When I have used them, they would make me salivate a lot. Since I didn't want to swallow that, I would walk around with a tea cup spitting into it the extra saliva with peroxide.
Crest 3D whitening strips sold at Costco work for me. My teeth were noticeably whiter both times I've gone through a box. Of note, I drink espresso about 4 times per day, so maybe they're particularly good at whitening coffee-stained teeth.
They make my teeth sensitive after a few strips though, but sodium fluoride 1.1% toothpaste remedies that.
note: from what I remember reading a while ago, this works because it scrapes your teeth, which slightly files them down. it's like using using loose sand paper.
I think one reason is that the stockbrokers make profit off of every trade through commission. The more trades, the more money they make. Thus, they would lobby to make it legal. Furthermore, limiting number of trades would upset traders by restraining their ability to trade, which would upset a voter base. There's really no one that would care enough to provide the political capital necessary to implement the limitation.
The investment bank already does that and calls it commission. It's basically how the Wolf of Wall Street's main character got started: commission on penny stocks.
What‽ 😮 Now I know how everyone else in this thread that disagrees with me feels. To me, Pink Floyd is on another level. There are good bands, great bands, and pioneering legends. Pink Floyd is a pioneering legend. Waaaooowwww. So interesting how something that can be deeply moving to me can feel vanilla to someone else and vice versa.
I think I remember hearing that the Mexican cartels are even part of the production line of narcotics made from opium in OP's post. The raw products are send to Mexico and other Latin American countries for processing, then smuggled into the US.
I don't understand why the US government doesn't solve the problem. It seems to me that it would be quite simple. Legalize drug use, criminalize distribution, provide amazing free and non-judgmental drug abuse therapy that includes medically minimizing withdrawals and long-term sobriety so that benefits of completing rehab would overwhelmingly attract and keep people dependent on drugs engaged with treatment through to completion and sobriety. We'd also need to get rid of the idea that once someone is an "addict", they are an addict for life. This would help people feel that coming to therapy for drug use doesn't automatically mark them for life. It would be a bit expensive up front, but in the long run, we'd save so much money in the criminal justice system, customs, and healthcare. Not to mention, increased productivity from a healthier workforce and quality of life would increase drastically, not for the drug users, but their families and communities. There's also the bonus of creating tons of jobs in drug rehab for a while, both treatment and research. And as is well-known, research in one field often has beneficial unexpected benefits for other fields, such as when Pavlov was studying salivation in dogs created an entire branch of psychology (behaviorism), which coincidentally, happens to have major applications in drug use treatment.
This is such an easy win for politicians on both sides if they would sell it properly. Republicans would look great to their base for doing something about drug abuse that is hurting rural America, reducing immigration issues, lowering crime, and tickling their anti-Mexican racism. Democrats would look great to their base for enacting caring government programs, reducing criminalization, and being effective at something. It would also help relations with Mexico. It's a win-win-win for everyone. I can't figure the cons.
Latinoamerica divides up the Americas by ethnicity. North America is USA and Canada, Jamaica, the Bahamas, Trinidad & Tobago, Miami (lol), Saint Lucia, Dominca, US Virgin Islands, and other Anglosphere Antilles. The rest is Latinoamerica, including Puerto Rico (US) and Brazil (Portuguese ancestry).
Fun fact: there is a considerable portion of Latinoamerica that refuses to call people from the USA "Americans", and instead call them United Statians (Estado Unidenses) or North Americans (Norteamericanos). This is because they see everyone from the Americas as Americans, so calling people from the US Americans kind of implies that everyone else isn't American. This trend is more common in Latin American countries that have had an antagonized relationship with the US, especially in the 1900s during the Kissinger years.
Funner fact: In general, French Guiana and Haiti get grouped in with Latinoamerica, but not Quebec or Louisiana. I don't know about Martinique and Guadeloupe, but my guess is that they would.
Funnest fact: Lots of people in Cuba don't even use United Statesians or North Americans as identifiers. Instead, they call Americans "Yuma" after an American movie called 3:10 to Yuma where the part of the plot was to reach Yuma, AZ.
I get that part, but why is it a dysfunction? A specific mutation in the oculocutaneous albinism II gene causes less production of melanin in the iris resulting in blue eyes, but we don't call that a dysfunction despite being more sensitive to light and an increased risk of age-related muscular degeneration. Why would a mutation that makes it so lipids can't cross a membrane resulting in less odorous armpits be called a dysfunction?
I'm back on my BS 🤪 @ BackOnMyBS @lemmy.autism.place Posts 61Comments 713Joined 1 yr. ago
They're one dimension up looking at us like us looking at Paper Mario on a screen.