Posts by rapidheron

Gerald Walker72, I guess part of what you're sharing is legit, but honestly, naming specific products kind of hurts your credibility here. Like, we all know certain shampoos use PEG or whatever else that irritates skin and isn't even allowed in baby products, but we don't actually know how some random manufacturer emulsifies their olive oil in a shampoo or anything.

It’d probably be way more useful to just list the chemicals that are proven to be harmful in detergents—since you didn't name any in the text—so people can just go check the labels themselves.

Also, you mentioned fluoride. I mean, yeah, it's been under scrutiny lately, but nobody is just gonna ban it out of nowhere. Without fluoride, tooth enamel basically falls apart. Kids get fluoride supplements through tablets, too. Obviously, too much fluoride can be bad, but I guess that applies to pretty much everything in the world, whether it's natural or synthetic, even something simple like vitamins.

Anthony Kim18 said:From what I hear from my own sources—patients and doctors alike, I know what I'm talking about.

If you've got actual evidence like that, just take it straight to the FBI. What are you waiting for? Just venting on a forum isn't really doing much.

I mean, you’ve got a point. Why wouldn't you take advantage of free advertising if the product actually delivers?

My mom bought this oval Tupperware pan like 16 years ago. She only did it because some friend of hers was peddling it—she was in a rough spot and was swearing up a storm about how expensive everything was. But man, that pan has been used on a gas stove every single day for 16 years straight. She uses it for soups, frying, even all that healthy stuff like oil-free cooking. Nothing has ever burned in it, not once (which, I guess, counts for something in those "health" subreddits 😁). The pan itself is a 5/5. It lost a little shine, maybe, but honestly, who has the energy to polish it? Other than that, it looks brand new. No scratches, no dents.
I also have a stainless steel set with gold trim from that same distributor 🙂. It's just as heavy-duty. It’s fallen off shelves and tables countless times (we've got two cats, a toddler, and a washing machine that shakes like an earthquake during the spin cycle), but it goes in the dishwasher every day. That polishing cream they sold us is still sitting untouched in the drawer, and the stuff still looks new. Zero scratches, zero damage, the gold hasn't even faded. Total 5/5.
They threw in a Tupperware skillet as a gift, though, and honestly? That thing is junk. Everything sticks to it and burns immediately.
So, I think Tupperware is worth the money.

As for the other multi-level marketers, I haven't really dealt with them.

lonefox7 said:.
I don't really care if it's bad for you. Everyone dies of something eventually, so I might as well go out happy!

Well, then you shouldn't worry at all. Aspartame, among other things, messes with your cognitive functions. I guess being in the advanced stages of Alzheimer's by age 35 definitely has its perks. Seems like a win for you.

Olivia Martinez20 said:Like, is that just some excuse for our terrible results? Blame it on the invisible globalization hand?

Nah, I mean, why would our campaign be worse than something in the West if their results are even worse? Why even follow that kind of strategy?

Olivia Martinez20 said:I think I mentioned a few examples (in links) in earlier posts that pretty clearly show what kind of facts we're dealing with.

Eh, giving a link is only half the info. Like, even you didn't really look at my link until we started arguing about it. I guess, if we're trying to have a real discussion, 😁 it wouldn't hurt to include a quick summary somewhere in the thread.
Here's me starting:

- most people don't realize that most drugs aren't addictive (which I don't agree with, like I said before, and I don't see how that helps anyone decide not to use stuff)

- marijuana isn't really the gateway drug anymore. Amphetamines pushed it out of that spot (OK, that's basically the same thing, maybe not super new, but whatever, it's clearer)

- the small-time crime side is mostly heroin and crack addicts, who are the toughest cases but actually a minority

- most addicts (okay, okay, I know you'll say they aren't addicts) today are actually addicted 😍 to amphetamine derivatives. There, useful info. Maybe you're right, a strategy could be built on stuff like that. Assuming the situation there is like ours, since this is from a BBC show you linked.

Olivia Martinez20 said:Oh, sure, and predictably you noticed (thanks to the American media staying quiet) these studies:

Yeah, that thing about lung cancer caught my eye, especially since the authors themselves said the study doesn't really matter, because unlike cigarettes, there aren't many joint chain-smokers.🙂

Olivia Martinez20 said:Today's users are just as successful as anyone else and have nothing to do with crime (besides using), just like everyone else. Sakoman tried shyly to get that message across lately, but he's not great at it, even with the Paol Valic project.

What kind of impact do they even have on the social system, prevention strategy, or campaign design? For that specific group, I'm honestly indifferent. Unless it's used as context for "here's why drugs aren't bad," which is basically just providing incomplete info.

Olivia Martinez20 said:But if we actually want to cut down on drug-related crime, reducing supply matters just as much as youth prevention (which, just so you know, saw a 15% spike in users here this year), plus support (which usually just means turning a blind eye) and treatment (instead of specialized centers, Americans are often treated in general psychiatric wards). In the US, jail still tends to be the go-to response over treatment, even though treatment actually saves money because it’s cheaper in the long run than locking someone up.

We've been talking about prevention forever and still haven't really landed anywhere. 🙂

I guess the thing about specialized centers might work. Probably give psychiatrists some breathing room too. Just don't really get how that ends up being cheaper.

Olivia Martinez20 said:On a theoretical level, even though there's a consensus that a huge number of people arrested for various crimes are frequent illegal drug users, the debate over whether drugs are truly the cause isn't settled. Drugs and crime are linked, I'm not arguing that. But we haven't finished the discussion on what kind of correlation it is: does A cause B, does B cause A, or maybe A and B share the same root cause?

Well, out of those three, it seems least likely that someone takes drugs just so they can commit a crime.
But whatever, that specific level of crime isn't even that interesting, and honestly, we've pretty much covered that already—it's not a big mystery. It obviously comes down to the environment people grow up in.

Olivia Martinez20 said:Drugs and crime go hand in hand. But so does watching TV for me every night to help me fall asleep. That doesn't mean TV is the reason I fell asleep.

Fine then, just toss the TV out the window. 😛

Olivia Martinez20 said:In other words, you're being "stingy" when it comes to drugs—you wouldn't want to spend too much or "waste" money because you don't even see the point of the discussion. (sorry if I'm misreading you, but that's how it feels from your posts)
I believe the opposite. I think the drug issue is extremely important and we should be pouring tons of money into it since it benefits everyone, and in the US, the problem is massive. And I think we need to talk about it way more deeply and openly at every level.

I'm not against discussing it (though this whole "massive funding" thing doesn't quite sit right with me
), but I don't think the tone of everything we've seen so far is wrong. You bring up that 15% again, but you gotta provide some context. Like, compared to Eastern Europe, or Europe in general? Or the Western world? Because for a lot of places, things aren't getting much better.😁

silentgull13 said:I didn't read all the posts, so let me know if I'm repeating stuff.

I was always pretty fascinated by the Swiss model. Back in 1990, Switzerland had one of the highest rates of registered addicts. And here’s what the government did. They started providing heroin to addicts. They opened centers where people could use under medical supervision. The result? The black market for heroin just vanished. RIP to the smugglers, I guess. Why would an addict pay $100 for a gram when the state gives it to them for free? Another thing is that crime tied to addiction almost disappeared. Look at how things work here—every other day someone hits a convenience store, robs a betting shop, or snatches a purse... Third, there aren't overdoses because people are injecting in those supervised centers with doctors watching. Fourth, the number of addicts dropped by 80% by 2005 because using wasn't "cool" anymore; it was treated like a disease. Part of that was because the centers actually worked with people to help them get clean. I don't know about other drugs in Switzerland, but I saw this on TV and was honestly shocked by how deep they went and how much they actually achieved.
Around here, I bet the people handling this stuff definitely know about that model, but I don't think there's any will to do it. Seems like everyone involved gets their own little kickback from the sales, from the cops all the way up to the doctors.

People were already talking about that model in another thread. Someone joked that if we did that, we might as well just start handing out cars and laptops to thieves, or giving cash to betting shop robbers, or giving politicians apartments and luxury vehicles (oh wait, we basically already do that).
The thing is, maybe only a wealthy country with a rock-solid social safety net can afford that. I mean, who would even fund it here? The same Medicare that can barely cover basic medical supplies in our hospitals?
Plus, based on what people are saying in this thread, addicts aren't really the ones behind petty crime anyway.😁

Olivia Martinez20 said:A ton of other countries don't see eye to eye with you. They think true power lies in the data itself—that we should be focusing on raw information rather than trying to build this non-affirmative atmosphere, which just doesn't cut it. It’s not getting us anywhere. I mean, they just released the results from that "non-affirmative campaign" today, and look how much we've achieved... a whopping 15%. Pretty great, right?

I mean, how is that even possible when compared to those other countries where addiction numbers are constantly dropping?

Olivia Martinez20 said:The law definitely creates this negative vibe—everyone knows that kind of stuff is banned and just wrong. But if they just hit us with the same old talking points in the next campaign, I guess we haven't really moved the needle at all.

Maybe "say no" just doesn't hit as hard as "quote this article from the Official Gazette," I guess.

Olivia Martinez20 said:The thing is, this legal stuff doesn't really line up with how young people actually think. They just don't have the right info to form their own opinions, so the rules basically get forced on them. If we start pushing things even harder, we're never going to get anywhere. And that’s exactly what’s happening right now—this massive wave of banning smoking in public places. I mean, we at least get a say when decisions like that happen; the debates are way more frequent, heated, and actually informed. Like, when the US introduced zero tolerance for drunk driving, there was a huge national conversation about it. But with drugs? We just don't have those kinds of massive public debates, and I guess society isn't really stepping up to participate enough.

Alright, I guess I could list a few facts about drugs that might help kids—and honestly, just regular people too—form a better perspective on things. There’s stuff out there that most folks don't really know.
Besides that, what’s actually the difference between a smoking ban or a zero tolerance limit, since you brought them up? The government already passed—or is about to pass—a regulation or law, and honestly, people can debate it all they want. It's just like it is with drugs.

Olivia Martinez20 said:It doesn't even say what we're actually doing to help, I guess. For those who are already using drugs. Whenever we talk about drugs, it’s just constant bias and generalizations. Like, everyone assumes all users are basically lost causes—you see that kind of stuff all over this thread. And then there are people who think—maybe because of their own views or just what they've heard—that you can get addicted to absolutely anything. I guess.

I guess... if everyone actually realized that only a tiny handful of drugs are truly addictive, maybe fewer people would feel like taking the plunge? I don't know. And look, we aren't even on the same page here—there's also the whole category of psychological addiction to deal with.

Look, if not everyone here is looking to be enlightened, then just go ahead and tell me straight—maybe I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the percentage of criminals among addicts isn't actually higher than it is in the rest of the population. Or that drugs aren't linked to crime, aside from the fact that buying stuff for yourself is technically breaking the law.

Olivia Martinez20 said:Well, maybe you should just write to the Senators in the US Congress and tell them they can take it off the internet then!!
I guess those idiots don't know any better...🙄 😁

Look, I don't really follow this stuff closely or anything, but even I noticed some research a few years back where they tested how cannabis oil might help people with MS—thousands of volunteers—and it turned out it didn't do much. Or like, just a few days ago, there was news on the Pfizer website about whether smoking marijuana is worse than cigarettes, and apparently, it is. So, I guess if someone actually cared, they could probably find plenty of info just by Googling published studies (not that I feel like doing that). The weight of that one specific study is pretty minor, honestly. And I'm glad our government isn't wasting taxpayer money on this kind of thing either.

Olivia Martinez20 said:I guess you're drawing the wrong conclusion from that source.
It says here that only a tiny fraction of people being treated for drug use actually finished college. I don't guess that drugs are the reason they didn't graduate, though. To me, it just looks like the more educated someone is, the less likely they are to end up in rehab. The report shows that back in 2004, only 2.1% of those being treated had a degree. Some people might argue that the number is low because of age—like, older teens might be less prone to using—but I honestly think it’s just because they have access to better information.

Not really. I mean, with Google nowadays, getting info is basically instant. If you actually want to learn something, it’s never been easier. Those days when having information was some exclusive privilege for the elite? That's totally over. I guess the low number of college grads now just shows how priorities have shifted or maybe people just aren't as motivated as they used to be. And if your hypothesis is right—that most of them, like more than 50%, should just be left alone to live their lives and keep studying—then so be it.
There's actually another chart in that report showing the age breakdown. If I remember right, the biggest group of addicts falls between 25 and 35. That pretty much means their chances of finishing college are probably slim to none.

The whole point of this campaign isn't even about spreading info—if that was the goal, they would’ve missed the mark from day one. It's more about setting a certain vibe, or maybe just creating this non-committal atmosphere. Honestly, I never really cared much about this stuff, but reading through it now... I guess the campaign isn't even half as aggressive or dark or dramatic as it actually needs to be if it wants to reflect what's really going on.

Olivia Martinez20 said:And that’s exactly my point—it's always about the kids. Maybe just... chill? I don't know. Just relax. They don't really buy what they're being taught in school. I guess 62% end up doing the opposite anyway. The campaign SUCKS!

Alright, we've already been through that part. The issue is just way bigger than some single campaign. Especially when you look at all the stats—it's just one mild, benevolent campaign. 🙂

Olivia Martinez20 said:So, the whole point of this thread is basically how taboo this stuff is and just how bad the communication around it has become. I guess.
I mean, I’m just asking... why doesn't US Congress even have a competent enough committee to actually get things done? So, I was looking at this study on the risks of using cannabis for medical versus recreational purposes. I guess it's worth checking out.???

Look, it’s because I’m a taxpayer and I don't want my tax dollars going toward some government study that seems totally pointless. I mean, you could probably just Google the results in like two minutes anyway. OK?

Olivia Martinez20 said:Why isn't there more public debate here about where we actually draw the line on risk-taking? Like, alcohol and cigarettes are risky too, but they aren't banned. I'm not even talking about legalizing cannabis, I'm just talking about having an actual conversation about any kind of drug.

Public debates don't hurt anyone, true. Actually, we could probably use more of them.
Besides, we already touched on that point. If alcohol and cigarettes are just as harmful and drain the budget just as much, then the answer isn't raising the tolerance for drugs to match them—it’d probably be the opposite, lowering the tolerance for those two instead.

Olivia Martinez20 said:When the media discusses drugs today, like on International Fight Day (let's use cannabis as the easy example), why don't we talk about everything? The psychological stuff, reproduction issues, behavioral impacts, diseases it can trigger, the risks compared to smoking, cancer risks, cannabis and driving...

People do talk about it, it's just that you feel like the discussions are one-sided and unsatisfying. Again, I'd love to see a link to something that shows the other side of the coin.

Olivia Martinez20 said:We have to talk about drugs. I get the feeling the American public is ashamed or scared, and most of the time the government just looks the other way.
So, in our neck of the woods, parents have started taking matters into their own hands because the government isn't doing anything! The state offers these patronizing campaigns, a heavy hand when it comes to cracking down on small-time users, tiny budgets for scientific research, a bunch of constantly changing laws, zero local prevention measures within communities, no programs to educate parents (who honestly have no clue about drugs), and just a whole lot of nothing else.

Hear hear! I’m also all for a heavy hand when it comes to the big fish. You know, the ones tied to the top of the military and police. And prevention measures. Designed with experts, obviously. And a rule of law, too.

Olivia Martinez20 said:This is off-topic but...
Why would someone who used crystal meth be considered a "mediocrity"? Why is that worth any less? Seems like you're pretty biased, so I guess I'm not surprised by your take on drug users or how you support a campaign that's just loaded with prejudice.

Don't come at me for being politically correct (not like it's my fault if I am)😉
Look, I don't think people who used crystal meth are worth any less. And honestly, if someone stopped at, say, a high school diploma for whatever objective reasons, I don't think they should automatically blame themselves or society. It doesn't mean they aren't useful members of society, either.
It’s more about the people who could have been great, but instead wasted their time and energy on something that brings zero benefit—actually, it just causes direct harm. To me, those people basically owe it to themselves, their parents, and a lot of others.

Olivia Martinez20 said:Here we go again with another trash debate about drugs. Look, did you even give me a link or any actual proof for those claims? Because that’s how a real scientific discussion is supposed to work. Where’s the study proving that "a significant number of drug users fail out of college"? I'd love to see a link for that data. Honestly, I know plenty of people who used some kind of drug at one point and still finished their degrees. My own life experience pretty much contradicts your "statistics." So, what kind of statistics are we even talking about here? 😕

My bad, I thought it was the same source mentioned in an earlier post, so I didn't think it was worth repeating. But hey, whatever, I don't mind.
I can't really get into this one... just some old government document from back in the day. I guess it's just some official paperwork sitting on a site. Not much to say about it, honestly.

Look, just give me a documented argument that goes against this, but let's keep the discussion civil. Don't just stick to your own personal experience.

Olivia Martinez20 said:The data is pretty incomplete and feels like a total taboo, honestly. It kind of implies that half the people who try marijuana end up hooked on harder stuff. But I guess that doesn't mean smoking weed is... cause It’s just addiction because it happens after smoking marijuana. That's a classic post Hoc fallacy, I guess.

So, I guess that means you’ve got some alternative model worked out that totally leaves marijuana out of the equation. I'd actually love to hear it.

So, I guess we're all pretty much on the same page about this—the campaign SUCKS because it's just not enough. Doesn't mean it's totally wrong, though. Just... yeah, insufficient. Maybe.

Olivia Martinez20 said:It’s half-baked. Honestly, it's about as accurate as that whole "weed leads to harder drugs" thing. It’s just a massive generalization. I mean, sure, for some people, using drugs really does end up costing them their friends, their happiness, and their entire lives. But for others? It doesn't happen. That part just isn't mentioned—those people aren't even brought up, and there are way more of them than the ones who struggle. So, it makes it look like drug use inevitably leads to total ruin, which... I guess isn't always the case. That's just not true.The problem is just that they're overthinking things and only giving half the story. I guess.

Look, if you're gonna lean on the whole scientific approach, the stats just aren't on your side. It shows that a tiny fraction of people using drugs actually make it through college. Plus, at least half of those registered addicts deal with psychological issues—personality disorders or even worse stuff. And in so many cases, drug use comes paired with other types of addiction too. Basically, I guess it’s almost impossible for drug use not to mess with someone's life and their whole outlook.
You could argue again that not everyone who tries drugs ends up in the system, but since anyone caught with even a single joint gets logged, maybe the sample size actually holds water. It might include enough people who aren't exactly hardcore addicts to be statistically relevant. I guess... whether this actually reflects reality? Neither of us knows. That’d need a much more serious study to figure out. For now, we're just speculating.

Olivia Martinez20 said:If those politicians actually want to see results, they've gotta ditch these idiotic, patronizing campaigns. It’s the only way. Because right now? There aren't any results to speak of, and everyone everywhere—except here in the States—already knows that... If we aren't seeing results, then the method just isn't working. I guess we should probably change it.. A

If by "no results" you mean addiction levels just keep climbing, then the campaign isn't the only thing to blame here. Not even close. It’s mostly social stuff—people feeling insecure, having zero prospects, and then there's the drugs being everywhere and getting cheaper all the time. In a society that basically looks at criminals with sympathy (like that whole "who was guaranteeing anything..." vibe), I guess you can't really expect things to change. You aren't considered cool if you actually decide to work. But man, you're definitely cool if you make a quick buck any way you can, even if it's through dealing. So, yeah, the rise in addiction is only marginally tied to how institutions respond—whether it's prevention through campaigns or, eventually, treatment and rehab. But whatever, that's not even what we're talking about here.

Olivia Martinez20 said:If "relativism" just means sticking to scientific facts instead of absolute truths and stupid generalizations, then yeah, sure. If it means taking drugs down from being some boogeyman myth and treating them like the actual social issue they are—based on real data rather than prejudice, judgment, and half-baked info—then absolutely. I guess I just think a campaign would work way better if the target audience actually believed it. And you only get that by stopping the lies, ditching the one-sided narratives, and leaning on science instead of preaching, acting patronizing, or running those tragicomic campaigns.

Look, once again, scientific facts, stats, or even just what experts and people actually dealing with this stuff say—they aren't on your side. I haven't seen a single psychiatrist from Johns Hopkins or the Mayo Clinic suggest that being somewhat okay with drug highs is ever a solution. And I guess those people pretty much know what they're talking about.
As for the data, it says you’ll only start lying if you claim there are situations where drugs are safe.
Whether someone chooses to believe that isn't really the issue.

Olivia Martinez20 said:If you explain to kids whether users grow up to be part of the moral and social elite or not, they'll figure it out themselves. If it doesn't happen anywhere, they'll see it on themselves. But when they do, they'll realize a huge part of the story was left out: that drugs can be used and abused. Just like alcohol.

And thirdly: statistics show the chance of that kind of outcome is tiny. Yeah, we all know Bill Clinton admitted to smoking joints, and everyone saw Kate Moss snorting cocaine, but in reality, the ratio of those cases to the people who never make the news—unless it's a crime report—is like 1:10^6. Which isn't really relevant here. It would be more relevant to look at the percentage of people who could have been something great because of their IQ or talent, but didn't. They weren't even addicts, at least not hard drugs, they just stayed mediocre workers on Wall Street.

Sure, you're right that alcohol is just as dangerous, but, well, around here, it's almost treated like a trophy for a good time (just look at some of those ridiculous articles about spring break parties on South Beach). In my opinion, though, the real answer would be to stigmatize that kind of alcohol promotion, rather than promoting drugs in the exact same way.

Olivia Martinez20 said:The core problem with current drug policy is that they don't trust the people it's meant for. And honestly, they have every right not to.

No, the real problem is that the media campaign is like bringing a knife to a gunfight. Even if we disagree here, I still think this campaign isn't lying. Maybe it's outdated. Maybe it's not even clear who it's for—an emotionally stable person will say "no" on their own, while a confused teenager might do the opposite just to prove a point, showing off their rebellion or their "power" over the system. But a campaign that downplayed the danger would be both a) a lie and b) harmful. Who would a campaign like that actually help make the right decision? Not anyone, I guess.

Hannah Davis18 said:it's fine for now, I guess; but summer is coming; and that’s always been his biggest struggle.

but I don't think nobody in the local government stepped up; I know this one great guy who really pulled it together over at the... downtown center; we talked about it quite a bit; so regarding them specifically and based on some other stuff I've heard, I still think they're doing okay. plus, they actually try to make sure people get back home to their jobs, families, and all that stuff ASAP.

Alright, so you, Zoks, and me all agree that the local government is doing a decent job (even with those little complaints and room for improvement).

Hannah Davis18 said:I don't know, it’s honestly hard to say; maybe he's moving forward? He's alive, I guess, but he's relapsed so many times by now... so he'll probably just keep drifting through different halfway houses for a while longer.
He won't even consider any ideas about seeing a therapist or anything else like that. It's just not an option for him. He doesn't really know how to fight back against anything anymore.
At work, he just doesn't have the patience for everyone else's drama, even though he feels the need to lecture everybody.

I've known him forever, and man, I'm just really sorry that he's become such a burden to the people around him.

True, but we aren't really talking about his life before or after the addiction, more like the difference between when he was using and how he is now. Though, I guess there isn't much to talk about since he hasn't actually gotten clean.

Nancy Ward37 said:- drugs are taboo
-pedophiles are taboo
-prostitution is taboo

Maybe it's just because people don't want that stuff in their lives, or maybe they just don't wanna talk about it over Starbucks.

I mean, I guess it’s hard to say those things are actually taboo. People write and talk about them in public all the time.
The main issue with anitabuista in this thread isn't really about the total amount of info out there, but more about the tone and what's being said. And yeah, I guess I agree with you that, at least for those first two, there's probably no need to change anything.

Hannah Davis18 said:The way he can't stand stuff he actually did just a few years ago... it's weird. Like, total brain melt, I guess.

...which basically brings us to the main point: do you think this is a step forward or a step back?
Maybe look at his whole vibe and how he treats people around him—like family, partners, or even his boss/employees.

Olivia Martinez20 said:Looks like an entire generation of students here in the US...
🙄

I don't know, those "entire generations" thing feels a little sketchy to me. Like, maybe... Based on the 2004 data, I guess.Looking at the numbers, over 96% of registered users here either finished high school (around 62%) or didn't go past that. Only about 2.1% have a college degree. I mean, obviously, not every student who tries amphetamines is going to be a registered user on this site, but if you look at the ratio of people who experiment versus those who actually get hooked—and I don't think anyone can really argue with that math—then things are definitely leaning toward the group that won't even make it through college. Who's actually who? I guess it's hard to tell sometimes. Maybe just asking for some clarity. I guess I'll just list it.

Olivia Martinez20 said:So, instead of actually helping kids and teens here in the States, they’re just trying to brainwash them with these overly dramatic poems like, "Lost friends. Lost happiness. A lost life. Just say NO!!" I mean, if you look at how much that's actually working... honestly, the results are pretty pathetic. It's clearly not doing anything. 🙄

Which part of this dramatic poem is actually just pure fiction?

Olivia Martinez20 said:For real. I mean, besides how convenient it is—in that classic one-sided way—they totally forgot to mention that these are... Maybe.I guess, yeah... maybe. Necessary/highly likely. The fallout from speed use... man. It feels like an entire generation of college students back in the States finished their degrees fueled by amphetamines when they were still legal in the 60s. From what I've heard, we really should have been watching them closer. They were dealing with depersonalization, psychosis, and suicidal thoughts. I guess.
I guess by some miracle we actually have decent, honest, and capable people around today. Like the doctors performing our surgeries—back in the early 70s, I heard medical school was basically just finishing up on speed.

So you think the campaign would work better if we just downplayed the risks and consequences of drug use? Like, maybe tell kids that users actually end up becoming part of the social and moral elite? I guess.

I guess you don't even believe in that yourself.

By the way, it’s the same exact nonsense that got you all worked up in that article from... Free talk. I guess you can find it on that site you recommended, too.

brightstag92 said:man, that's scary. 😲
when I said "drugs in our pores," I just meant we all probably know at least one person who messed around with drugs.
if you don't teach kids about it, you aren't gaining anything. it's really bad. 👎

I mean, I've definitely had my share of powders passing through my system too, but I'm not saying it's seeped into my pores. And I'm not changing my mind on how this stuff should be handled in public.

Anyway, just give it to me straight—keep it super short. I don't need an essay, a study, or some link so you can hide behind "detailed info"—just tell me what every kid needs to know about drugs.

brightstag92 said:In the US, drugs are still such a massive taboo. Honestly, it’s mostly just because people don't really get it. Even though more and more people are using them and they’ve basically worked their way into every single corner of our lives,

I don't feel like drugs have crawled into every part of my life, and I guess I don't see what kind of "deep wisdom" is slipping through my fingers. I don't even see any benefits from this mystical "knowledge," and I definitely don't want my kids picking up that kind of knowledge either. So, as far as I'm concerned, the way the American public handles drugs/addicts/the scene is fine by me.

Basically, thanks to constant brainwashing from the media, I guess my brain just links "drugs" to stuff like: crime, HIV, suicide, rehab, communes, wasted lives, and broken families. I don't know, maybe you experts with all your knowledge know the situation is actually the exact opposite, but I'm just not buying it.

Anyway, if you ask me, we should just keep all those clichés and prejudices and that small-town idea of normalcy. I'd much rather, way rather, than give kids a manual for safe drug use.

Ethan Price81 said:Basically...

So, what's the dominant gene for hair color?

Like, can a kid with a blonde dad and a blonde mom (who leans towards brunette) end up with black hair?

Because if black is dominant, then if neither parent has black genes, it shouldn't be possible, right? Unless the dad isn't actually the dad...

Hair is actually a bit simpler than paternity stuff.

It all comes down to how much eumelanin (for dark tones) or pheomelanin (for red tones) you have. To put it simply, hair color is kind of a quantitative thing—people with dark hair just produce more enzymes that make eumelanin. Since we aren't really looking at pheomelanin here, I'll just stick to eumelanin.

There are four independent genes responsible for making eumelanin on chromosomes 3, 4, 10, and 18. Each one has two alleles: functional and non-functional. If we label them "E" and "e," then someone with blonde hair might have a genotype like EEeeeeee (two functional alleles), light brown could be EEEEeeee (three functional alleles), and black would be EEEEEEEE, and so on. Since these alleles are inherited independently, a kid from those parents mentioned above (EEEeeeee and EEEEeeee—so, blonde and light brown) could theoretically—not talking about exact odds here—have a genotype like EEEEEEEEe, which results in pretty dark hair.
So, it doesn't necessarily mean someone's cheating. 😉