Neat!

This is and oldie, but a goodie. Not really a language trick, but still an interesting result of how your brain processes all the sensory information that it's being pumped full of all the time. Check it out if you haven't seen it yet:

The remains of what used to be blue pajama pants, and socks.

I enjoy the relative anonymity of the Internet... it allows me to discuss things that I wouldn't discuss in, say, polite company.

If the issue is serious enough for this kind of action to be necessary, and there is enough evidence that bad shit is going on, then investigators can get a fucking warrant. I really see no need for police to be able to check up on people's Internet activity on a whim. :/

Ahaha! I have guido-wannabe friend in Ottawa who will love this. XD

I was following this all of last night. The result was disappointing, but not surprising.

^ Sadly, that is most likely true. No amount of research and knowledge can overcome the tyranny of the majority if there isn't a willingness to progress. Look how hard it's been for gay marriage to be accepted - and illegal drug use doesn't have remotely that level of public acceptance yet. The average American would probably still like to see drug dealers publicly hanged.

That doesn't mean I can't have my pipe dreams. :)

Insulting religion violates human rights? Fuck that.

Anyway, every "violation" in that article is pretty much a joke compared to the human rights situation in Iran. At least the Americans have got the basics: free speech and freedom of religion. So what if they have a few executions (for very serious violent crimes) each year, and if kids work on farms without typical workers' benefits (fuck, I worked on my family farm during my childhood and almost never got paid - I certainly don't consider that a human rights violation... I was just helping out my family).

I'm not saying that the US doesn't need someone to tell it that it has a speck of dust in its eye - but Iran really shouldn't be speaking up until it takes care of the log in its own.

Think of it like this: amanitas are to psilocybin mushrooms as BZP is to MDMA. If someone who isn't all that informed about how the underground drug market works buys an "E" pill for the first time, and all that's in it is a fuckload of BZP, they're probably not going to have a very high opinion of MDMA. Likewise, if someone eats some amanitas thinking they're "magic mushrooms," they will probably think that magic mushrooms are a shitty drug.

It's most likely that amanitas are being used at this event, and not psilocybin mushrooms, as in Germany mushrooms containing psilocin and psilocybin are to some degree illegal (like with much drug policy, the legality of some drugs in Germany can be quite vague) while amanitas are legal pretty much everywhere.

Dr. David Nutt is really doing a great job trying to pump some common sense into the clusterfuck that is current drug policy in the Western world. Anyone who's explored outside the realm of alcohol and tobacco should know that there are HUNDREDS of safer (and, to many, more interesting/enjoyable) options out there - the government, and the uninformed majority that makes up most of the world, just don't want to give us access to them. So, people who enjoy psychotropics other than the relatively bland and addictive choices that the government offers are stuck with breaking the law and buying products that are more apt to hurt us due to a lack of knowledge of exact contents and dosage than due to the psychoactive chemicals themselves. There's also the option of research chemicals and a select few over-the-counter drugs, which are legal and tend to be pure - but the amount available tends to be quite limited, and it seems that, for the most part, the RCs and over-the-counter drugs still available today are mostly poor shadows of their illegal counterparts (ex: mephedrone compared to MDMA, DXM compared to ketamine).

Dr. Nutt's classification system would fix this problem. Sure, "normal" people would be pissed off that alcohol would be going in the most restricted class, but I say fuck 'em and give them a choice: have all the currently illegal psychoactive drugs government-regulated, taxed, and made legal for any adult citizen to buy... or have ALL psychoactive drugs classified by an objective-as-possible scale of harm. Either way, drug policy would start actually making sense. In a 2009 government study called the Canadian Alcohol and Drug Use Monitoring Survey, 76.5% of the people surveyed said that they had consumed alcohol in the past year. That's over 3/4 of the Canadian population (not counting those under 15 years of age). I believe that, if all psychoactive drugs were made legal in Canada, there would be a gradual reduction in alcohol use along with a gradual increase in use of the more popular psychotropics (cannabis, cocaine, MDMA, amphetamine, etc). I think the net number of people doing drugs regularly would be pretty close to what it is now (although I suppose there would be a bit of an increase, due to people who specifically don't like alcohol or tobacco but are up for other drugs) - but because most drugs are a lot safer than alcohol and tobacco, the cost to the health system would be significantly lower. On top of that, the government could sell at close to or even significantly below current street prices, and make a fucking killing on taxes - not to mention effectively crippling all the gangs and crime syndicates that base most of their profits on illegal drug sales, reducing the number of Canadians in prisons, and giving the Canadian economy a boost by allowing pharmaceutical companies to synthesize and sell these drugs.

Compared to complete legalization, the classification-by-harm option gives citizens less freedom, BUT it would be much more efficient for harm reduction. Like I said, people would be pissed off by the fact that they wouldn't have access to legal alcohol... but it wouldn't be long before the safer drugs would begin to replace alcohol for a lot of people. The least dangerous category of drugs - the most legal and least restricted one - would eventually become the most commonly-used, leading to a much healthier Canada in general.

Also: this is just gorgeous. :)

Ruined: fucking flu.

Ahahaha! XD

That was a lot of fun.

That would probably be cool on real magic mushrooms. I've heard that amanitas don't make very good psychedelics. :P

Made: crazy night out with friends.

Man... 33 inches waist maximum? That's really strict.

Ruined: bad marks.
Made: going back to Ontario to see family and friends.

Fucking weird, man. :O

These are great!

Ahaha, that's not what I meant. What I was saying is that I'd take a bump of mephedrone over an entire "E" pill (a.k.a. speed with MDMA).



It does have a nice smell, though. :P

Ruined: it hasn't stopped raining since I got up.
Ruined: had to have a talk with McGill residence administration for a drug-related issue.
Ruined: bombed a calculus quiz.

It hasn't been the best day. :/

That is awesome!

Ibogaine is legal in Canada - you can buy it legitimately online... it's just really fucking expensive.

This is actually a really good drug... it's very similar to amphetamine mixed with MDMA, but it feels a lot cleaner (thanks to the lack of adulterants - though I suppose if you bought it in pressed pills it wouldn't be clean). I would take a bump of this over your typical "E" pill anyday.

In Canada, it's not even allowed for a food label to say that the food is "low-carb." The lengths that the government goes to to control what the populace ingests is disgusting.

Strawberries are not organisms!?

Man, the FDA must be getting paid off real well to come up with shit like that.

It seems to be very efficient way to use K, if he can get that kind of effect from 100 mg.

Made: Sensation Gratuite.

Great night, for sure.

Ahaha! That's ridiculous.

Neat! That would be cool to see when you're walking down a city street.

Ruined: boring classes.
Made: first home-cooked supper in a while.
Made: K and music with friends.

Obviously it wasn't written by you, I never said it was. Sarcastic or not, Pascal's view of the "odds and probabilities" associated with belief versus non-belief of a certain diety was evidently biased by the fact that he lived in a very Christian society. Logic would have shown him that there is absolutely no evidence one way or the other that believing in or worshipping a god or not affects ones chances of any kind of post-death benefit or punishment. Any speculation otherwise is purely irrational.

In simple terms: there's just as much of a chance that "God" will let you into "Heaven" for worshipping him, as there is that "God" will hate you because you worship him and send you to "Hell". Both scenarios are infinitely improbable.

The weekend! But that's what I always want when it's not the weekend. :P

Psytrance!

Ruined: had hours of tedious sensitivity training at my residence (mandatory first year stuff).
Made: got high with good friends.
Ruined: got locked out of my apartment building at 2 a.m. and didn't want to wake any one up.
Made: had a good time walking to the top of Mont-Royal and wandering around Montreal all morning, and someone at my building was up at 9 a.m. to let me in when I got back.
Made: got groceries (I've been surviving off of fast food lately).

If you read my whole post, you will see that I was talking about the possibility of things existing outside of our physical universe. Whether that happens be Smurfs, a stereotypical god, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or something else entirely is absolutely unknowable. Therefore, speculating on it is pointless except in a philosophical context.



That's ridiculous; you have just as much of a chance of going to "hell" for worshipping a certain god as you do for not worshipping any god. And given all conceivable possibilities, both of those chances are infinitely negligible.

+1

Stylography.

Cheers to the man who has wasted so many hours of my life! :D