wolfpack86 @ wolfpack86 @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

506

Joined

2 yr. ago

Abandoned property is a thing. There should be a reasonable time limit.

Almost like they're concentrating them in some sort of encampment

You might be the only person, in the history of the game, that wants hip checks removed.

Yeah but the 18 year old buys for the 15 year old-- brothers, sisters, upperclassmen, etc.

The more that gap becomes larger, the less likely they have social interaction and access. How many 40 year olds buy for 15 year olds today? In 20 something years, 40 year olds will be the youngest purchasers.

That's not true. It's a ban on the sale not possession or consumption. The end user is not being criminalized.

Theoretically there's nothing stopping from importation (barring implementation of another law).

I'm generally pro legalization of drugs, but will say this is likely to be much more effective than the war on drugs ever was.

You don't outlaw possession, just the sales age. You'll see significantly fewer new starters as time goes because after 20 years 40 year olds that can buy wont be bothered to support fresh 18 year olds looking to start a new habit or whatever. The ones that really want to start can buy from abroad without any form of punishment.

I think it's different because I don't think anyone turns to their first cigarette looking to try and attain some new feeling. It's usually one of those things like... My friends were so I grabbed one from them and blah blah.

I would say I'm for the progressive increase in age, and I wrestle with my own hypocrisy seeing that I support legalizing other drugs. But maybe that's rooted in the basis that I've never had a pothead or dude on shrooms negatively impact me. Cigarettes however--littered everywhere, get smoke in your face, etc

His whole theorem was for the sole purpose of building a wall.

I think they wish to have the same excitement and goofiness of the British Parliament, but lack the awareness of when to be funny and when to shut the fuck up.

I'll grant you the power to always grab exact change, under the supposition you have place sufficient money in your pocket to cover the bill.

Like put only a $100 bill into your pocket, and you can be guaranteed to have $5.32, exactly, to pay for your latte.

Fuck giving you infinite free money man. That's A tier.

I appreciate that not only does Margot Robbie want to entertain me, she wants to educate me. True renaissance woman.

Can anyone answer that question?

And we have Serena with the Ace!

Go pack

On one hand I agree with you about decorum reflecting the gravity of the task at hand, but on the other, there was a fight between senators on the floor in the 1850s with one almost dying.

There are greater issues than chiding her for using obvious hyperbole to emphasize the point she's previously made.

There are also greater issues senators should focus on than what senators wear, like literally solving any problem.

What a beautiful language

Agree, and I didn't even hate season 5 as much as the rest of the world. The last season was frankly painful.

Then stop voting for the old people.

Scott

Sorry, but they're more into LuLaRoe.

The problem is there are more instances of people who own places just to rent. Ban those. But permit people to rent places they actually have established residency in.

As an example... Boyfriends and girlfriends with their own places but spending the night swapping between are also super inefficient usage of resources. I'm obviously not suggesting that couples must live together... But they're perfect for occasional Airbnb rentals. Rent it for the week and spend that week at your partners. Same with people who travel for work.