so, i have a t2 and a t6 filled out.

i am requesting:
$1000 - moving costs
$1000 - bed
$1000 - couch
$500 - dry cleaning & laundry
$200 - tape & tarps
$100 - cleaning supplies
============
$3800 + a tbd percentage of rent paid, which will be $5600.

at 25%, that will be over $5000.

they will also no doubt hire lawyers.

the law is an ass, here. but, hopefully the court will make renting to inside smokers quite expensive, and hopefully that will create some pressure to put some more reasonable laws in place.

nobody should be allowed to smoke inside, ever. ten feet from the house should be the law....

i'm going to repeat this: the liberals should be running on their record in government.

they've made a lot of accomplishments.

and, they've put things in motion that i'd like to see come to their conclusions.

conservatives can whine and moan about conservative things, but i don't care about any of these things, because i'm not a conservative.

i just want to be clear.

it's not going to be the thing that determines my vote.

but, i'm certainly not opposed to raising corporate tax rates to eliminate the deficit. it's better than cutting services to do it, anyways.

a provincial level of government is different than a federal level of government, because it can't print money. so, ontario will in fact have to pay it's debt off, eventually.

but, the thing is that the only actual consequence of running a large public debt is in investors ratings, and these are political, anyways. i guess, in that sense, it makes sense for the ndp to try and avoid giving moody's anything to play with...

but, i need to reiterate that i'm more likely to get skittish about the ndp if they make the debt the focus of their campaign than applaud them for "being responsible". despite the public misperception, the ndp has a history of cutting services to pay off the debt - they are the party with the most fiscally conservative track record. corporate tax rates don't raise very often. if horwath insists on broadcasting an obsession with lowering public debt, i'm going to interpret it as broadcasting an intent to cut services, regardless of the platform. at the end of the day, that's the most likely thing that happens.

we live in a reality where politicians campaign on one thing and do another. this is one of those scenarios where you need to look in between the lines. the ontario liberals have a good track record on this - and that's what i think they should be running on, their record. the ndp, less so. frankly.

those are the empirical facts.

so, horwath needs to be careful.

if we're going to elect new democrats and get conservatives anyways, i'd rather split the vote.

i'm still hurting, but i'm going to try to start.

is this even possible?

well, i know what it feels like to be high, and i know that the smoke is getting me high. i'm not guessing that maybe i'm this mysterious thing called "being high". i'm identifying something i know very well.

i think that the basic idea here is correct: it's hard for second-hand smoke to get you high.

what are the facts, here?

1) this building has no "ventilation system". my windows are wide open when they can be, which is not always. hers are shut. it's certainly not a "hot box", but the smoke is only exiting one direction, and it is up. the winds tend to blow around the building rather than into it.
2) the floors basically aren't there. so, it's like i'm sitting in an open concept above her, directly in her exhale path. sometimes, it's like she's blowing it in my face.
3) i have a very, very low tolerance to marijuana. it appears to be unusually low. i also know this from experience.
4) she has a very high tolerance.
5) she smokes very potent marijuana. it appears to be very high cbd, very low thc. i actually think that the terpene stuff is bullshit. but, this is the kind of pot that knocks you out for days, without really getting you "high".
6) she smokes very big joints, and smokes them frequently.

all of these factors are going to play into this. and, all i can say is i know what i'm feeling, and it's pretty real. this is the experiment, and these are the results i'm reporting. somebody else may have different experiences, due to a higher tolerance....

....but i'm perfectly comfortable with stating that i'm getting knocked out by a high volume of high potency marijuana, even in a relatively open space, but i recognize that it depends on whether i get into contact with what i call a "plume" or not.

i'm not watching her from downstairs, but a "plume" probably happens when she takes a hard three or four hit toke on one of these huge joints. when that happens, i'm getting the smoke burned off the joint (which is substantial), the smoke missed in the toke and the exhaled smoke. what i'm getting at is that the way she smokes is very wasteful, and i'm actually getting a lot of uninhaled marijuana as a result of it.

the smell itself is not going to do it. i have to walk into one of these plumes. and, because she seems to be smoking near my bed [both before and after i moved my bed], that is exactly what is happening, repeatedly.

https://www.livescience.com/50880-secondhand-marijuana-smoke-effects-drug-test.html

"how's the pot in windsor?"

it's terrible.

my eyes are still burning, but i'm going to get a start on this. i'm not sure if i'll get it mailed today, but, if i don't i should get it mailed right away in the morning.

nope.

knocked out, again.

around 6:00.

this stuff is very, very powerful, but it's not any fun to get a headache and pass out. no euphoria. no buzz. no "high". just overwhelming lethargy, and a really nasty throb in the head.

i might actually recommend actual marijuana to get rid of this.

i can't write like this.

well, that gets me through dec of 2015, anyways.

i have a headache. again.

i'm going to get something to eat and hope it wakes me up a little and then get to writing that essay, with the full intent to mail it today. i've always tended to avoid doing school work when stoned (drugs and school don't go well together, kids), so i might have to wait for the influence to wear off a little, first.

i'm going to enter this journal into evidence, so i'll be posting detailed accounts of when the second hand smoke has an effect on me.

season 2 ends about a week into january, and the music blog is going to be updating sporadically afterwards. that should actually speed me up quite a bit.

"we spent the night playing video games and doing drugs, and then walking around talking about tv shows. 

you missed out."

thankfully, i have some coffee.

because that's the drug i like.

coffee.

i'm once again feeling tired and miserable in the wee hours of the morning.

the strangest thing is that they're just wasting their drugs.

throw a dart and you'll hit somebody that wants this.

why harass the one that doesn't?

i moved here hoping to meet people that wanted to start a new society in the ruins of the old one.

unfortunately, this place is full of people that perfectly represent that society's decay.

i don't like the junkies; it's the junkies that like me.

but, i really don't like them.

at all.

i don't want anything to do with these people that are showing up here every morning and doing drugs.

the only people i was able to build friendships with after high school were the anarchists at occupy.

those are literally the only friends i've met since i was 20.

why can't i have adults show up at my door and talk about revolutionizing the means of production, rather than children show up smoking drugs?

i'm actually looking forward to turning 40, so i can say it.

thirty-something isn't scary.

but, they leave you alone when you tell them you're 40.

so, i do - but i'm lying.

it'll be nice when it's actually true...

they see me as a peer, but my interest in twenty-somethings is non-existent. i see them as children.

there's this mother/daughter pair that lives in the building, in separate units. i guess the kid grew up here.

the kid keeps visibly checking me out.

i'm closer to her mother's age.

something like a smashing pumpkins reunion is....

if it's, like, the only thing to do that month, and i need to get out of the house, maybe.

but, it's probably going to cost too much, and it's probably going to be in a venue that is too big to get anything from, and i'd probably have a better night listening to the records at home.

i never saw the pumpkins live. i had an opportunity in....i think it was 2000....but i'd grown out of arena rock shows at that time, and just didn't think it would be a good night.

they apparently lost power that night, and people told me after the fact that i was right. but it's not the point.

i think rock music loses it's power when the venue gets over 2500 people. i'm just not into the festival thing. it just doesn't appeal to me, much.

there's the odd exception that i've made, mostly for acts that strike me as specifically arena rock bands, and i'm a bit more lenient about open air festivals, but i tend to hold to it.

i know i'm never going to get to see the pumpkins in a club, but i also know i wouldn't enjoy it in a bigger context.

she's in support of a constitutional amendment to restrict access to abortion, so the supreme court argument doesn't really hold up, either.

a little better, maybe.

not substantively... 

and i could go through this.

in fact, i will go through this as i rebuild 2016.

i mean, you'll recall that clinton argued that children crossing the border illegally should be deported "to send central america a message".

that's not substantively different than trump's position.

she was also heavily criticized during the primaries for openly racist statements in her past.

clinton was a terrible candidate.

and, every time you try and blame her loss on sexism, you just look stupid.

the dominant voting block that cost clinton the election was married white women.

in case there is some confusion, let me be clear.

i could not have voted in the last american election.

but, my heart was with jill stein, and my brain was with hillary clinton - as a lesser evil choice.

barely.

so, i made the argument that you should vote for clinton to beat trump. but, this was intellectual.

the truth is that i probably wouldn't have voted at all.

stein made the argument that it really wasn't clear that clinton was a lesser evil, and i think that she was right on that point. she may have been a lesser evil on the environment, which would have been my dominant voting concern. it is not clear that she was a lesser evil on the economy, and she was probably a greater evil on foreign policy.

i'm ultimately of the view that trump has not demonstrated much policy that is substantively different than clinton's - i'm not sure that clinton would have been much different.

we'll see, in the end, what kind of major policy initiatives come out of trump's presidency. as of now, he's really been a caretaker president.