Sir Bandelot

It does not matter if you want to say what the Greeks knew or did was not "science", by some pristine definition of the word or the requirements. You folks distracted me from the point I was trying to make in my two posts, about inductive vs. deductive reasoning. I was using the Greeks as an example. Now I remember what I was getting at. Arg I can't stand it when people distract with with nitpicking irrelevant things! You people babble and babble on and on with silly nitpicking things, for the sheer sake of argument. Not even, argument. Just the automatic nay-saying of whatever someone else says, without actually saying anything yourselves.

If a person is caught in possession of marijuana their charge would be the same, whether it was found in their pocket, held in their hand or burning a joint on their very lips. It does not matter if they are caught in the very act of using it, vs. simply holding it. it is simply, "possession". Consumption is not an aggravating factor.

Sure. I have no qualms with any of this. maybe the last sentence, "enough evidence", might not hold up in court under some charter rights. But despite that, or whether one is operating machinery or not, those are separate issues. With law as you know everything has to be worded very precisely.

Yes indeed, it seems that the new leader of the free world does not take well to criticism. I wonder how well he responds to being made fun of, as with the Obama Fried Chicken?

The issue was raised more in the light of the question, what if someone was already "high", but no longer in possession of drugs because they've already consumed them. Example if it could be determined someone had drugs in their system, by blood test or what have you, is there a law against it. The correct answer is NO, there is no law on the books. Not in Canada. But in the US, I don't know. Probably, considering how it's the land of the most un-free in terms of prisoners/ ex-cons per capita, state executions per capita, total dollars invested in the judicial/penal system, and amount of violence in the war on drugs, war on terror, war on this and that.

Not odd at all. Most people can use their intelligence to decide what's good or bad about certain things. Only a complete partisan would find that 'odd'.

The core elements of our way of life have to be protected. I guess the question is, where does that line get crossed, or rather, what is it that threatens our way of life. There are definitely some things to e concerned about. I think that asking people (not ordering them) to not eat during a meeting is still reasonable. Eating during meetings is kinda gross anyway, and people deserve to have "protected time" to eat their lunch, and break away from work for a little while. Otherwise the corporate culture becomes eating while working, because we're overworked, because the a-holes won't hire a few more people to spread the work out a little. Strangely many people don't have a problem with that, ever increasing demands on our personal time for the sake of increasing production. Muslims are so very different from us culturally speaking, in their attitude towards production and capitalism. At times they make a conscious decision NOT to make profit, or for that matter progress. This is based on their religious belief. In a more idealized view it could be said they are the last bastion of old-world spiritual anti-materialism, and as such, they should be protected.

It get's worse. Like Darth Vader, Dick Cheney is partly man, partly machine. His heart died, so he now has an artificial implant that assists in pumping blood through his veins. As a result, he has no pulse. I kid you not...

Exactly what this thread is about... thanks for playing.

Yes he is. He is your elected official, chosen by the American people. What he did was done in your name.

You are right in principle, but we cannot control what they do in Saudi Arabia. Is it justified then for us to adopt their attitude? Because that seems to be your logic here. All we can do is demonstrate what we believe to be right. If we don't do that, who will?

Just sayin... we all know how much you admire the bastard.

Not obsessing. Just sayin

Sheesh, I thought it said bush_cheney

I think your both wrong to belittle or trivialize the accomplishments of the Greeks. And I have taken the tie to back up my assertions. As stated, what was known was lost in a tragedy that affected the history of them whole human race. The burning of libraries of information plunged the world into the dark ages, and if this didn't occur we WOULD be a thousand years ahead of where we are now. Anyway, despite that I'm sure you'll continue to disagree. Besides, I hate stupid back and forth arguments, like some other thread. And it's off topic.

I know how he did it, and I agree they did use experimentation. The reasoning came first, of course. I wouldn't say they 'often' got horrendously erroneous results. I don't really know how often. But the fact remains, they had quite an advanced body of knowledge about physical science, some of which we have only rediscovered in the past few hundred years. We can argue about whether experimentation is 'good' or 'bad', or why the Greeks believed it to be so. But it touches on certain aspects of philosophy, which the Greeks combined with science. Interesting article that discusses this in some detail: History of Scientific Method Aristotle did not accept that knowledge acquired by induction could rightly be counted as scientific knowledge. Nevertheless, induction was a necessary preliminary to the main business of scientific enquiry, providing the primary premises required for scientific demonstrations. Because to be accepted as valid, the inductive knowledge (acquired by experiments) requires a sound mathematical/ logical proof based in reason.

It comes down to the meaning of the word "use", because in the act of use you are in possession. Note that in order to be charged with possession it does not require that you are using. After "use", if there is no drug found, or remnants of drug residue on paraphernalia in your possession, you cannot be charged. There is no law on the books. Of course that doesn't mean employers or the military won't hire you, if for example you fail a drug test.

"In a way, all of us has an El Guapo to face. For some, shyness might be their El Guapo. For others, a lack of education might be their El Guapo. For us, El Guapo is a big, dangerous man who wants to kill us. But as sure as my name is Lucky Day, the people of Santa Poco can conquer their own personal El Guapo, who also happens to be *the actual* El Guapo!" Satan was his 'El Guapo'...

I somewhat disagree. Most people don't realize how much the Greeks already knew and understood. People like Aristotle, Plato and Pythagorus. There is even evidence and they knew that the solar system is heliocentric. In 300 BC Aristarchus determined that the planets revolve around the sun. Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth, and the distance to the Sun. They did this without advanced technology, without telescopes, spacecraft or RADAR. The Greeks did not believe that experimentation was necessary, in fact they avoided it where possible. They believed that human reasoning should be capable of understanding the fundamental nature of physical things. It is almost shocking how much the Greeks understood, but sadly most of their knowledge was lost due to destruction from wars, conducted by irrational barbarians.

No, there is no law in the books that they can charge you for being "high".

Cap, by the same "toke-in" does it make sense to incarcerate cigarette smokers, if one day tobacco becomes illegal?

It's my understanding that Insite does not provide the drugs. Is that correct? Committing crimes such as stealing, break and enter, assault etc. are separate crimes and must still be dealt with. Those other issues involving criminal organizations, gangs, are secondary effects and are empowered by prohibition itself. Again, if we just look at the drug user and their situation, this idea is preferable to just throwing people in jail. Decades of history substantiate the fact that this isn't working.

The only thing criminal about heroin addicts is that they are harming themselves. Prison is not the kind of rehab they need. From what I understand, Insite also provides them with a resource to quit. It's a good first step, and the law must embrace and expand on this approach, encouraging them to seek treatment, rather than merely punitive measures.

I didn't read the details but the OP seems to imply it doesn't matter if you select "debit" or "credit". What's with that?

Well if they want to put up more barriers to consumer spending, here's one way to do it. It will have adverse effects by reducing the amount of money going to businesses, since the $60 comes out of the consumers pocket and straight to the banks. It will also make people even more reluctant to spend money.