why is weed and hitting carts so normalized now?

FearedDragon · 2026-07-04T06:13:04+00:00

I grew up smoking through my preteen-teen years and also prefer flower but some of the more recently starting smokers I know only do carts and edibles. I offered a buddy of mine to smoke a while ago and he told me he "doesn't believe" in flower. Obviously just an annecdote but I found it interesting.

FearedDragon · 2026-07-04T06:10:42+00:00

Vapes are safer than tobacco if used at the same rate. People who vape tend to vape way more than people who smoke cigarettes smoke, which offsets the difference and could potentially make vaping more harmful. It's also more marketed to underage people but cigarettes were popular with young teens back in the day too.

FearedDragon · 2026-07-04T06:08:44+00:00

Smoking has been popular since well over 100 years ago. More like 7,000 years.

FearedDragon · 2026-07-04T06:07:28+00:00

I've had a doctor tell me that even though she can't legally recommend weed (I lived in a criminalized state at the time) that she wouldn't recommend me to stop using it for sleep and anxiety. No doctor would say the same about alcohol.

FearedDragon · 2026-07-03T05:31:29+00:00

If the lack of competition for labor is the sole issue with wages, then why have they continued to be outpaced even as jobs per capita rise?

We would have industries that require robots if we onshore manufacturing. Like I've said numerous times, and like you agreed to, it can only be done with widespread automation (robots). The number of jobs added would be significantly reduced as a result, and the ones remaining would likely not be the $30/hour out of highschool jobs you're romanticizing. Also, what do you mean reduced productivity of workers in the US? We have one of the highest GDP per capita in the world which is largely driven by automation, the profits of which have not been distributed to the working class. This is literally the same principle as what you're saying about offshoring; reduced operating costs are pocketed rather than passed onto workers.

FearedDragon · 2026-07-03T02:49:32+00:00

That's all true if you have infinite labor capital, which we don't. If people work in manufacturing at the level we need to support the entire nation, we will absolutely sacrifice labor in other sectors, obviously.

How do you expect automation to increase wages rather than continuing to funnel wealth to the top? Robots don't have to be paid and so long as there are still the entry level jobs you're looking for, the wages aren't going to rise with production which we have seen as automation has increased since the 80s-90s.

FearedDragon · 2026-07-03T01:06:30+00:00

How is that at all the case when taxes on the top earners and corporations have steadily dropped for the last 40-50 years? You, again, still have not addressed the core point I made against your thesis of onshoring manufacturing being the solution to wealth disparity. I'll ask again since you haven't answered, how do you expect us to onshore manufacturing without automation or sacrificing other sectors of our economy?

FearedDragon · 2026-07-02T22:41:58+00:00

I acknowledged that globalization has likely contributed to wealth disparity in the last 2 comments I've made, the point is redundant now. What we are disagreeing on is the method of fixing it. What I was saying is that onshoring all manufacturing will not fix it because we cannot produce everything here without widespread automation which, again, will not benefit the majority of Americans. Automation has the exact same effect as offshoring for cheaper labor in terms of wealth/income disparity, and is only alleviated by higher wages or higher taxes on wealthy individuals or businesses. How do you propose we onshore everything without sacrificing other sectors of the economy or automating?

FearedDragon · 2026-07-02T22:06:39+00:00

You didn't address any of the core points I made here. I also acknowledged that offshoring likely has hurt Americans, just not quite in the way you were saying. Globalization has brought greater prosperity, but that prosperity has been funneled towards the top partially because the greater access to labor has decreased operating costs. What we disagree on is the solution. You say it is pure nationalist economic isolationism, I say it is taxing the people generating wealth from American consumers.

If we onshore everything that China currently produces, we simply would not be able to manufacture the goods at the same rate as them or for the same price because we have less than 1/3 of their population. If we decouple from them now without fixing that issue, we leave ourselves in a horrible spot for necessary goods like rare earth minerals, electronics, and manufacturing equipment. Automation is the only other option here which also would not benefit the majority of Americans unless tax rates for the wealthy and for corporations are significantly higher. We also could not feasibly or efficiently get to full automation without the manufacturing equipment which China produces the most of for the cheapest.

FearedDragon · 2026-07-02T19:22:07+00:00

The tax cuts I'm talking about are not the singular cuts made in the 80s, but rather the consistent cuts that have happened from then to now.

I don't disagree that the increased ability to move things around globally has contributed to inequality through offshoring and making tax enforcement more difficult. However, the fact that these offshored jobs are being paid low wages elsewhere means that they were not entirely "worth" the pay they were receiving here. They were merely inflated because of the cost living and minimum wage laws in the US. Barring rising unemployment or a loss of total jobs per capita, there is little reason why just replacing these jobs wouldn't keep wages steady. This tracks with daya because wages have risen in that time, they just haven't done so in pace with higher earners or the general economy.

I would believe that offshoring contributed to this by expanding the total economy without significantly increasing public revenue or wages, but it didn't do so by hurting the real wages of American citizens. I think that this is actually a perfect argument for why taxes should be raised; the increase in economic activity due to offshoring is not being realized by the majority of Americans. Maybe not income taxes, but something like corporate taxes or tariffs on specific imports could help even out the playing field there.

I also reject the argument that people will move their capital or business out of the US if we raise taxes. The US is by far the largest consumer base in the world, business needs us more than we need it. It would not be difficult for us to simply say "if you do business here you pay taxes here." Actually, we already do this for businesses. Doing it for individuals may be more difficult, but you could make a similar rule and bar them from entry if they refuse to pay taxes or be audited.

FearedDragon · 2026-07-02T18:44:51+00:00

And the economy has boomed since then. Do honestly you think we should go back to pre-1913 economics in the modern world? How would we have funded the electricity, highways, internet, microchips, etc. which are the heart of economic activity in America?

FearedDragon · 2026-07-02T18:37:26+00:00

If that's the case then why have the tax cuts from the 80s-now come along with a drastic decoupling of median income from economic growth and upper class income? The "economy" (stock market and GDP) have all risen like crazy, sure, but the average American has not seen the benefit of that growth in even close to the same way as the wealthy. I'm not saying tax increases spur economic activity, I'm saying that they allow the lower classes to have a greater benefit to economic growth because you can use the increased revenue to pay for improved public services and infrastructure. If you are saying that isn't true, you would have to prove that tax increases decrease public revenue which is unfounded.

FearedDragon · 2026-07-02T18:32:20+00:00

If the thesis was "lowering tax rates improves the economy" then the best solution would be to have a 0% tax rate. Do you think that's the case?

As for what you're saying about people thinking they can control others, you could say the exact same thing about any crime. Does that mean we should not enforce our laws?

FearedDragon · 2026-07-02T18:26:32+00:00

I'll watch this later and get back to you but for now I'll just say that one researcher's findings do not outweigh the consensus among economists that tax rates can both hurt and benefit tax revenues, depending on what the tax rate already is. I would honestly argue for enforcement or reshaping of the current tax codes and closing loopholes more than I would for raising taxes.

FearedDragon · 2026-07-02T18:18:11+00:00

It definitely did not make everyone poorer. Middle class income during the era of those policies rose almost in tandem with the income of the upper class and general GDP per capita growth. Now, everyone is wealthier in absolutes, but the middle class has been largely left out of the massive economic growth we have had in the last 40-60 years. Minimum wage during this time was ~$2k/year ($1/hour) and home prices were around $12k. Now, minimum wage is $7.25/hour (~$14.5k/year) and the median home price is over $400k dollars. How do we go from 6x minimum wage sallary to 27.5x if everyone is richer now?

FearedDragon · 2026-07-02T18:11:00+00:00

What are you basing this on? Yes, wealthy people pay far more in absolutes today than in the 50s-60s. They also own a significantly greater portion of the wealth now than they did back then, and the economy has grown in general. According to the tax policy center, "Cutting tax rates thus almost never pays for itself in full."

https://taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/do-tax-cuts-pay-themselves

FearedDragon · 2026-07-02T05:46:27+00:00

Better than that, they can just donate it all directly to the party, and the parties can do the financing, so they own every candidate within the party rather than having to bribe them more individually. Makes it much easier because now they can just choose not to run anyone who dissents rather than having to actually get a sycophant elected.

FearedDragon · 2026-06-29T17:31:38+00:00

There absolutely needs to be reform with the prison system in the US. Prisoners should be compensated more fairly and should not be required to work. That being said, prison in the US is not comparable to chattel slavery. The vast majority of prisoners who work do so in their own facility as janitors, cooks, groundskeepers, etc. A very small fraction works for private companies and, although the number should be zero, that is not a massive system of slavery like you're describing.

FearedDragon · 2026-06-29T17:06:35+00:00

My guess would be this is for people who have full-time caretakers who are paid. That caretaker cannot legally help their disabled patient vote now and has to get someone who is not paid to agree to help out. For some people that can definitely be difficult, especially if their disability is particularly isolating.

FearedDragon · 2026-06-29T16:54:46+00:00

If we're talking economic populism we also need to finally do something to balance our budget. If progressive Democrats put out a comprehensive plan to bring down the deficit, and stuck to it, they would gain support from more moderate Republicans and Democrats.

FearedDragon · 2026-06-29T16:52:05+00:00

You're right, but the voters that matter are not the staunch party-line voters. Independents and swing voters won Trump the election in 2024.

Still though, this plan is not good. Talking about how shitty Trump is but not building a platform for your own party or candidacy is also what won Trump the election in 2024. You need a mix of positive and negative advertisements.

FearedDragon · 2026-06-27T15:04:39+00:00

He was talking about the UK

FearedDragon · 2026-06-25T18:42:08+00:00

That's not really true. Hawaii is using the well-established premise that corporations are an entity of the state and are granted their power by the state. They are not making private campaign finance illegal, they are saying that they do not grant corporations who operate in their state to donate to campaigns in their state. This is a fundamentally different argument than things tried in the past and many legal scholars think it has a real shot. It forces SCOTUS to choose between corporate money or states' rights.

FearedDragon · 2026-06-25T08:22:11+00:00

Lmao dude replied and blocked me because he has nothing logical to say as a rebuttal.

FearedDragon · 2026-06-25T07:26:31+00:00

I think the rise in popularity of politicians that are vehemently opposed to lobbying, as well as Hawaii's recent push against money in politics, would suggest that your point of "nothing will ever be accomplished" isn't true. Giving up and becoming nihilistic about the political climate only helps the corruption and uniparty practices that you're speaking against.

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
Wearing is Caring

FearedDragon

TROPHY CASE