Websites of Interest

Saturday, May 12, 2007

Mazel Tov, Congrats and Some sleeping pills

Just wanted to say Mazel Tov to Ryan over at Absinthetics.
On the Arrival of his Son.
The sleeping pills are for him also Since He won't be getting much sleep for awhile

5/7/07, 7lbs 1oz, twenty inches. His name is Declan Xavier.
Hope all is well with his wife and child.



Powered by ScribeFire.

Thursday, May 10, 2007

Molly Gets Shaved

Molly is my 2 year old sheltie/ Terrier mix.
Molly got into a Messy bit of trouble.

They Asked How short I wanted her I said As close as you can get
she looks like a different dog completely.

Ask Your Congressman to Support HR-2046

Facts About HR 2046
The Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007

of our freedoms will now launch a campaign to undermine HR 2046. We
need to be armed with the facts to defend our rights.

HR 2046 protects poker players.
Applicants for a gaming license would be required to provide
comprehensive financial statements and corporate structure documents,
and to agree to be subject to U.S. jurisdiction and all applicable laws
related to Internet gambling. No license would be granted to any
applicant convicted of a criminal violation of any law relating to
gambling, money laundering, fraud or other financial laws.

HR 2046 protects consumers.
The framework set forth in the bill would for the first time
effectively regulate Internet gambling, thus making it possible to
address underage and compulsive gambling, neither of which are
prevented under prohibition regimes. Regulation combined with proven
technology would establish a system of effective controls to block
children and compulsive gamblers from gambling.

If HR 2046 becomes law, online poker will be safe, secure and regulated. The bill would create stringent licensing to ensure that poker operators are legitimate. HR 2046 protects poker players, and it protects consumers.

your elected representatives need to hear your voice. Ask your U.S.
Representative to support HR 2046, and to add their name as a

Poker Players Alliance

Powered by ScribeFire.

What if Halliburton's CEO came clean?

Funny and short

Tuesday, May 08, 2007

Mookie, Riverchaser Bracelet Race

From AL's Blog

Don't forget the Mookie coming up on Wednesday and the
Blogger/reader/Riverchaser Bracelet Race coming up on Sunday. I've seen
some posts recently that seemed to think that MiamiDon's Big Game is
this Sunday. That's incorrect. The Blogger Big Game is on Sunday, May

Tournament: The Mookie

Where: Full Tilt Poker

When: Wednesday. 10pm ET

Buyin: $10+1

Password: vegas1

Powered by ScribeFire.

Truckin Updated,


There is a New Issue of Truckin out, head over and read the Fantastic writings.

Always a good read.

Technorati Tags: ,

Powered by ScribeFire.

Monday, May 07, 2007

Is alcohol more dangerous than ecstasy?

Is alcohol more dangerous than ecstasy?
by Julia Layton

March 27, 2007
Scientists in Britain are proposing a complete revamping of drug classifications in the wake of findings that reveal some major discrepancies between a drug's legality and its safeness. A study surveying health, crime and science professionals regarding the dangers of a set of 20 legal and illegal drugs, published in The Lancet in March 2007, found that alcohol and tobacco, which are legal in Britain and the United States, are considered by experts to be more dangerous than ecstasy and marijuana, which are illegal in both countries.
In Britain, under the Misuse of Drugs Act, illegal drugs (including prescription drugs sold on the street) are classified as A, B or C. Class A is supposed to be the most harmful, and Class C is supposed to be the least harmful. For instance, heroin is a class A drug, and marijuana is a class C drug. The study was intended to achieve harm rankings for 20 drugs, 15 illegal substances and five legal substances that have shown potential for harm, using a systematic, scientific approach. The researchers surveyed two separate groups of experts including medical doctors, mental health professionals, scientists and forensics experts. Each group returned similar ranking results for the 20 drugs based on three primary features:
  • physical harm to the person using the drug
  • the drug's potential for abuse and/or dependence
  • the drug's ill effects on society
The results, shown below, revealed some apparent inconsistencies in Britain's drug-classification system.
Harm Ranking.) Drug = Legal Classification
1.) Heroin = A
2.) Cocaine = A
3.) Barbiturates = B
4.) Methadone = A
5.) Alcohol = legal
6.) Ketamine = C
7.) Benzodiazepines = C
8.) Amphetamine = B
9.) Tobacco = legal
10.) Buprenorphine = C
11.) Cannabis = C
12.) Solvents = legal
13.) 4-methylthioamphetamine = A
14.) LSD = A
15.) Ritalin® = B
16.) Anabolic steroids = C
17.) GHB = C
18.) Ecstasy = A
19.) Alkyl nitrites = legal
20.) Khat = legal

Probably the most notable discrepancy is the position of alcohol, a legal drug, at 13 places above ecstasy, an illegal, class A drug. And LSD, also a class A drug, was ranked considerably less harmful than benzodiazepines, a class C group of drugs.
The results seem to call into question exactly which method the British government is using to determine the relative harmfulness of drugs. According to the authors of the study, "Tobacco and alcohol together account for about 90 percent of all drug-related deaths in the U.K." Yet both of those substances are legal. In the United States, a study published in the journal of the American Medical Association in 2000 shows that 95 percent of drug-related deaths in the United States are from alcohol and tobacco use.
With little documentation that attempts to explain the current governmental ranking criteria, the study proposes a method for classifying drugs that uses scientific assessment. The classifications would be based on the three indicators of harm as presented to experts in the study -- personal, physical harm; abuse/dependence potential; and social harm. In the study, the rankings for each of the criterion were combined, with the researchers taking the mean of the three scores, to obtain the overall rankings listed above.
Of course, the legal status of drugs like alcohol and tobacco skews the results. Their legal status makes them far more available, so an accurate side-by-side comparison with a drug like heroin on all three criteria is impossible. Availability will always affect social effects of any given drug. Drugs that are easily available, legal and non-stigmatized logically will result in more widespread use, more adverse reactions and more money spent on police assistance and/or hospital care as a result of those adverse reactions.
Still, availability most likely wouldn't skew the abuse potential or the personal, physical harm associated with a drug. So the study does at least reveal some possible inconsistencies in British (and U.S.) drug law. Ultimately, the researchers believe that the foundations of drug policy need to be more transparent, since those foundations effect everything from public education to criminal sentences to treatment programs to methods of control and enforcement. They point out that without a clear, scientific basis for determining a drug's legal status and harmfulness, it's hard to establish credibility in the policies that dictate how a "drug war" is carried out, and it's hard to determine how effective those policies really are.
For more information on drug classification and related topics, check out the following links:Sources

Interesting Article makes you wonder why we don't just go back to the day's of Prohibition.