InsertPotPun posted:

edit: the small hispanic/black girl has all the same cultural indicators of a middle aged white man. she never uses loan words or phrases, calls for godmother "aunt last name" instead of "mom" or "titi" or any of the other dozens of honorifics reserved for godmothers. i've never seen a culture that calls a godmother "aunt". "aunt" is reserved for female friends of the family the same age as your mom

idonotlikepeas posted:

David Horsey

The Islamic Shock posted:

If only there was some sort of scientific, legal or technological progress between now and then that would allow people in general to research the effects of drugs and spread that information rapidly. Hell, while we're going wild with hypotheticals, imagine a federal agency of some sort that could and would heavily punish industries that lie about that kind of poo poo now. But alas.

Spanish Matlock posted:

What I think is very funny about stuff like this is it's "super potent pot" not like, that pot you smoked in the 60s. That ditch weed was okay. This new science weed gizmo that the kids are using is a national crisis

Discendo Vox posted:

Cannabis legalization and regulation is not as simple as conservatives and out of touch old pols trying to block the devil lettuce, and it hasn't been for decades. The entire ongoing clusterfuck, including the various state legalization efforts, are the product of billions upon billions of dollars from some of the filthiest money and interests out there, all looking to profit from different legalization models. The incredibly long and winding process by which this has occurred is for two primary reasons:

1) Burns-like, these competing interests each are looking for different regulatory structures that will benefit them and close out the market to others. The tobacco companies trying to create a sideline through e-cigs want different laws from the OTC drug companies, who want different laws from the prescription drug companies with existing IP, who want different laws from the "legacy market" (read: organized crime), who want different laws from the alt-med and supplement companies, who want different laws from the pure VC groups and techlords. Each of these sets have cross-funding and pollination, all feeding through several dozen lobbying and trade association and "consumer advocate" groups.

2) There's actual public health concern. Cannabis isn't as addictive as other stuff on schedule 1, but it still hits a lot of addiction markers and qualifies as carrying abuse potential (including under the frameworks applied by DEA and HHS, which is why this is getting recommended at Schedule 3 and not for full descheduling). The really, really unpleasant elephant in the room, though, is data showing cannabis having a causal role in the development of schizophrenia. At this point (particularly with cohort data from countries with broader legal use, such as this study), it's clear that while the mechanism isnt well-characterized (and it doesn't hit everyone equally), it's pretty clear it's causal and not correlational (so it's not, for example, people having a tendency to self-medicate for early symptoms of development). Most of the industry groups under 1) aren't very interested in a regulatory setting that addresses that side of the equation. Regulations that would address it are made much messier because so far every indication is the mechanism is way worse in men than women.

FDA's seeking a whole new harm reduction framework and authority to try to handle cannabis and related products; it's unclear that it would work versus creating a new avenue for industry capture.

Discendo Vox posted:

THC content has increased due to commercial pressures, and there are also newfound problems of adulteration with other psychoactives at advertised scale. More broadly, legalization and tracking (particularly in Europe) has substantiated causation for what was long suspected based on correlation; it appears to cause psychosis, especially in young men, and higher potency makes the issue worse. Examples of support for this finding are here and here. So, yeah, if there's a broad generational uptake of a substance that appears to cause psychosis in a significant portion of users, that's not great.

A minor effortpost on the cannabis situation from last year:

The Islamic Shock posted:

If only there was some sort of scientific, legal or technological progress between now and then that would allow people in general to research the effects of drugs and spread that information rapidly. Hell, while we're going wild with hypotheticals, imagine a federal agency of some sort that could and would heavily punish industries that lie about that kind of poo poo now. But alas.

Apple Pie Hubbub posted:

1

Spanish Matlock posted:

There is certainly a lot of interesting research being done on cannabis at present, which is actually a pretty good thing. But let's be real honest about how "cannabis use disorder is associated with a slightly higher incidence of schizophrenia, with the highest statistical significance in the 16-20 age group" is not the same thing as "marijuana causes schizophrenia."

Lifetime prevalence of alcohol use disorder among patients with schizophrenia is around 25%. That doesn't mean "alcohol causes schizophrenia".

quote:

Variations in patterns of cannabis use across the sites translated into differences in the proportion of new cases of psychotic disorder attributable to cannabis use. We estimated, assuming causality, that 20% of new cases of psychotic disorder across all our sites could have been prevented if daily use of cannabis had been abolished; the PAF for daily use was 21% for London, similar to that previously reported,3 but ranged from 44% in Amsterdam to 6% in Palermo. The local availability of high-potency types of cannabis resulted in a PAF of 50% for Amsterdam and 30% for London. Therefore, assuming causality, if high-potency cannabis were no longer accessible, the adjusted incidence rates for all psychotic disorder in Amsterdam would drop from 37·9 to 18·8 cases per 100 000 person-years and in London from 45·7 to 31·9 cases per 100 000 person-years.

Vib Rib posted:

Agnostic of any other specific thing here, I really just hate the whole line of argument Horsey is using here. It's the same childish logic so many idiots use everywhere.
"You think this thing isn't dangerous? Hmmmm, that reminds me of this other thing people thought wasn't dangerous... but it was!" Cool, so from now on anything people say is harmless is actually dangerous.
"Oh you think this new 'shoot yourself in the dick' invention is dumb? Well you know, people said that about the WRIGHT BROTHERS and their FLYING MACHINE!" Like the logic is a good invention was scoffed at once so if anyone scoffs at an invention it'll be good.

idonotlikepeas posted:

Yaakov Kirschen (Dry Bones)

axolotl farmer posted:

Tom the Dancing Bug by Ruben Bolling

quote:

“MERRILY WE BOMB ALONG..”
Cartoon Published 02/01/2024

The late Senator John McCain once sang, “Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.” to the tune of ‘Barbara Ann,’ a song by the Beach Boys.

We have always despised John McCain as a reckless warmonger. Lindsey Graham said John McCain was one his closest friends in life, not just in politics. He certainly seems eager to carry on McCain’s spirit of war mongering. Lindsey was adamant about doing everything to support the war in Ukraine. Now he wants us to attack Iran, despite our military weakened by Biden and Austin by means of DEI and poor pay.



Like Graham, Nikki Haley also wants to come across as being tough in the matter of war. She said “We don’t need to go and hit Iran hard, we need to hit them smart.”

Hitting them smart means taking out the Iranian guard, which will almost certainly lead to all-out war—and maybe another world war. We already have a proxy war with Iran—and Russia. All it takes is a dumb move or two to see an all-out nuclear war. (Israel and Russia already have nuclear weapons—Iran may be days away from having them).

You are invited to join me on SubscribeStar- a Pateron alternative, for exclusive cartoons and behind the scenes look at GrrrGraphics, Click to Join!

Biden has not yet made his feeble, but dangerous mind up about Iran. He talks with bravado on the subject, then goes quiescent. After Israel attacked Hamas, Iran used their proxies to attack shipping in the Red Sea and launched drones and missiles into Iraq, Syria, and Jordan. The question is, why are American troops doing in these countries to begin with? They were sent there based on a lie told by the 2nd Bush administration. We had a war with Iraq—now we are there permanently. We maintain permanent military bases in countries all over the world. Why can’t Americans stay out of hopeless global wars and concentrate on America? Why is Biden adamant about protecting borders in Europe and Ukraine as well as countries in the middle east, while our own borders remain wide open?

SHARE OUR NEWSLETTER LINK WITH YOUR ULTRA MAGA FRIENDS- SIGN UP TODAY FOR GREAT CARTOONS AND MORE DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX! CLICK TO SHARE
Biden is in a fix. He can choose direct war with Iran or look weak by doing nothing. He already badly botched the Afghanistan withdrawal. I’m guessing he will embrace the spirit of John McCain and launch us into still yet another war to look tough and gain voter support to rescue his election chances.

Biden will bomb Iran when the weather clears…🤡

U.S. officials have confirmed to CBS News that plans have been approved for a series of strikes over a number of days against targets — including Iranian personnel and facilities — inside Iraq and Syria. The strikes will come in response to drone and rocket attacks targeting U.S. forces in the region, including the drone attack on Sunday that killed three U.S. service members at the Tower 22 base inside Jordan, near the Syrian border.

Weather will be a major factor in the timing of the strikes, the officials told CBS News, as the U.S. has the capability to carry out strikes in bad weather but prefers to have better visibility of selected targets as a safeguard against inadvertently hitting civilians who might stray into the area at the last moment. -CBS

A war with Iran will most likely further doom his chances. Donald Trump had the situation under control by means of sanctions, but Biden stupidly decided to reverse all of Trump’s accomplishments, and therefore he foolishly returned billions of dollars to Iran. They promptly used that money to fund the proxy fighters and military equipment now being used against us.

Hmmmm…it’s almost as if Joe wants to destroy America.

— The GrrrTeam

Trapezium Dave posted:

Leak, Son of Leak:

‘Trust me’: Anthony Albanese dodges questions on negative gearing (news.com.au). "There are concerns that a major benefit for property-owning Aussies is under threat after the Prime Minister’s tax cut backflip."

L. Ron DeSantis posted:

Kellies nomination: Too Many Words and also it reminds me of an Ed Gamble cartoon where people are just talking and there's no joke or metaphor.
Also, did Rick McKee's politics change? Back when he used to be posted a few years ago he was a real right-wing shithead but the last couple cartoons I've seen here are pretty inoffensive. Hell the Neuralink one got a little chuckle out of me.

Garrison seems to be putting out more cartoons than usual lately, here's another one already:

MechaCrash posted:

I'm not reading that verbal diarrhea that passes for thought under the comic. Is there an explanation in that sludge as to why "let's bomb Iran" is a bad thing now? I know the real reason is "because it might be a Democrat that gets to spill the blood of countless in an orgy of nuclear hellfire, that should be our guy engaging in wanton slaughter," but I want to know what the alleged reason is. _{Not bad enough to subject myself to Garrison's pseudothoughts directly, mind you.}

MechaCrash posted:

I'm not reading that verbal diarrhea that passes for thought under the comic. Is there an explanation in that sludge as to why "let's bomb Iran" is a bad thing now? I know the real reason is "because it might be a Democrat that gets to spill the blood of countless in an orgy of nuclear hellfire, that should be our guy engaging in wanton slaughter," but I want to know what the alleged reason is. _{Not bad enough to subject myself to Garrison's pseudothoughts directly, mind you.}

David Horsey posted:

For municipal leaders, there may be no cause more virtuous than providing new public transit options for citizens. But what happens when building one of those options becomes more akin to standing at a roulette table, hour after hour, desperately trying to regain all the gobs of money that have already been squandered?

Seattle’s streetcar project may have turned into a big gamble that has been lost. Having a nice little streetcar running through town seemed like a virtuous idea two decades ago and two lines of track have been put in place. The problem is, very few people choose to take a ride.

The streetcar running up First Hill and over to Capitol Hill is getting some modest interest, probably because it actually goes somewhere, but the South Lake Union Streetcar, which meanders through Amazon’s collection of office buildings, is nearly empty most of the time – probably because it goes nowhere anyone needs to go.

There is a central link on the drawing board that would connect the two languishing lines, which would make the whole thing more useful. The problem, though, is that the price tag for that link has shot up from $135 million to $410 million, and that does not include the hefty operating costs that would be required to keep the trains running.

Is the high cost worth it? Is there some better way to spend half-a-billion bucks?

There are already pretty good options for getting around downtown. Light rail runs under the streets with several stops along the way. Buses have all of Third Avenue to themselves. And there is walking. Seattle’s downtown is rather compact. It does not take all that long to stroll from South Lake Union to Pioneer Square – maybe less time than riding a streetcar.

The hardest thing for municipal leaders to do is admit a grand plan has not worked out, but, in the case of the streetcar, few would blame the mayor or City Council for giving up on a bad bet.

Skios posted:

Michael Ramirez

Technowolf posted:

Did you forget to post the Horsey that goes with that rant?

idonotlikepeas posted:

Pedro X. Molina

idonotlikepeas posted:

Sure did. It's there now:

the_steve posted:

Kellies Nomination: Most Easily Reinterpreted

Microplastics posted:

As what?

idonotlikepeas posted:

Marty Two Bulls



Bit of a miss from Marty here. I think the cartoon hits harder if you take out the skeleton and its word balloon - you get the whole thing just from filling in the word "deeer".

OK, still better than 90% of the stuff in the thread, obviously.

The Islamic Shock posted:

Being against all US wars is basically the only remotely redeeming consistent view Garrison has.

Ted Rall posted:

Wanna know how crazy things are? Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is the voice of sanity when it comes to the Israel-Hamas War.

Apple Pie Hubbub posted:

idonotlikepeas posted:

Jimmy Margulies

idonotlikepeas posted:

Paul Berge

Clerical Terrors posted:

He's such a hack writer lmao.

Apple Pie Hubbub posted: