listen.

if you want to kill yourself, it's easy enough to find a bridge or some poison or something else.

you don't need to trigger the cops, who probably want to catch you alive if they can, anyways.

canada has experienced a few unfortunate outbursts of mental illness. but, this doesn't appear to be a terrorist attack - nor have any of the incidents here been accurately described that way.

it seems like this person was suicidal and wanted to go out in a bang.

outrageously, the response from the landlord was to suggest that if i can't deal with the smoke then i should move.

that's the literal definition of negligence, in context.

"if you don't like the mold on the ceiling, you can always move."
"if you don't like the asbestos in the living room, you can always move."

it's the same thing, legally.

you see this frequently with legal illiterates: i'm just getting some, like, nineteenth century contract theory bullshit. libertarianism seems to be the basic starting point of ignorance, in this culture.

so, i'm going to have to write the board an essay, and this won't get mailed until tomorrow. the basic argument is negligence under the health regulations, and liability for breach of the enjoyment covenant.

but, i got a mailing address, at least. that wasn't obvious.

the truth is that they're actually kind of walking into a trap; it's not like i set the trap, but , if i did, they'd have walked right into it. they've given me everything i need to make the argument for negligence...

and, i need to reiterate: i like tort law. i think more of the law should be organized around tort law principles. tort reform, to me, means expanding the principles of tort law to further destroy contract theory. it's the criminal law that i don't like, and it's classical liberalism that pisses me off...

i mean, the premise is that prostitution pays well, right?

but, that's only true because it's not regulated.

legalization will convert sex workers into fast food employees.

"sex work is work".

ok.

well, then you'd be willing to do it for minimum wage, then - as an employee of a multinational corporation, run by men who take in six figure salaries.

right?

careful.

i think women are better served by the status quo, myself.

and that we should rather be focusing on ways to create better jobs.

i have to make the complaint before i file the documents. it's a formality.

i'm really curious as to how they'll respond....

yes: she's been smoking all night.

i'll have to call the landlord around 8:30.

if you like a glass of wine now and again does that mean you're an alcoholic?

that you want your bed to smell like spilled vodka, and stale puke?

that you want your kitchen to smell like gin, or your bathroom to smell like barley?

that you want your clothes to smell of elderberry?

that you drink so much that you fall over?

just because you like a glass of wine at christmas, or a beer at a show? really?

this is not binary. we don't have to choose between never smoking and smoking an ounce a day. there's a large spectrum...

she may even be getting social validation from "being an addict" that she can't get anywhere else.

i'm posting in the rebuild right now about how marijuana isn't addictive.

and, it really isn't.

this is the first pot addict i've ever met...

and, she's no doubt more addicted to the idea of the drug than the drug itself. she probably thinks it makes her cool, or something; it's probably some kind of fear of missing out.

"marijuana is not physically addictive" is a factual statement. that is science. but, they claim it's "psychologically addictive" - which means that heavy users can trick themselves into thinking they're addicted, when they really aren't.

it's more like they want to be addicted, because they think being addicted is cool, and they don't want to miss out.

twisted. truly.

but, as i am contradicting myself, let be me clear: i am well aware that marijuana is not an addictive substance, and when i'm ranting about this woman being a drug addict, i shouldn't be taken fully literally. she's a wannabe addict.

i mean, when i go out, i make sure i have a good time.

but, it's a few times a month, usually.

i'm not out all of the time...

"so, how does she go out to party all the time, then?"

i don't.

i went out once in november, once in december, zero times in january, february or march and twice in april.

i'm often able to save a few dollars over the winter, so that i can go out more frequently in the summer. i also get those gst checks in every three months. but, the budget gives me about $100/month to spend, most months - which is enough for one or two nights out

and, the truth is that i spend most of my time inside in front of the computer.

as you can see.

rent: $700
groceries: $200
estrogen: $90
internet: $30
laundry: $10

roughly.

do i really have to make this argument?

i have one source of income: odsp.

it's $1150/month.

my expenses are $1026/month [if i spend $200 on groceries, which is often an exaggeration].

where do you propose that i get all of this money to get stoned all of the time?

i don't have an alternate source of income. i don't have a marijuana card.

please just accept the fact that i don't smoke.

i get pleasure out of learning, not out of burning out.

there's lots of people on this planet that just don't like marijuana.

i'm not going to say that, exactly.

but i certainly don't enjoy perpetual inebriation.

i'd really rather be sober.

and, i honestly don't know why i have this reputation, otherwise - i am, in fact, usually sober.

it's not that i'm living some kind of ascetic lifestyle or something.

i don't have any kind of philosophical objection to being a stoner - it's just not my idea of a good time.

i simply prefer being sharp-witted, awake, alert. i don't enjoy the sore throat. i don't like being tired....

if i was going to get addicted to something, it would be cocaine, not marijuana. as it is, i'm usually fine with coffee.