Totally different. There is a law against the active chemicals in psychedelic mushrooms - psilocybin and psilocin - but those chemicals are completely absent from the spores. The mushrooms create the compounds later in their lifecycle. This contrasts with marijuana where there is a very, very small but still…

RonMexicoIsMyHero has some great suggestions down thread, but to expand on his vaporizer suggestions a bit:

After a long and interesting dream I don't really remember but that involved the Pope, I found myself standing at the top of a flight of stairs and there was a man there with me. I don't remember what it was, but at the time I had a good reason to grab him and throw him down the stairs

No. I get lab-grade acetone all over my hands whenever I'm cleaning my glass in the chem lab and have never noticed any burning. The only reason you should care about skin contact is you might touch your shirt or something before it evaporates off and ruin it. If your skin gets red or swells up or something, just go…

"The following items are also being added to the prohibited items list: advice; spells; curses; hexing; conjuring; magic; prayers; blessing services; magic potions; healing sessions; work from home businesses & information; wholesale lists, and drop shop lists."

Are your magical 100%-working synthetic organs being suppressed by the AMA, the Vanderbilts, organ donors, or a more shadowy organization?

His widely-read fear-mongering piece in the WSJ, in which he spoke of a dark conspiracy of doctors to murder you and harvest your organs in exchange for giant santa-sacks of cash if you make the horrible mistake of signing your organ donor card, received a very short and to the point letter to the editor rebutting his…

I thought so too, so I looked into it a few months back. A survey people in the EU found that opposition "animal cloning" was rooted in opposition to genetically modified foods. Apparently, most of those opposed to animal cloning think animal cloning = genetically modification. I suspect most of those opposed to it…

The more charitable interpretation is that they regard it as morally unacceptable but still believe it should be legal because of some more important belief. Example: For quite a while, there was a 40/60 split for/against gay marriage. But if you asked Americans if they thought there should be a constitutional…

The 2010 version of this poll included a breakdown by gender. Surprisingly, women were less likely to regard abortion as morally acceptable than men. The starkest divide between and women in their survey concerned animal rights. 73% of men and 48% of women regard buying and wearing fur as morally acceptable, 43% & 19%…

@Temperance Your reading comprehension skills leave much to be desired. The bill does not protect a doctor from liability for an intentional act or an intentional omission or a grossly negligent act or a grossly negligent omission. That is what "intentional or grossly negligent act or omission" means in English.

@KeYizhen: The bill forbids deliberate lying whether by omission or commission. The only people the bill protects from civil liability are doctors who accidentally do/don't say/do things that result in a child being born unless they were being grossly negligent. While I disagree with the bill as-written, I disagree…

Is it too much to ask for anyone complaining about a law to actually link to the law in question? It took me quite a while to find the bill in question. Here's what it actually says:

This is the same school district that recently made headlines by banning Slaughterhouse Five for contradicting the bible.

The New York Daily news left out an incredibly important detail. His problem with the guy wasn't that he was a sex offender, it's that he was black.

There's no provision there for legally growing weed, so all of the coffee shops are actually buying it off of the black market. It's a very surreal situation.

Jezebel already covered the (terrible) study in question in a much more detailed post four days ago. It was posted on 4/20 at 4:20 so I'm not surprised that it's been forgotten.

The author makes some good points, but a few pieces of his evidence ring hollow.

Legally, this story is barely about consent. If you read the indictment, you'll notice the charges are almost exclusively related to pimping with a gun and drug charge thrown in there for variety. They could all be guilty of every charge in the indictment without having ever laid a hand on her and only two of them…

Whether she consented or not is mostly legally irrelevant in this case. Go read the indictment for yourself. Just read the first few pages of what they're being charged with, don't get bogged down in the sensationalized details of what was done to her. A pimp who owned a gun, drove a girl to a different state for…