

Me? No, I’m not. That’s the argument of the person I’m responding to.
Me? No, I’m not. That’s the argument of the person I’m responding to.
Do you realize how complex proper sampling is, or expensive the testing is? Ideally you’re also going to be looking for bacterial and fungal growth as well. I see no reason that high potency cannabis - also the most efficient in terms of energy for light/cooling, water usage, fertilizer usage per quantity THC - shouldn’t be commercially available, tested to pharmaceutical standards, and regulated to permit users to make responsible decisions.
Arguing for low potency cannabis is forcing others to be wasteful because you can’t regulate your own consumption. I don’t get absolutely stupid with strong weed or extracts, it’s just nice to not have to smoke an entire gram joint before bed. A few hits is all I need.
I said it should be tested and labeled properly so consumers can make their own decisions. The article sucks, it’s not “verifiable fact”. Hit me with those peer reviewed studies in a journal worth a shit if it’s such a fact.
You can’t prevent people from growing it themselves at home no, but selling high grade over the counter? Heeeell no. Not in my country.
You want people who would like to use strong cannabis have to go to the black market instead of buying something tested and labeled over the counter and making an informed decision.
That’s fine to have your own opinion but don’t restrict my rights to grow the stickiest of the icky. Sometimes I want to roast a fat joint and be functional. Sometimes I just want to sleep without toking for a half hour. One hit shit absolutely has its place, and with accurate labeling, you can be the judge.
This article blows. “Genetically modifying” cannabis for higher THC content? You mean breeding, like every other plant grown for consumption?
Housing is a bit different than concert tickets, both in terms of how essential it is and the interest rate involved. I’m not putting concert tickets on anything that’s accruing interest, that’s simply a bad financial decision.
I after E except after C and when sounded like A as in neighbor and weigh (and a thousand other exceptions)
I vacillate between the two. Really depends on the words surrounding “data”.
How did you learn English?
I know the DSM isn’t perfect but inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity are the main criteria, and those are all issues that I believe stem from poor concentration or focus.
My opinion still remains the same; I think many have these traits but few have it to a level which is appropriately classified as a disorder. Stimulants are performance enhancing drugs for your brain and they have side effects. People hear from a friend or post online that it helped someone and go get evaluated - by a for profit industry that stands to make money by getting more patients. Pretty easy to cut someone a script and bill that CPT code.
I’m not saying this disorder doesn’t exist, or that some people have no option but medication. I do think it’s over diagnosed by an industry relying on patient satisfaction scores.
This is my unpopular opinion. I don’t believe taking a medication for life as the first line treatment is appropriate, especially when they’re directly affecting reward pathways. ADHD is just one of many areas in medicine I see this happening.
ADHD is massively over diagnosed in the US. No shit stimulants make you concentrate better, that doesn’t mean you had ADHD. Concentration is like a muscle, you have to actively invest effort into making it better. It’s hard to concentrate and scrolling through posts and flicking through shorts is atrophying this ability. It’s like someone who doesn’t work out or eat well thinking they have a muscle development disorder, taking anabolic steroids, and since they gained muscle it confirms their suspicions that they had a disorder. Concentrating is difficult, it takes active effort, and you will hit walls when your brain is tired. It can be trained, however. This should be the focus and stimulants should be the absolute last option and only for people who truly meet the definition of disorder, i.e. it greatly impairs their relationships, work, or daily life.
I’m not saying it doesn’t exist at all, but I do think it’s way over diagnosed. Doctors want those high patient satisfaction scores, which is another issue in medicine in general.
We live in an unjust world and it’s not likely he’ll face consequences in line with his actions.
See also China, Korea, and Japan discussing free trade.
What I’m trying to say is they’re going to use pedantic definitions of what’s classified, or what is “war plans”, to distract from the issue. You can make a case for these people needing to be severely reprimanded even if the leaks were completely unclassified. I’ve seen people get fucked up for way less with unclassified information.
I think it’s because your average person doesn’t know the difference between classified and sensitive information.
Classified or not is mostly a moot point to me. It’s still extremely sensitive information and I’ve seen servicemembers get fucked over for much more minor infractions, like posting on Facebook when they’re going to be deployed or leave port.
At no point did I say this was ineffective at extorting men. I am saying that due to societal biases women tend to be judged (unfairly, in case that’s not clear) more than men for any given sexual activity. This makes blackmail more effective.
I feel like this would be much easier to attribute to “boys will be boys” than an excuse for women. The odds of being negatively judged for being a slut are significantly higher for women than they are for a man.
I’m not saying men aren’t negatively judged for these things, but if you took 100 people and showed them equally compromising pictures, my money is on more people negatively judging the woman. It’s a deep rooted societal bias.
I think the reason men are more likely to send unsolicited nudes is because there’s not going to be near as much consequence as compared to a woman. Same reason I think blackmail with nudes is likely more effective on women.
Not the commenter you replied to, but I would say it’s more effective on women due societal biases. Of course men can be extorted with nudes too, but the same tactic will be more effective if used on a female population. There’s still an expectation for women to be modest, or at least more so than men. How often do you see women topless vs men?
You know, I didn’t even realize that when my pre-coffee morning brain wrote my comment.
.