I mean, you are stepping into this with some assumptions, then asking us to answer your questions with the, frankly wrong, framework you've already established. Like just within the context of what you've laid out, its not reasonable to expect anyone to answer. It becomes an issue of actually answering your question versus addressing your assumptions. Also, the manner in which you discuss weed: "you might not have enough time for a good high"; "I would imagine as bad as driving drunk", "a good dose of the devil’s lettuce". Its a tell that you have no grounding in experience. If you have 0 grounding in experience, what are you doing making this many assumptions? Maybe consider how little you actually know and reconsider your question accordingly.
Firstly, weed has a long and deep culture that established itself during prohibition. Getting weed from a friend or a dealer, its how it was done for decades, its still the way the majority of people I know who consume it prefer.
In-fact, many of the things you outline as "issues": they are part of the process. Walking to your friend or dealers house, often with a group of friends, or maybe piling into the car. Its part of the journey, the experience. Buying weed becomes a social activity. As far as people to know who to buy it from, guess what? Its probably at least 25%, maybe even half of everyone you know smokes weed at least occasional. If you are buying off market, its from your electrician friend, or the guy who works food service, or someones brother or sister who has a connection. You call them up, ask if they can hook it up, give them time to do their part (they usually have to go get it themselves), then you head their way, either by foot or skate board, or should you be so lucky, a car. You go, you hang out with your connection, maybe smoke a bit (but not necessarily). Its a social call. Then you get back with your friends, and you walk off to the park to smoke.
As far as smoking, you might have papers, or a pipe. Its pretty common to have both. If you are more serious, you might even go so far as to carry a dab pen and torch with you. Then you smoke. You take a hit and you cough. There can be a bit of a head rush, but thats mostly the coughing. Its a good taste. A rich flavor between tobacco and sweet basil maybe? And then you are stoned for a bit. Its not like alcohol whatsoever. Its just not like that. It does impair you but not at all in the same way. A person who has taken one hit of weed is a far far safer driver than a driver who has had even one beer. Its not like you are falling all over yourself. All a hit is going to do is just makes you a little dumb and have access to more random thoughts than you did previously, like, "Whatever happened to Jon Stamos?" or, "Do red pandas also have thumbs?". Its not dangerous whatsoever to be walking high, though it might be a bit dangerous to drive stoned. I dont recommend it, but frankly, unless you are like, extremely inexperienced (like first couple times) or extremely high (did a ridiculous amount), its just a non-issue.
The walking somewhere to get weed, scrounging up enough to buy between your friends, then finding a place to go smoke with your friends, its practically a rite of passage in adolescence. And its fun. Its a good time. The walking and going somewhere is practically the point. Its a manner of socializing. Its also something that isn't built into a "consumption oriented" experience. That's changing with dispensaries, but there is decades of cultural experience around getting weed from friends. Embedded within your question are views around consumption, capitalism, and even what the entire point of smoking weed actually is. You might challenge some of those views and consider how they are impacting your thinking.
No. The abolished it. They didn't reform it. They abolished it.
But the moment you go around saying “abolish the police”, you’re not talking about reforms, or at least that’s not what most people are going to hear.
Stop it.
Don't both misinterpret what I said and then put words I didn't put down into my mouth. If your balls shrink into your chest when you hear "abolish the police", thats a you problem. Likewise, if you are basing your decision making on "what most people want to hear", you probably are both a) not an effective strategist, and even further b) not a very good person.
Abolish the police. If you can't do that, de-fund them. Tip-toeing around the sensitivities of a deeply immoral people isn't a strategy that gets results. It only gets you halfway to no-where.
I think we're going to need to see a generational shift in compute before we see steam deck two. I have the original deck, and the OLED. Kicked down the original to a friend. Both are great pieces of kit. I've basically survived without a gaming machine for almost 4 years because of these devices. I've experienced almost 0 desegregation on either. Just phenomenal devices.
I've finally bit the bullet on a more serious machine (for both work and pleasure). I've got a Asus ROG Flow Z13 on back order, the 128gb variant. I think this is the direction things are going to go. We just can't make CPU's/ Video cards faster/ more efficient if we keep them separated.
My speculation: the next steam deck is going to take on this design, so long as the stryx halo generation proves itself. It might not be a "full force" variant like I've bought into, but the rub is the temperatures and power to performance relationship. The stryx halo design is the only thing I've seen that would warrant a generation refresh.
The idea that things devolve into a lawless society because a lack of police is absurdist reductionism.
Firstly, we already live in a lawless society; see any of the actions Trump has taken since January. Its just a matter of "for whom does the law apply?"
Second, and I posted this to your other response, the idea that we can't "abolish a police department and rebuild it into something that serves its intended purpose" is also absurdist, in at least that we have the counter-factual of it actually happening: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/12/camden-policing-reforms-313750
I mean they were openly fascist then, too. Its just that you had (more) liberals and centrists running interference for conservatives to defend the fascistic aspects of their own ideology.
I mean, I agree entirely with the "abolish the police" movement. I don't think policing in the US is recoverable. Its rotten to the core. Its a remnant of slavery. In that sense I'm an abolitionist.
But I also think its a thing that "law enforcement" is a thing that will be expected to happen. So if you are going to abolish policing as we currently know it, you need to replace it with something different.
But I think you'll find no matter what you do, some version of a person whose role in society is to enforce the laws, a kind of "law enforcement", emerges.
The properties of that role can vary widely from society to society, but pretty much every society independently comes to the same conclusion, that the role is necessary, once the society determines a common and well structured code of conduct is necessary.
100% abolish the police. They are a corrupt institution which finds their roots in re-enforcing a slave culture. 100% let every prisoner free. The roots of the prison system in the US are the same as the police state.
But countries with no history of slavery have police forces and prison systems. They are an emergent property of large social systems. Society will re-invent the role. We might as well fill the niche in a manner we want, instead of a manner we dont want.
Think about a surgeon. We put peoples lives in their hands. We expect them to be preposterously educated, able to perform extreme tasks under significant duress, to maintain ongoing technical and specialized training, to prove that the training is effective, and they are compensated accordingly. If they fuck up, they can be held personally liable for their fuck ups. There are consequences to the career and its not a role to be taken on lightly.
Hear me out.
We raise the amount we pay cops to 1.5 million dollars a year... but.
No qualified immunity. It no longer exists (guess what? it already doesn't exist for military service members). Any crimes they commit, the consequences are 10x'd and they are no longer allowed to engage in public service, ever. They can be publicly executed for any crimes beyond misdemeanor. They have to pay for their own equipment. They have to carry liability insurance for any violations of civil rights which might occur in the line of performing their duties.
The minimum qualification is a PhD in constitutional law. They need to be able to run a 6 minute mile, do 100 push ups in 2 minutes, 200 sit ups in 2 minutes, and 80 burpees in 2 minutes. They need to be able to carry 120 lbs for 10 minutes up an incline. They need to be able to recite the US Constitution, the state constitution, and the local city and county charters where they are stationed. They are expected to have advanced knowledge of any and all laws they are expected to be enforcing. They have to undergo annual psychological, physical, technical, and legal reassessments to prove their suitability for the job; these reassessments are maintained as a part of public record.
We 10x the pay and we hire 1/10th the number of cops. It becomes a career path somewhere between than a doctor or a lawyer or an astronaut. Its not something a HS drop out should be able to consider as a career path.
Man if you had to say something that would get right under Donny's skin, this would be it.
Also, worth noting, Putin doesn't like being called crazy.
So call Putin "crazy"; call Trump "emotional".