"I'm saying that when a person gets caught smoking (Not dealing or growing, etc- I'm not going anywhere near that, either.) pot, they're not doing it for the sake of human rights equality. They're doing it to get high because it feels good."

So what's your point? When the colonists threw the tea in Boston Harbor were the doing it for the sake of human rights? Equality?

Ask the Indians that question.

No. They did not want to pay taxes. Not exactly the highest of ideals either.

tsssssst! Burn! Nice work.

Worship the idol, people, ITS THE LAW!

Something about all the folks on this board who say "laws should always be followed even if they are wrong" reminds me of this biblical story.

No. Breaking drug laws is not at the same level as the Jews who refused to worship the idol and were thrown into the furnace. But the principle is the same. There is nothing morally wrong with breaking a bad law.

"Smoking out of a bong is something few of us have done"

Patently false, unless all you smoke is dirtweed or are really good at rolling joints with bud. Most people smoke a pipe or a bong. Bud is hard to roll unless you mix it with tobacco - something Americans don't do. Rolling a joint is a skill that most casual smokers don't even have. Besides, most people who smoke from bongs do it because its smoother, not because it gets you any higher.

In my experience, maybe 10% of weed smokers roll. The rest smoke from pipes or bongs.

No, smoking pot does not make you a rebel. It makes you a criminal. What do you think that does to the psyche? What do you think that does for a person's respect for authority?

If pot smokers sound "sanctimonious", maybe because they are defending themselves against the concept that otherwise law abiding people are officially criminals. The law is simply wrong. If stating such sounds "sanctimonious" - so be it. Satisfying your sense of decorum is very low on the list their priorities, I'm quite sure.

Question 2, baby! Passed by 66% of the voters.

Sweet sanity.

The point of this article is that up to now there is very little actual scientific evidence to support the idea that there is an epidemic of food (particularly peanut) allergies.

Some posters here want to dismiss off hand the impact of food allergies altogether. Others cling to the shaky research that has been done. Still others completely miss the point and talk about how bad their own and their kid's allergies are.

Lets get some real science on this. The current research, for reasons stated in the article is bogus. Before we hysterically clean every school bus that had a peanut dropped on the floor, or tell my I can't feed my own son peanuts because the magical effects will kill one of his classmates dead, I want real, hard, scientific evidence.

Hyperbole much?

Star Trek (any of em) is for kids. Babylon 5 lost me with the annoying russian alien. Doctor Who is fun but silly. Firefly? Missed that season. Stargate and its half dozen spinoffs? Never even bothered.

There is no serious competition. BSG is by far the best SF ever on TV.

She's whining that the press took her Russia comment out of context, but it's interesting to note that "You can see Russia from Alaska." is fine and factual OUT of context, but when you put it IN the context of foreign relations and politics, the statement is ridiculously stupid.

Yawn. Such "controversy".

Is that the yipping of Rush and his doggies? No. Its Salon with nothing else to do.

Congress has a shitload of very important things to do. Reid and Pelosi are the leaders of congress. I don't care about Burris. No one cares about Burris except the talking heads. I want to make sure I can pay my mortgage. I want the economy fixed. I want the war to be over. I want sanity restored. That's what they are there to do. They are not there to walk the minefield of punditry. They are not there to satisfy liberals. They were elected to solve problems.

Fuck the right wing shriekers. Fuck the left wing shriekers. Fuck whatever pet ideology you happen to hold. I don't care. Let congress do their job - which is not to please everyone, its to solve problems.

Anecdotal evidence may not convince you that average gamers are in their thirties, but there has been a ton of research into the matter.

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=9342

"The average gamer was said to be thirty-three years of age, with 31 percent under eighteen years of age, 44 percent between eighteen and forty-nine and 25 percent fifty years or older. The average age of the most frequent game purchaser is forty years of age"

This was a couple of years ago too. I'd predict the age is even older now - probably thirty five. Sounds like there is

an awful lot of "extended adolescence" out there.

WoW just passed 10 million players. Here's their breakdown:

http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/001365.php

"From the survey data, the average age of the WoW player is 28.3 (SD = 8.4). 84% of players are male. 16% are female. Female players are significantly older (M = 32.5, SD = 10.0) than male players (M = 28.0, SD = 8.4). On average, they spend 22.7 (SD = 14.1) hours per week playing WoW. There are no gender differences in hours played per week."

Face it. Games are mass market. They will continue to be mass market. They are marketed to adults as well as kids. While the industry might be a bit stifled right now, the audience is still there and still playing.