Where do they 'pull out' to exactly?
Kepabar
joined 1 year ago
... The very first link you provided shows a chart that has more assistance going to corn than beef, more going to soy than dairy and more going to wheat then pigs.
https://agriculturefairnessalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2020bdcat-1320x743.png
???
Sure, like I said, there is going to be harm the black market creates.
I still feel there is a good chance for a net positive here.
So there is already a thing with Windows 11 where you can, as part of a Microsoft 365 subscription, upgrade your Windows 11 machine from Pro to Enterprise.
The idea of having the base OS be a subscription is really just a stones throw away.
... but the Pro -> Ent activation process is really a PITA and often randomly PC's will revert back to Pro after they've been ugpraded, so I guess we'll have fun with that.
prohibition doesn't work
My first gut response was 'We should outlaw murder, I bet that'd stop murder from happening!'.
But as hilarious as it is, lets ignore the hyperbole.
The fact is that laws never stop all the activity they are intended to prevent. If they did we wouldn't need a court system.
No, the question is does the law do more good than bad for society?
Smoking causes 480,000 extra deaths yearly according to the CDC.
And smoking related illness costs around $300 billion annually in the US.
As we both agree, outlawing the sale will not prevent 100% of usage. But it will almost certainly prevent some usage.
And I agree that a black market will form and that black market will cause some societal damage.
So the question is, will the affects of the black market created by prohibition do more damage to society than the reduction in existing societal damage that we should see from prohibition?
Considering the above statistics, it may be worth the gamble.
I'll note that you have nothing to refute with.
There is no oxymoron.
Smoking is harming oneself.
Selling is harming another.
They are not equivalent.
I would argue that society should reserve the right to punish individuals who harm others for their personal benefit.
And I would argue that selling a physically addictive substance that directly causes harm with no benefit to the user for personal profit is causing harm.
So while I don't support arresting people for smoking, I 100% so support arresting people for selling.
Neelix is all the punchline you need.
You can if they were mp3s instead of audio tracks!
Most cd players are able to handle both since like 2003.
Depends on the state of transition.
If fully transitioned then no I wouldn't consider them bi.
If not though, then yes they are bi to some extent
Keep in mind that depending on the type of eye issue they may not need them all the time. In this example the person only needs then to read and it might actually make their vision worse to wear them when not.