[removed]

They're not tracking anymore so who knows.

Wow. Lol. Thanks. Swing and a miss on that one.

[removed]

Blowing it up it a shutdown, now you are arguing in bad faith. He said “bring an end to it” not “shut it down for a while”.

Word games are cope

Not to mention the credibility of the reporter who broke the story, but I don’t want to trigger you further

"U.S. President Joe Biden said on Monday that the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline would be halted" "said Russian forces crossing into Ukraine would trigger a shutdown."

So not literally.

Title goes in the braces, url in parentheses

No thank you, I have a limit on how many Schnitzengruben my hypothetical Marxist German protesters can eat.

not hard to find

I was in the 6.5 a mile from the epicenter in the Philippines 5 years ago. 3.7 would be like a gentle nuisance.

>Well, the president literally said

Go on, show me.

I don't wake up for anything under 5 on the Richter scale.

Same here, based near Newport.
Thought that someone either fell over or dropped something heavy downstairs. One little shake and it was over.

Not that I want more peoples’ lives at risk, but maybe this will get the necessary reaction from the local govt.

This is the wrong attitude. What matters is corporate profit and CEO salaries. You need some perspective.

/s <- for the sarcasm-impaired

Magnitude is only relevant for people with an interest in geology. What matters the most is the intensity of the observed above ground shaking, which was less in the cali earthquake (9/12) than Turkey (11/12) per wikipedia.

Lots of Turkey’s buildings also suck, but the Loma Prieta earthquake would never have killed this many people even if it happened in Turkey.

Even if you do that, the lottery agency will insist on knowing the actual person who will get the money. (For an example of why, google Eddie Tipton.) In some states, once they know this, it becomes a matter of public record subject to disclosure on request, despite your LLC/trust.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

People don't like objectivity or truth. It gets in the way of what they want to believe or feel.

Happy to, but if you're sincerely interested this wouldn't be difficult to search for yourself, even on Google Scholarly. This subject so often just devolves into people being 'pro weed' in some fashionable pop-culture Facebook-as-source sense, versus serious academic consideration. Hence all these stoned downvotes.

A good starting point might be here [https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=FTW9DgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=scholarly+articles+health+risks+cannabis&ots=-jg_5_7lpS&sig=LL6e3Nl0kVsdwjhtAziFzptfmGg#v=onepage&q=scholarly%20articles%20health%20risks%20cannabis&f=false] as it lists a large array of clinical areas with existing research and known risks and also benefits, per condition. Within each section you'll find references out to many supporting studies, source and commentary.

If you want more:

Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol effects in schizophrenia: Implications for cognition, psychosis, and addiction - https://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/S0006-3223(04)01310-1/fulltext

Adverse effects of cannabis on health: An update of the literature since 1996 - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278584604000855

Epidemiologic review of marijuana use and cancer risk - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0741832905001126

Testing hypotheses about the relationship between cannabis use and psychosis - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376871603000644

Cannabinoids and psychosis - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0074774206780102

Associations between modes of cannabis use in daily life with concurrent and longitudinal hazardous use and consequences - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306460321003932

Cloudy with a chance of munchies: Assessing the impact of recreational marijuana legalization on obesity - https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.4598

Health outcomes associated with long-term regular cannabis and tobacco smoking - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306460313000257

Is the relationship between early-onset cannabis use and educational attainment causal or due to common liability? - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376871613002998

&#x200B;

Again, 5-10 mins of a real search will find countless results exploring this area. Clinical and scientific research into the pros and cons of cannabis use either recreationally or clinically is a quickly growing area. The idea cannabis is simply good/safe/doesn't pose serious health risks is simply false. We don't know that, and really the opposite - we already see it has numerous risks that require more research, as with the benefits. Also, a regular user of cannabis, for clinical benefits, and opposed to its illegality. Neither of those mean it's known to be safe.

[removed]

Ya don’t say? eyes roll so hard I’m now blind

#1 reason to alway keep your receipt!