Well, I’ve been having the same one now for 28+ years. But the ones I tried back in the 70’s were pretty good too.
That’s unfortunate, dude. No one should miss out on the wide variety of tasty flavors.
Kids today are no different than any other generation. however, the educational level has declined (sharply) since the 1940’s-witness the high school courses that most kids take. Fifty years ago, you had to take 4 years of math, two years of American History, two years of a foreign language, and 4 years of english, to graduate. now, most kids don’t take history or geography (which is why most don’t know the dates of the Civil War, or where Hong Kong is). Instead, they take crap courses like “life skills”, and driver ed. The lack of rigor is astounding, especially as contrasted with 50 years ago-I have my father’s composition books from his high school, and the intensity of his history classes was pretty high. basically, the HS diploma has been grosslet devalued.
Then I guess I gave that up when I gave up the right to shoot my gun whenever, wherever and in whatever direction strikes my fancy. :rolleyes:
I always wanted to get a dayglo orange semi-automatic.
Then let a tavern owner get a smoking license as well as a liquor license. It’s what they do in Hookah, and Cigar bars here in NYC.
Cite?
I don’t doubt that there were schools fifty years ago that had the requirements that you mention, ralph124c. But I also know that they weren’t as universal as you’re suggesting. My parents were both educated during that time frame, and one reason I was pushed to take foreign languages was that both of them graduated without that experience, and wanted better for their children. My mother came from a very rural school district, and my father from a very urban one. But neither had any foreign languages in high school.
FTM, what agency could even establish National standards before the ED was formed in 1980? I’m not saying it’s impossible - just not sure how it would have been done on a national scale.
You mean like Caffeine and High-Fructose Corn syrup?
Yes, exactly—I was thinking of using corn syrup as an example, caffeine broadens it nicely.
Go to the average larder or supermarket. Substitute every instance of high fructose corn syrup or caffeine with Heroin[sub]Coke[/sub], Heroin[sub]Slurm[/sub], Heroin [sub]WonderBread[/sub], Heroin [sub]Carrots[/sub], or Heroin [sub]BaconSalt[/sub].
The products are in subscript because each one is different. Drinking Slurm won’t fulfill your Coke jones, because the pharmaceutical market has developed such custom designer drugs (and patented them) that it’s impossible to replicate the actual affect.
Changing brands is possible, but unlikely. Getting off a particular product is also difficult. Not only are we starting from a baseline of caffeine/nicotine comparison (as for dropping the habit, that’s a Very Bad Comparison – like comparing a bee sting to a Bruce Lee kick in the nuts), but also we’re now talking about a molecule meticulously and intentionally designed to be as addictive as possible in the smallest quantities taken.
This isn’t a slippery slope argument (though there are some similarities). It’s asking whether the above situation itself would be ok, or whether the government should in some form regulate addictive products. I daresay in a completely theoretical Libertarian universe (don’t you love it when posters answer their own questions?) the former may pass muster, but given the problems with Libertaria in that sense, it’s an awfully weak notion. If it’s the latter, then the question becomes at what level should the government regulate, and how does one reconcile that with earlier statements in the thread.
Again, there is a difference between addictive and non-addictive products. Tobacco companies did the above – studied the addiction, studied how to make it stronger, and studied how to make it take hold as quickly as possible. Should every food or drug manufacturer out there have the same license?
Rhythmdvl:
Ah, Heidi Li. I took her Fed Leg Clinic. Good times.
Yeah, I’m still in D.C.; finished clerking and am now working for a big firm. Standard. What about you?
Yes, because shooting a gun every which way is exactly the same as smoking in a bar! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Banning all smoking in a bar or restaurant is the equivalent of closing all shooting ranges though, because it’s an extreme. I never objected to having part of the establishment be no smoking. I always sit in the no smoking section. I don’t want to strip the owner of the right to also have a smoking section.