The gateway theory is a bust. Alcohol and tobacco are by and large more likely to be "gateway" drugs that cannabis. The only real reason cannabis is implicated is because of its legal status anyhow.
Japanese people off their face on "weed" means more relaxed and happy. But I do support this stuff being limited if not banned. The difference between the synthetics, or "spice" versus cannabis, are vast. There is at least some evidence for it causing severe psychotic episodes, and in the end, what do you trust: a naturally occurring substance or something that is basically a hodgepodge of man-made chemicals?
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Yep this isn't going to affect the population at all. Gay people are already here, so if they didn't want kids via artificial insemination then th**ey wouldn't have them anyway.
And homosexuality causing aids? Wooooow
2 ( +3 / -1 )
The massive amount of generalization in these threads is hilarious...granted, the articles themselves are full of anecdotal evidence, which might explain all the knee-jerk reactioneers in the forums.
Parents are just trying to prepare kids to fit into the system, lest they get chewed up and spit out for deviating from the norm. Certainly, it could be said that they should encourage their children to follow passions, be unique and encourage creativity, but culture is a phenomenally strong force, most notably in Japan.
There's a lot that I feel is wrong about the amount of social control there is in Japan, but then again, that's obvious - as a non-Japanese person, I am inherently unable to grasp or accept certain aspects of the culture that seem completely obvious to a Japanese person. But, despite my biases in regards to the downsides, it also has its upsides, much like individualistic societies of the west have their pros and cons. The blame game based on the personal experiences of a statistically minimal few isn't how you evaluate problems and formulate solutions - it's by determining cause and effect without any doubt ( aka the scientific method) and then moving to adjust from there, assuming that changes are desired in the first place. How do you change a society to best solve its problems without introducing even more detrimental ones, or destroying anything positive about the parenting culturing the first place?
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Tmarie, I wouldn't say I made a judgement on these people, rather than point out a logical fact that these type of judgements are fundametally flawed. One can't encapsulate a person in such a brief moment. That's why, although yes we all make snap judgements, holding to them and excluding people on the basis of that is making a decision on an incomplete body of evidence. You can make assumptions, but, you know what is said about assuming.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
So tired of this topic being used as a diversionfor the true issue...the incompetence of both governments.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
Let's get real- none of us are social scientists, so our limited daily observations are in no way representative of the Japanese population.
That aside, people who act like the cliques in the article, or judgemental people in general? Shove off. Oh you don't like my shoes? TFB.
Unless you know the person you're passing judgement on, perhaps even then, who do you think you are? It's just sad that people get swayed by the opinions of narrow-minded, vainglorious individuals.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Marco Rubio is up for election in 2012? Plus you repeated Schumer's direct quote at the end of the article.
Anyhow I find it hard to find fault with people simply trying to feed their families, who are exploited by greedy corporations that employ those who will work hard for less money. The problem has always lain with big business, not people 'turrkin our jerbs'.
-2 ( +2 / -4 )
The internet tough guy is not a new creature. Its population has simply skyrocketed at the same rate as social media's popularity in the last two decades. There's actually a mathematical formula for it by the Penny Arcade guys.
Most of us who remember the ICQ/AIM/IRC days (mainly early online gamers) have a sort of hardened carapace to shrug off this kind of behavior, as you were certain to meet a jerk every time you played something. It was a growing experience, since many of the friends I made in those days taught me not to get offended by trivial things, nor by people's honest opinions. That's still true today, just with more jerks and less people able to deal with them.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Naturally owners should be made responsible for the damage they cause, but preemptive taxation is a load of trash. You've obviously got a massive bias based on your generalizations about dog owners and pit bulls in particular. Pits are wonderful animals, hardly deserving of the reputation they have because of worthless human beings and their abuse of this great breed.
And frungy, I think that making him responsible for the medical costs, and perhaps making him liable for not having him or her on a lead is harsh enough. There's nothing in the article to suggest he did nothing to help or just gave a verbal reprimand. The language used was that he commanded it to stop, which, if the dog is trained, should be good enough. I'd at most concede that dog owners should be made responsible for having their dog restrained and properly trained as well as for the damage like I previously mentioned, but jail-time is baloney. We simply don't know enough about the event, the dog, or the owner, to make any further judgements.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
There's no need to demonize anyone in this story. For one, animals are innocent creatures: they don't act out of malice or hatred. As for the owner, who here ever met the guy? Right, armchair justices?
The arrest thing is bullocks also. Just fine him the medical costs, whatever they can be calculated to be. Putting the dog down would be abhorrent.
4 ( +7 / -2 )
North Korea's leaders know they stand no chance in any actual conflict. Unfortunately they've been playing this deceptive game for years, with everyone in the global community lapping it up and making political concessions to stave off violent actions that never really become reality. Time to /ignore for once and let them figure out that the rest of the world is done with their games.
4 ( +5 / -1 )
Marijuana has been proven time and again as a gateway drug to harder stuff. It is indeed a poison that needs to be eradicated along with those who sell it and use it
Hate to break it to you, but the gateway drug is a worthless, tired argument that's been discredited long since. If you want to talk about gateway drugs though, why don't we talk about tobacco and alcohol, which have much more evidence to implicate them as gateway drugs. Though, if you can show me some credible sources for your absurd claims, I might listen for a second.
And to say marijuana smokers need to be eradicated? How progressive and tolerant!
1 ( +2 / -1 )
I'll add that I'm largely speaking of legal policy in the US, and assuming that Japanese law took some hintsnfrom the US on how to handle drug policy. Even if that's not the case, at the very least drug policy in Japan is fueled by superstition aka ignorance.
10 ( +10 / -0 )
More "poison" off the streets? You do realize marijuana is not only less addicting than caffeine, it also has far fewer, if anynnegative effects when compared to alcohol, which doesn't stop the ridiculous amount of alcohol abuse in this country. Do some research: pot is largely illegal for political and racial reasons stemming from the early 20th century, as well as the Nixon administration's efforts when they began the war on drugs. As it stands, all the comments that see this as a victory come from people who must think "Reefer Madness" was a legitimate statement on effects of pot.
7 ( +13 / -6 )