Imrigone's Waterfall
Marijuana, like tobacco, causes cancer as it contains carcinogens.
In the quest to investigate the link between cancer and marijuana, research can be roughly divided into two categories: lab research and investigation of long term users outside of the lab. Yes, as an unfortunate amount of lab animal deaths can attest, cannabis does contain carcinogenic molecules. However, research involving actual users paints a rather different picture.
http://scienceblog.com/10660/
There is some controversy regarding the efficacy of these findings. Because marijuana is illegal, it is difficult to find users to participate in these studies, particularly finding heavy long-term users. It has been argued that if it were legalized, it would be much easier to find participants from a wider range of the population, and the information gathered could prove to be more accurate. Still, working with what we've got, it appears that marijuana use not only does not have anywhere near the effect that cigarette smoking does in terms of carcinogenic properties, it even seems to lower rates of certain types of cancer.
Marijuana is also highly addictive.
Not highly. It is significantly less addicting than tobacco or alcohol, about on the same level as caffeine, but usually with less severe withdrawal symptoms. Pretty much anything that stimulates the reward centers of the brain will have some addictive qualities among a large enough sampling of users. But marijuana is very low on the totem pole compared to many legal and even non-regulated substances.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/
http://health.ezinemark.com/
Studies have also shown that uses of marijuana usually lead to more dangerous drugs such as meth and cocaine.
Studies have also shown that most marijuana users drank alcohol before smoking pot. But alcohol is not considered a gateway drug. Why? Lower incidence of illegal drug use. But lets think about this for a second. As long as marijuana is illegal the people who use it can be classified as "people who are willing to break at least one law." Among adults, alcohol drinkers aren't classified that way. Some might be willing to, and those who are may end up using illegal drugs. Others will be totally law abiding, and since that is the majority of them, alcohol does not get considered a gateway drug. The only way to fairly compare the two would be to put them on the same legal standing and do studies at that point. Further, people who buy marijuana illegally have a greater exposure to other illegal drugs than those who don't since many dealers deal in multiple drugs. I suspect that the legal status of marijuana plays more of a role in its status as a gateway drug than any actual medical reason.
If you believe that marijuana does not kill people, try telling that to the relatives of the 30,000 people in Mexico that died due to drug violence.
The War On Drugs is at least partially to blame here. First, the strategy behind the WOD is to increase the cost. But since most drugs, marijuana included, are highly elastic commodities, this doesn't much reduce the demand. Instead it makes for wealthier drug lords, and competition between them leads to violence. The harder we crack down, the worse the situation gets. Also, we would make it less profitable for the drug lords by opening a legal channel of distribution and cultivation. Having marijuana as a legitimate source of retail would seriously reduce the number of people obtaining it illegally. It could also be regulated for quality and purity this way, which is currently not possible.
And because I am desperate and shameless....I will pimp my own soundcloud (sorry if it comes up really quiet, working on that)
Because we are only united by a lack of belief in God or Gods. It is not a lifestyle, it is a lack of a stance on a particular issue, except for those strong atheists (who do have a stance), who are nearly as foreign to me as theists.
Besides, that building is more like a tribute to scientific discovery, not atheism.
If the government does this then the government would have created a law that benefits a particular group of people (gays) and discriminates against the other group (heterosexuals) based on sexual orientation (which is unconstitutional).
Except that it does not discriminate against heterosexuals. Then they too would have the option of marrying someone of the same sex. Of course most heterosexuals wouldn't be interested in taking this option, but it would be an "option" for them the same way current marriage laws are an "option" for homosexuals. Meanwhile, not choosing to take the new option in no way diminishes the benefits or gains of those who take the original option.
Well think about it for a second...and your head will hurt ;)
If you find yourself having similar logic to Michele Bachmann, it may be time to think harder ;)
Once upon a time, I attended a party where all of us dudes got naked for charity (no lie, it was an amusing night.) One of my buddies turned out to have an extremely long (but somewhat thin) penis. I was sitting naked next to him on the couch, and asked him if he had to "reign it in" when he sat down to poo. He said that it had happened once, but only because it had been a malfunctioning toilet that didn't drain. I, personally, have never had a dip...
I think I would prefer life after death without a God.
Ah, the Buddhist joecavalry comes out! I've seen one or two of the youtube videos you've posted. I think you might look pretty good with a shaved head and a robe.
But if the only option is between a God and nothing after death, then I'll take the God
Which is my point. Personal desires and reality don't often coincide. If it makes you sleep better at night, do what you must. But I think that "the way it is" and "the way I wish it were" should not be presented as the same thing without solid evidence. Besides, "nothing after death" doesn't diminish who are you are prior to death. Indeed, it provides more incentive to grab life's boob and perhaps suckle it if you feel so inclined.
answer a: well played, sir!
answer b: the person playing the simulation would only be God if s/he designed it themselves. Oh, and created and controlled everything outside of the sim as well.
I say hope ("kind of hope" actually) merely because it would, indeed, be nice if someone was looking out for me and guiding me, assuming that entity was competent. Yes, I would rather like it if God exists. But liking a concept and believing that concept is reality are two different animals, and the former should not automatically give birth to the latter.
But by labeling religion according to the the first definition, we can clearly show that we limit our thinking to exclude all scientific beliefs as a religion.
That is because properly practiced science is not a religion. One of the most important rules of the scientific method is that if your conclusion does not fit the evidence, you need to come to a new conclusion. Another big one is "no supernatural answers". This isn't inherently anti-spiritual, it is a logical response to the fact that "supernatural" is definitively outside of the limits of naturalistic science (imagine hiring a person who only speaks English to edit a paper written in Chinese. How much would that benefit either party?)
I'm not saying that scientists don't sometimes do this, I'm saying that the methodology is parallel to faith.
But if it makes you feel better, people who make truth claims based on 95% of quantum physics might be qualified as religious, or at least acting under faith.
As far as your article? It clearly identifies Mr. Bostrom as a philosopher, not a scientist. It is interesting, and I personally kind of hope it is true, but I'm not sure if it is relevant to your point. Pretty nifty read, though!
The reason I keep using vegetarians as an example is that I just got done wasting my time with a cute one. But her arguments supporting vegetarianism never had anything to do with her "immortal soul" or the origin of the universe. Is she a fanatic? Yes. Religious? Only if you consider the word synonymous with "fanatic". While those two words do often apply to the same person, they do have different meanings.
"An atheist is someone who makes a factual statement that they can not prove. There is no god."
Wrong. An atheist is someone who does not believe in God. It does not necessarily mean that they outright refute God's existence, it simply means that they are not convinced that such a being exists. Sure, there are atheists who do claim that God does not exist, but not all of us make factual statements except that we do not see a reason to believe. That is not faith. That is examining the evidence and reporting honestly.
"They are following their own faith religion."
And vegetarians are big fans of steak. Both of the preceding two statements are definitively wrong in exactly the same way.
