"Teen Marijuana Vaping Soars" is objectively not great news. Subjectively it might be great news if the vaping THC dose was low, but it is not.
There is no technology that makes alcohol 100X stronger for todays teen than what it has been historically. But that's not true for THC products. On a personal note, I lost my hearing in one ear immediately after trying a strong MJ product. I just assumed it was congestion at the time but 10 months later I still have 70% hearing loss. I don't share this story with anyone because speaking ill of THC is heresy these days and a sure way to get downvoted.
I've never heard of anything like that happening (and admittedly I'm skeptical) - can you expand on the event that caused you to lose your hearing? What did your doctors say about it?
I had perfect hearing in that ear, smoked a high THC joint, and felt immediately congested. Congestion usually makes hearing diminish temporarily. But the next morning I still felt congested and then spent several weeks trying to yawn it away and get my ear to pop. Three weeks later I went to the doctor who diagnosed me with "sudden nerve deafness". Medically there is no known cause for sudden nerve deafness and the doctor had no idea either. But I did have a cold the weeks before, so who knows.
So yes, it could be this was all just a co-incidence but the precise timing of it all should give everyone pause. I did Google for similar stories and I did find one person with a similar story who was immediately dismissed because no one ever heard of such a thing. I do wonder how many people restrain from reporting such effects since the counter-argument is to provide casual evidence or get a doctor to confirm which is often not possible.
For sure there is a gross disparity in tolerance these days and you should avoid sharing hits of THC with anyone if your tolerance is low. They'll be fine, you on the other hand may have an experience you weren't expecting.
Thanks for sharing, hard to tell what to make of that - I think it warrants some investigation though. I wonder if there's anyone who'd want to make an anecdotal report on something like this.
You can inhale alcohol vapors. That's way more than 100% stronger. The tech exists. People might not use it cause they don't want to die. That's different. Your conclusion about losing your hearing from TCH is just fucking bullshit. Prove it.
> You can inhale alcohol vapors. That's way more than 100% stronger.
That party trick is a placebo at best. You can't get drunk like that. The quantity of ethanol that will get into your blood with that trick is vanishingly small.
Sure you could. It's just that people don't. Probably because we have hard alcohol that's 95% pure. That's 1800% stronger than 5% beer. I suppose that would have been an even better way to point out the parent comment's ignorance and absurdity.
Yeah, I'd need to see some scientific evidence on how those events were connected. I've never heard of that before, and it's not really logical from what I can understand.
And at least we have regulation now, you're welcome to buy weed with less THC. :)
>> "Teen Marijuana Vaping Soars" is objectively not great news
Bullshit. Smoking is far worse for you than vaping and I'm extremely grateful to read this headline instead of it being meth, crack, or Fentanyl.
I am not sure this is possible without extensive training. I once had a an assignment to meet with someone I had come to despise. But my face cringed just at the thought of sitting across from this person. So before the meeting I put a fake brace on my left arm and explained that if I look mad or frustrated it was because I am in physical pain. I was able to get through the interview and get information he might have withheld had he sensed I was hostile towards him.
Yang's implementation is very regressive. You have the regressive VAT tax, but then you also have the fact that you are cutting government benefits then giving everyone $1000. So the poor just end up net poorer.
Example:
Now:
$12,000 a year + $12,000 in benefits = $24,000
$50,000 a year + $0 in benefits = $50,000
UBI:
$12,000 a year + $12,000 in UBI = $24,000
$50,000 a year + $12,000 in UBI = $62,000
The poorer person receiving benefits is actually poorer then before, relatively.
You're missing a couple of things - first, it isn't zero sum. I don't care if I'm poor relatively as long as I'm not poor absolutely.
Second, the average benefit isn't $1,000 a month and in almost all cases the $1k per month is an increase on existing benefit numbers.
Third, since it doesn't come with strings, you don't have to worry about losing your benefits when you get a job or a kid leaves the home, when you relapse or when you get sick and can't manage the tangled web of government red tape.
> I don't care if I'm poor relatively as long as I'm not poor absolutely.
This might be true for you personally, but it is not true in general; whether people are dissatisfied with their level of wealth/poverty has a great deal to do with how it compares to others.
These people need to grow up? Or, more realistically, we need to start promoting some healthy values, instead of harmful ones. This should start with: banning advertising, teaching practical philosophy (how to think about your life, how to be content with your life etc.) in schools, discouraging competition for its own sake.
We're not talking about dissatisfaction here. We're talking about meeting basic needs like food, housing, and health services. Wanting to be satisfied of these things is absolutely true in general.
It's perfectly possible to get by with rice and lentils and a few vegetables, and if that's the common lifestyle of everyone in the community/country, many people are well satisfied with it. I've lived in such places.
But if you see the people around you enjoying an endless variety of steak and sushi and lobster and so on, and you're working all hours yet still only able to stretch to rice & lentils, your satisfaction may be less.
An illogical reaction? Maybe. A human one? I think so.
> You're missing a couple of things - first, it isn't zero sum. I don't care if I'm poor relatively as long as I'm not poor absolutely.
Sure, but even people with benefits are struggling to get by. To not be poor absolutely we should be giving them $1000 a month on top of current benefits. Just $1000 a month will leave many absolutely poor. Also, I'm not an economist, but I don't think we can really predict what will happen with inflation, rent prices, etc, when the vast majority of people become $1000 richer. I find it hard to believe it won't cause increases in prices in at least some things. If that happens you aren't just poorer relatively.
> Second, the average benefit isn't $1,000 a month and in almost all cases the $1k per month is an increase on existing benefit numbers.
It doesn't really matter just changes the amounts a bit. Even if you assume benefits are $100 a month only, you still only gain $900 a month from the UBI(because you lose the $100). Everyone else is gaining $100 more then you.
> Third, since it doesn't come with strings, you don't have to worry about losing your benefits when you get a job or a kid leaves the home, when you relapse or when you get sick and can't manage the tangled web of government red tape.
Yeah fair enough, I'm not against UBI. I'm only against Yang's implementation. I think we should add it on top of existing benefits. I also think it is only a band-aid or should be a small part of the overall solution.
Or you can simply move somewhere else where life is cheaper, a place that nowadays isn't sustainable because currently the local job market is nonexistent. UBI can solve that!
$12,000 of benefits does not equal to $12,000 of UBI. UBI doesn't limit you on what you want to buy. UBI doesn't require paperwork or lengthy approval process. UBI doesn't go away as you make more money.
Your assumption is that Govt benefit starts coming your way the moment you need or ask for it. From limited personal experience AND from what I read, applying for and getting any kind of government benefit is very time labor intensive and involves long waits.
And many don't get it because they don't meet a threshold.
And those who get it, have to not work (aka not make money), in order to keep getting it.
You picked a perfect example where it seems bad, but consider an opposite one:
Now:
$12,000 a year + $12,000 in benefits = $24,000
$24,000 a year + $0 in benefits = $24,000
$50,000 a year + $0 in benefits = $50,000
UBI:
$12,000 a year + $12,000 in UBI = $24,000
$24,000 a year + $12,000 in benefits = $36,000
$50,000 a year + $12,000 in UBI = $62,000
Also keep in mind that the more well off people will end up paying more VAT because they spend more. VAT can also be tweaked to not tax on necessities like basic groceries/etc.
Many currently receiving benefits might gladly give them up in exchange for $1k/mo, cash in hand, with no risk of losing benefits due to higher income or filling out a form incorrectly.
But even if not, I think there's a case that giving everyone else UBI has ancillary benefits:
- More cash in the hand of your neighbors means more customers, which means more economic activity, which potentially means better employment prospects, in a virtuous cycle [0].
- Strain on existing benefit-granting institutions is greatly reduced, as those who opt for cash exit the system, meaning faster response times and more assistance with forms/approvals/etc.
- The working class tend to be more economically interdependent by necessity; someone who declines UBI still comes ahead from a spouse, relative, grown child, etc. who requires less economic support.
- Yang has spoken at length about the effects of economic anxiety; even someone who declines UBI may experience less anxiety (and therefore greater executive function and capacity for long-term planning), simply from knowing they have a "Plan B" for basic necessities.
In addition to offsetting costs, I think one of the motivations for the "either/or" strategy is political viability with libertarians and moderate Republicans, whose exaggerated fears of "socialism" can be assuaged by the opportunity to shrink bloated federal bureaucracies. (I'm somewhat sympathetic here: the most efficient charity is usually to write a check to the poor [1], and I suspect UBI or negative income tax has greater efficacy than most means-tested federal programs, with possibly the exception of health care.)
How does that change my point though? Either way they end up net poorer. If you're poor and don't take the $1000, you are the same and everyone else is $1000 richer. This makes you effectively $1000 poorer. Yang actually says UBI will save money compared to benefits. So if you pick UBI you're even more than $1000 poorer, if he's right.
Could be stay the same or even go down. Producer still have to compete with each other and they even might lower their price to entice buyer to spend their UBI.
There is no particular reason to believe that increases in costs would exactly match the benefits granted leaving you 1000 dollars poorer even if ssdi income was better than ubi. Furthermore ubi would not be negatively effected by a spouse earning money in a way that actually punishes families for working nor would it require suing the government for 5-10 years while they pretend your family member isn't disabled.
On net the only people who come off worse are unmarried individuals receiving ssdi who are too young for social security retirement income.
Average ssdi income is around 1200 10 million people are on ssdi aprox 6 million under 65 45% in the overall US population are unmarried.
One could reasonably suppose at least 2-3 million out of 327 million will make no more money and will see slightly to somewhat higher costs. This could be corrected by cola.
In comparison the bottom 25% is 82 million strong and will benefit substantially as will the next quartile to a lesser extent another 82 millions
> Yang's plan would require that the cashier has to choose between the "UBI" or her existing benefits.
I'm neutral on Yang's campaign, but I like the idea of a UBI because administering it will be much cheaper than running existing benefits. Means-testing has a real and very sizeable cost.
What will happen to all the guvment workers who will get laid off once existing benefits have been supplanted by the UBI? They will go home to merrily enjoy their new UBI checks.
I think UBI is definitely interesting, but it can't wholesale replace benefits. For example, a major illness like cancer now can wipe out your income, your savings, and a UBI quite easily. I think UBI might be better than a range of some lower end benefits - but the also exists a variation of needs where we should commit to helping people with, that is going to exceed almost any general UBI threshhold in many cases, and still needs to be covered as benefits.
One example might be medicaid - given it's in an incredibly barbaric and stressful way of exhausting your finances first, then trying to get onto the program all while fighting the illness.
It’s the government: They’ll just move everyone over to the new Department of UBI, with an Administrator of UBI, a Deputy Administrator of UBI, an Assistant To The Deputy Administrator, a team of consultants, inspectors, auditors, inspectors of the auditors, auditors of the inspectors of the auditors, and so on. Nobody will actually lose their job.
Yang has separate plan to tackle housing price. So essentially the choice is between food stamp or UBI. I would argue UBI is better since it allow you to buy anything you want, no paperwork/approval process required and you wouldn't lose it as you make more money.
Yang talks about this on JRE, the idea is that individuals know what they need better than the boards designing "one size fits all" benefits. The Freedom Dividend is meant to help replace complicated benefits for those receiving less than the $1k with a more flexible fund.
Cutting back existing benefit programs saves money in bureaucracy and empowers individuals to spend in ways that most benefit them.
people are still gonna end up broke and need food, but now there won’t be food stamps specifically set aside for food, or Medicaid funding specifically set aside for healthcare? Terrible choice. People need $1,000 a month on top of what they have, not a check and slashing all their present support.
Does anyone know if there is existing terminology for Class A/B ? Investor class / working class ? Or maybe capital class / labor class.
The typically discussed classes in the US are lower, middle, upper which I always took to be one std below the mean income (lower) and one std above mean income (upper). Perhaps if we used mean days until $0 dollars in the bank if you stopped working it would be more useful.
They're generally referred to Bourgeoisie (for Class A) and Proletariat (for Class B). I can understand the hesitation in using those terms directly, as they're quite politically charged.
IIRC there is a regulation in the US that ensures the front of a car is designed so that a pedestrian is thrown over the car instead of under it. It is one reason so many new cars look alike.
Does a truck have any such requirements for pedestrian safety ? Is the highest part of the Cyber truck's front end any lower than a F-150 for example ? That could make for a safer design.
> Is the highest part of the Cyber truck's front end any lower than a F-150 for example ?
They look like they're the same height, although it's a bit difficult to compare. The top of the F150's grill does look a bit more curved; not sure how much of a difference that makes.
At the very least, buying drugs in person comes with the risk of getting punched in the face in exchange for your money.
In all honesty, when I was young buying street drugs was appealing for the hustle, risk, excitement, and mischief. Often I'd simply resell it for double the thrill. Perhaps with that element gone it might actually be less appealing for some.
There seems to be a lot of misconceptions about drug buying in this thread in general. You're right, and I'll add that they also make money by word of mouth -- not just you coming back, but bringing a friend, extending a network of trust, etc. Punching someone in the face doesn't exactly engender that kind of thing for one's business.
The only people I know who buy drugs from comparative strangers do so almost exclusively in the food courts of shopping malls, for some reason. Presumably it makes it a little harder to get mugged.
I've taken this even further. I no longer correct any factual mistakes or misspoken words unless the person making this error is either a student or someone who reads. Even then it may be best to not say anything.
Often, mispronouncing a word means you've seen it in print, but haven't heard it said aloud. So I've heard some people say that they mentally frame it not as an embarrassing mistake but as a sign that the speaker reads a lot.
As a non-native english speaker it's a weird mix of confusion/joy/madness when I see native speakers who don't read spell a word in a horrendous way that only makes sense to me the instant I read it aloud internally. The same language but spoken or written it's two different worlds.
IIRC when Japan hit that "2X" mark circa 1991 it lead to an economic stall that appears to be permanent. Their economy has been stalled / zero-growth for almost 30 years now. They are cautionary example not an aspirational one.
We need to find a way to live with negative growth in such things, because we'll quickly meet the limits of this planet if we try to continue exponential growth in people and resource usage.
So I kind of agree with you very deeply and kind of don’t.
I do think we need to figure out a “closed system”. Meaning having a throwaway economy isn’t sustainable with a finite earth. Further, it doesn’t seem right to expect every person to have the wits to figure that out, agree with it, and how to properly execute a sustainable life. Ant colonies are clearly not ran by that model. But I also see the resources of space being quite impressive and offering pretty big growth opportunities through just being huge and containing other places for us to setup and live. Though the resources there are definitely prohibitively sparse so they still should be used wisely.
Edit-I also can’t help but wonder where we would be if money value was clearly tied to energy. Oil effectively adds wealth to the economy by literally fueling it. Basing a currency on gold, for instance, sets the pace of monetary growth at the rate of gold extraction. I think oil is similarly pressing upon USD.
Their high national debt is more of a consequence of their stalling economy than a result of it though - in the form of counter cyclical fiscal spending. In the 90s nobody wanted to spend so if the government didn't step in and act as a "spender of last resort" the economy would have imploded.
Either way it's not a cause of their economic problems, and the doom-mongering around too high a national debt leading to hyperinflation proved to be the exact opposite of the truth - they struggled with deflation.
They're a sign for the future to come for everyone: population decline.
People are willing to accept living conditions for themselves, especially when they're young that are really not conducive to raising a family.
Many people reach the stage where they would otherwise have children and realize that they just don't want that life in the cramped, high cost housing or long commute times and just don't want to afford a family so they don't.
The US is ruled by two political parties and neither care about the debt. Saving for a rainy day during times of prosperity is the exception rather than the rule.
If we owe future generations anything it is 1) a sustainable environment and 2) a sustainable balance sheet. We may leave them neither.
There is no technology that makes alcohol 100X stronger for todays teen than what it has been historically. But that's not true for THC products. On a personal note, I lost my hearing in one ear immediately after trying a strong MJ product. I just assumed it was congestion at the time but 10 months later I still have 70% hearing loss. I don't share this story with anyone because speaking ill of THC is heresy these days and a sure way to get downvoted.