasonable to me to think that with legalization that people who would otherwise have avoided pot will now give it a try, and a lot of those people are folks who will think that smoking is unsavory or unhealthy, but hey, eating a brownie isn't so bad, and hey, this thing doesn't seem to be working I'd better have another one, or two, and then whoopsie, hospital time. Pretty sure we've had journalists document this, albeit short of the hospital.

The current system is bad

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org...y-single-year/

remember all the takes about macron being a failure? if this forum hadn’t be deleted i would bump the post from last fall predicting he was gone within a week

this isn’t bad in a multiparty democracy that hates politicians

https://twitter.com/europeelects/sta...15776946065408

he’s still a bit weird and unemployment should be falling faster, but things are probably going to be fine for him

What You Lose When You Gain a Spouse: What if marriage is not the social good that so many believe and want it to be?

Some interesting bits and pieces in here.

This is a pretty accurate description of my wife and I, who have no kids. Fortunately, we have the internet :P

If you do a good job of picking a spouse, the outside world becomes somewhat superfluous.

If you do a poor job, it's a lifeline to sanity.

I won't be cheering until the things are actually printed up though

What did he win?

https://freedom.press/news/the-brazi...ils-reporting/

I'm about to unfollow all these Federalist lawyer dweebs over their incessant lip smacking imagining every liberal law requiring detailed syllogisms in order not to be declared non pretexual just because Roberts found that the Administration can't just straight up lie. As if the Administration had said they wanted the citizenship law just because the President felt like it Roberts wouldn't have green lit it.

One thing I have noticed about lawyers that seems to transcend party lines is that their "solutions" to legal problems normally involve the need for more lawyers to do more lawyering.

Former Governor Walker complaining that Democrats have an unfair edge of having more people vote for them.

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/03/73775...-for-democrats

Happy Independence Day.

Remix!

https://youtu.be/9As7hH60EK0

I agree with Walker. Democrats are prone to acting like they’re living in a democracy. In that regard Madison was right: “… measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.” Not that Republicans aren't equally to blame, but the more we near a functional democracy - where one side gains unilateral power and tramples on the minority and then losing side gains power and returns the favor - the greater the political and social strife we’ll continue to enjoy. Majority rule, meh.

Taking minority rule to it's logical extreme, why did we bother revolting against the King of England? Isn't the most minoritarian rule a ruler of one? A king? Of course no Republican would say that, what they would say, but never out loud is that liberals and minorities aren't true citizens and rule should stay with the rightful rulers, conservative whites and Christians, regardless of how small a minority they make up. It's pretty self evident with the extremes Republicans will go to in order to disenfranchise Democrats.


https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...stitution.html

Well it’s not about minority rule, either. Mostly it’s about securing individual liberties and rights and with the latter mostly property rights. For instance, why would a prolific acorn gathering squirrel enter a social pact with two other squirrels if they could merely vote some of his acorns for themselves? No prolific acorn gathering squirrel in his right mind would. And throughout recorded history a minority of the population have always been prolific at gathering stuff, so of course they would insist on and equity would demand some political schema that allowed for disproportionate influence on their behalf. I mean considering how covetous other squirrels can become, especially when confronted with a big fat squirrel sitting on a mountain of acorns, I can’t blame them one bit.

OK so what does that have to do with Walker saying that Democrats have an unnatural advantage of being more popular?

Or in another context why doesn't political minority rule apply to, say, Democrats in Texas?

The attendees at today's Trump parade voted for him because of economic anxiety.

There's no better conception of modern movement conservative than choosing July 4th to come out as strongly in favor of monarchy.

It's not too late to change your minds.

God save the queen ....