vhlhvjcov

If you don’t get paid when you are sick, you are in essence being punished for being sick.

Not being punished for being sick is a basic human right.

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights entered into force in 1976. The human rights that the Covenant seeks to promote and protect include:

the right to work in just and favourable conditions;

the right to social protection, to an adequate standard of living and to the highest attainable standards of physical and mental well-being;

the right to education and the enjoyment of benefits of cultural freedom and scientific progress.

How much moonshine do you drink?

As another commenter pointed out, from the article you posted:

> all of this is taking place in an industry without bankruptcy protections, where individuals carry personal liability for business taxes, and where businesses are barred from writing off normal expenses.

So your argument is not backed up by your own link

> That market always will exist because cutting makes drugs cheaper and legal drugs will never be able to compete.

I’m confused, what exactly links the Inquisition, homeowners associations and “diversity groups”?

Also what is a diversity group?

Horse numbers peaked around 1915. Model T released 1908.

Still plenty around until at least 1930.

http://www.americanequestrian.com/pdf/US-Equine-Demographics...

Hypothesis:

There is a visceral reaction to having light shone in your eyes and imagining light being shone in your eyes.

There is a perception of danger to the eyes from scanning vs danger from finger print scans.

Also on a more emotional level, eyes are seen as the place where true emotion is shown.

“Look into my eyes and tell you aren’t lying”

Having your eyes scanned therefore feels more intimate, meaning a higher barrier to acceptance.

The question to me is: what is the thing I should do? Where should I invest my energy?

Time and energy are finite resources and taking political action to drive systemic change has proven results (see previous examples).

I don’t know of any transformative movement against mass threat to human life that hasn’t relied on some form of top-down implementation to achieve its aims. Maybe environmental vegetarianism in the west? But that’s hardly been an unqualified success…

I agree with the sentiment but a couple problems with this approach

1. When you put the onus on the individual, powerful organisations will jump at the opportunity to absolve themselves of blame. Look at recycling and how it was pushed by the plastics lobby or the idea of a “personal carbon footprint” that was pushed by oil companies. There is a fact that these are systemic problems, that require systemic solutions.

2. History doesn’t repeat itself but it often rhymes. Which massive threat to human life has been solved through bottom-up grass roots action (I.e. not protest to drive systemic change)? Look at small pox, the ozone and cfcs, covid, lead pipes, asbestos, etc. these all required huge top down programmes to deliver results.

> by allowing penis drawings it pulls any artwork generated to be penis focused

As demonstrated by this conversation, Q.E.D

> Bad drawings likewise limit the aesthetic of what is possible

Are we to reason about aesthetics?

For those of us who don’t think you are an idiot (I don’t), could you maybe give us your insights and a history lesson?

I am most intrigued, particularly regarding Oppenheimer and Einstein.

This is false dichotomy.

In both meat eating and driving those activities have inherent harm, eating meat will cause animals harm, driving a car will cause pollution and release of GHG.

The harm of the drugs trade (on a societal level) is _due to its illegality_ I.e. it is run by criminals.

Could you consider harm reduction in a more holistic sense?

Harm from drugs in the current system goes well beyond the individual user.

Why not?

People can be functional heroin addicts (same as functional alcoholics).

Not that it’s a good or desirable thing.

Most heroin overdoses come from cut drugs, or from using at similar level after a break, often caused by prison stints. Both direct consequences of them being illegal.

Are drugs legalized, taxed, and regulated in Vancouver/SF?

If no, it’s a straw man argument.