I think he see’s how climate change is being weaponized in the same way he sees the health industry weaponized.

Though I think we can all agree that we need to protect the environment against harmful pollution- chemical spills like in Palestine, OH, etc.

FWIW he’s battled the EPA in court multiple times and has described how they’re a captured agency.

IMO he‘a walking a fine line on hot button issues like gun control so as to garner more appeal from normies and lefties.

Most mortgages need to be renewed every 4-5 years. If you have a fixed rate, it’s fixed for that period of time, after which you need to renew - generally at current market rates.

So if your mortgage is up for renewal, you could see a substantial increase in your rates and monthly payments.

And normies will try to argue that Biden was, in fact, threatening to without financial aid because the prosecutor WASN’T investigating Hunter’s company.

Amazing believing something so dumb just because the TV told you so.

Punctuation?

That’s not poking holes. You’re missing the point by focusing too narrowly on the technical application of a word rather than the colloquial use.

You’re the one who made the claim that it’s “unrealistic” to consider that long term damage may yet to have manifested.

I’m saying that there is precedent to justify concerns of long term side effects emerging years after administrating the shots.

The reason for conducting long term trials is exactly to ensure something like that doesn’t happen.

To claim that it’s “unrealistic” completely ignores reality. There’s a middle ground between what you claim to be “fear mongering” and the extreme levels of nativity that you’re displaying.

I’m not suggesting that long term side effects will emerge. I’m just saying it’s entirely realistic.

Is that what you say every time you’re wrong?

You need to learn to read.

Who taught you to read?

You’re taking the term “placebo” much too literally.

Ya, because it’s not like Fauci himself had years ago discussed the risk of rushing vaccine development, because “all hell” could break loose after 10 years post vaccination.

We can’t even keep drugs out of prisons.

Sure, drugs are a big problem, but prohibition doesn’t work, and it only serves to empower the worst aspects of society.

I’m honestly not sure what you think I’m trying to say here, or what you believe my understanding of “legalization” to be.

I also don’t understand how you believe that decriminalization is an appropriate standard, as the same standard cannot be applied to any other commodity traded widely.

If you consume something or do anything on a small scale, you don’t run into trouble. It’s no one else’s business. If you start mass producing something to distribute to others, there are regulations pertaining to said practice.

The anarchist side of me would say that government has no right to impose regulations on any transaction between two consenting adults. Reality would say that regulations exist for literally every other form of commerce in our society.

Why would drugs be an anomaly?

If we’re talking about the state recognizing ones right to produce and distribute drugs as a business, that is, for all intents and purposes, legalized.

I’m not having a debate about the etymology of words here. I’m talking about the practical implementation of allowing drugs to be produced and sold, in contrast to prohibition.

If that’s what you mean by decriminalization, then we agree. But the term “decriminalize” is not used to describe that.

I’ve lived in a country where marijuana was decriminalized for a period of time, as well as formally legalized years later. They are absolutely not the same thing. The same thing applies to prostitution.

Therefore, based on actual real world precedent, simply decriminalizing drugs is not the target we should be aiming for, unless you see it as a stepping stone, or unless you’re simply living in an anarcho capitalist fantasy land.

Decriminalization means it’s not a crime to possess or use a substance. It does not make it legal to produce, manufacture, market, and distribute said substance.

Defining a substance as legal allows for the above. If you don’t want government oversight and regulations, I’m all for that, but it’s incongruent with everything else in our society. It would be a distinct anomaly when it comes to products and services that are traded and sold in markets.

In my opinion, the answer is that the substance be recognized as legal on a federal level, and then any potential regulations are determined on a local level.

When it comes to hard drugs that can easily kill someone, I think it would be reasonable to have standards for potency and purity, in a similar way that we have standards for proper food handling. We don’t want people dying unnecessarily from an accidental overdose - that’s one of the biggest problems with the current black market.

But again, that’s up for the individual localities to determine in my opinion.

We could discuss the potential of a self regulating industry, but this would all stem from a substance being recognized as legal.

If this describes your idea of Decriminalization, unfortunately I think you’re the one who is confusing terminology.

It created loop holes.

Decriminalization only benefits cartels and organized crime. They’ll dominate a brutal monopoly, without any oversight. Yes government is inept, but we need to fully legalize and leave it to the free market. I would support regulations to report purity and potency/dosing, but not for government distribution, licensing, etc.

Decriminalization is a half measure. We need full on legalization.

Wasn’t it “Darnkess”?

The ultimate IP is the human mind, body and spirit. It’s a priceless commodity that should belong to you and God only.

My only concern is that this all seems to lead us towards some type of digital ID, and I fear that in order to reclaim ownership over your data and digital footprint, you’ll be required to accept is essentially the mark of the beast.

Are you under the impression that this foundation has any control over Bitcoin?

It’s an advocacy group. It’s substantially less related to Bitcoin than the federal reserve is related to the US government.

Good luck with legislating Bitcoin away. The cat’s out of the bag.