there may even be a reason to think the reaction may be that much worse.

if you grew up in the 60s or 70s, you may have ended up bitter about your parents basically being stupid potheads. and, if you grew up in the 80s, you may have seen your hyper-materialist cokehead parents through a very unflattering prism.

but, kids of addicts growing up in the '10s are only going to hear stories about their parents.

because they're dead.

that said, the distribution networks that you do catch should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

there's been a lot of ink spilled about how the collective consciousness of gen x was formed by revulsion at their parents' drug use. in that sense, i am firmly gen x.

but, how do you actually do this, then?

well, i've been clear that i support legalizing a handful of drugs. but, the ones that should not be mad e asily accessible are mostly heroin, meth and crack. what you'd do with these is shift to a kind of grey market - i don't want to blow up villages in costa rica to keep the crack out, but i don't want to make it available to buy at a store, or with a prescription, either.

i'm essentially an advocate of ignoring it and letting it run it's course.

i got some more sleep and am finally feeling a bit better.

20 years ago - even ten years ago - if somebody had told you that opposing the war on drugs meant being in favour of supporting drug use, the opposition to the war on drugs would have labelled that a ridiculous straw men.

for, the war on drugs was always really about controlling the supply of drugs. and, what opposing the war on drugs always meant was opposing war crimes in central america, not the free or liberalized use of chemical agents.

nowadays, opposing the war on drugs really does mean supporting widespread drug use, and arguing against widespread drug use is the same thing as supporting the war on drugs. i'd like to claim this is surreal. bur, it fits a pattern with the millennial generation, which has never known anything besides backwards orwellian arguments.

once again: i'm just waiting them out and crossing my fingers.

i think a good sign will be how the younger generation ultimately reacts to cell phones. if they grow up without really ever spending time on actual computers, we're probably screwed. but, if they're able to look at the phone and then at the laptop and say "that cell phone is of little actual use value", then there's some hope for the future.

i understand that the way meth is supposed to work is to mess up your rewards system. you end up addicted to a hormone, and not to meth itself.

but, my response is not give me rewards, or give me death!

rather, it's stop "rewarding me" and fuck off.

maybe there's some connection to the fact that i've never been a keener. i've never had an interest in being at the top of the class, or working my way up the ladder, or really winning at much of anything - i've always preferred to project mediocrity in the physical realm, and then be a god in my own fantasy reality. so, what meth is doing is setting off a hormonal reaction that i've never craved in the first place. and, i'm not craving for more, but pleading that they turn it off.

as i've always said: what "reaching for the top" means to me is that i must have left my beer on the top of the book shelf.

being awake for days is fun.

and, being stoned is sometimes fun.

but, being awake and stoned for days is the definition of hell.

i don't need or want drugs to help me stay awake for days at a time.

the manic phase is far more enjoyable when it's organic, because it doesn't come with an artificial buzz.

getting out of the apartment this morning took me away from the poisonous smoke for long enough to allow me to come down, which gave me an opportunity to actually sleep this afternoon, and i took it over running around looking for a means to incriminate the source of the smoke.

i'll get the drug tests done in the morning.

i have the windows open and my winter jacket on to compensate. but, there will no doubt be plenty more poison wafting up tonight.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/pharmaceutical-drug-company-doctor-physician-payment-disclosure-transparency-1.4169888

occam's razor is that the doctor was/is a shill for the pharmaceutical company, and was just looking for a new victim.

but, is there a chart? and is somebody taking orders?

you can never be sure what they do or who they call when they turn that corner...and mu experiences have made the paranoia hard to completely shake...

i think they'd jump at the opportunity to wipe me out. sure.

and, to the fucking dipshit calvinists left standing, get this through your thick heads: my aversion to labour has nothing to do with drugs.

i am sober, and i still don't want to work.

and, if i had to waste all fucking day at some stupid waste of time piece of shit job, i guarantee you i'd be more interested in blasting away my individuality in a blaze of dead brain cells, because i'd have nothing else to live for besides my own self-destruction.

i've told you repeatedly that this is a philosophical position, not a mental illness. and, people of the future, in a post-labour world, will look back on me as the only sane person on the entire fucking planet.

meth really isn't so dangerous - er "doctor" in windsor, ontario

my neighbours are smoking meth.

it's making me sick, so i went to the hospital.

they tried to prescribe me opiates as a painkiller.

fucking society. here's my prescription: destruction.

i'm not straight edge, but i'm a punk at heart, and i don't want to take non-recreational habit forming drugs unless i need to.

i have no interest in living in a designer drug society that prescribes a different pill for every problem.

so, you could imagine my frustration when the doctor listens to my description of being drugged by my neighbour's second hand meth smoke and responds with a suggestion to prescribe me painkillers.

i'll stick with aspirin, thanks.

"we don't prescribe aspirin."

yeah - i bet you don't have a contract with them, do you? you fucking pusher...

the thing is that she didn't drop it. she insisted that i accept an iv. and, i called her on being a pusher and stormed out.

all i wanted was a write-up for a vitals blood test. i want to know what they're poisoning me with, and how much damage it's done.

so, i'm going to try the clinic, instead.

fuck...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinook_wind

maybe i can try this...

i think we get the idea that if it's warming faster in the arctic then maybe that warmth can jump into the atmosphere, and split the vortex in half. it answers the question: where did the heat come from? i grasp this is easy to make sense of, it's just that the proposed physics of taking the heat from the land to the sky are getting a big thumbs down from the physicists, themselves.

but, you can at least make sense of a mechanism. what does it have to do with the sun?

well, it's kind of the opposite idea. every single winter, the vortex expands. but, this is a confusing way to state it, as the vortex does not expand so much as what was keeping it bottled up retreats. in physics, cold isn't actually a thing, but the absence of a thing, namely energy. so, the cold air doesn't expand; the hot air retreats. this isn't actually quite as simple as a reduction in sunlight, but it kind of is, though, yeah.

if the vortex expands far enough, it could break. it's less like pulling an elastic band apart and more like ripping a piece of bread in half. but, this would actually be a consequence of less energy in the atmosphere.

the air in the middle, where it's broken apart, would then be warmer because it's rushing in from all sides. you could imagine that being something more like ripping a bag of potato chips open. calling it "sudden warming" would then also be misleading, as it's really more of a sudden rushing.

we don't know which idea is right, yet. we know the mechanism for one of them is fishy, and we don't have definitive data for the other one, yet.

the connection between the sun's output and the jet stream is not on a "how bright is it shining?" level, but on an ultraviolet radiation level. and, it has to do with how the ultraviolet energy spreads out as it hits the earth, on an angle.

so, while breaking the correlation between temperatures and solar output after 1980 was key in determining the relationship between carbon emissions and a warming climate, pointing to ssw when the sun is down at the north pole doesn't quite work out so well - because fluctuations in ultraviolet radiation happen nonetheless, and act at the place where they hit the surface.

those warm temperatures at the geographic north pole migrated in with weather systems from further south.