I know Opium and Marijuana are on different levels, which is why I did not comment on this debate earlier, since I don't feel THAT strongly about the specific topic in question. But the general attitude of the debate that followed seemed to develop in a way that I felt was rather irresponsible at best. Hence in my rant I had 2 major points.
1) Legalising Marijuana might be sending out the wrong message about recreational drug use.
2) Recreational drug use is 'not cool', it can have catastrophic effects on individuals and societies.
So my 'history lesson' was "...for those of you who think recreational drug use should be legalised..."
And not a specific objection to the original news about legalisation of cannabis in one particular place.
@Heindrich But recreational drugs like ethanol, nicotine and caffeine are already legalized and socially accepted. I don't see how cannabis is suddenly going to make a massive difference.
So much slippery slope and non sequitur lol. I'd reanalyze your argument, beginning with:
"To take the black market out of your country, you can esily use one of those zillions of Nukes that were created during the Cold War".
I'm pretty sure if you used nukes you would take out the black market AND the city it was in, so probably not the best idea.
I know it, but if I ever stop joking one day... But you had to say it was funny after all :P And my opinions are not considered the best by the society, I'm often considered mad, and I ever reply mad people have a different way of thinking (actually, madness is confused to be a disease, but its when your conscious mind is messed up heavily or its completely Chaotic, thats why I think mad people have a totally way of thinking and they are not mad as the society thinks of mad people and since they tell me that I must be mad while they hear my opinions) and that they do not consider some things.
Also, I think the world has too many people on it, a city more, a city less, just hear the society telling you to get drugged to relax yourself. Or hear me and get a book and a glass of water, it will do better.
@CrevsDaak - I am not trying to be rude, but I really do not understand what you're trying to say here. Huge wall of text o.O
@Heindrich1988 - Point taken - However, I think I will not be the only person here (I would hope most people would agree with this) when I say that in no way do I think all recreational drugs should be made legal. There are some substances that are incredibly dangerous and have a very high rate of addiction and death from usage.
Weed however, I would put in the same bracket as alcohol and cigarettes. Less hazards, less addiction and less violence. Sure it could be sending out the wrong message about recreational drugs, but I do not think this is the case. Take a look at Amsterdam for example. Incredibly friendly people, hard-working and good fun. Now the interesting part is: There is no nationwide epidemic in Holland. People aren't smoking themselves into an abyss of drug abuse. In fact as far as I know: People smoke weed about as much as they drink alcohol. Only on weekends, or the odd joint after work in one of their cafes. In fact, it is only a small part of the population that indulges. Not everyone who lives there smokes.
Now I try to look at the nationwide benefits:
1) Less drug-related crime. 2) Drug gangs/syndicates have lost a serious revenue stream. 3) More money brought into the country through added tax revenues. 4) Much less money being spent on trying to combat drug crime.
The truth is: Marijuana is a pretty harmless substance and when you look at the points above, is it really worth keeping illegal?
Remember: Prohibition and Al Capone. Was it worth it?
I am not in the tea party but this is one area where government does not belong. Regulation attempts are fine but the government really should not be in the business of telling what can and can not be done. After all the cost and benefits are to the states and regulation should fit the states needs. With the exception of environmental concerns. You can very well let one shameless politician sell the ground out from under the states feet so to speak.
The worse drug is by far alcohol it is one of the most toxic and is prelude to countless examples of rape,violence,theft, and death.
You make some sensible arguments, which is why my rant was never aimed at people like you, more at the blasé attitude some have implied/expressed with regards to drugs.
As for your arguments for the benefits of legalisation, you might be right in that the prohibition of cannabis, but not alcohol, is pretty irrational. That said, there is conflicting medical evidence regarding just how dangerous it is, probably because it has become such a politically sensitive topic.
I don't know about US laws specifically, but certainly in the UK, Heroin and Cannabis are treated very differently by police. Heroin is 'You're goin to jail son' Class A and Cannabis is Class B, but there has been a movement to reclassify it as Class C, or even legalise it.
@EntropyXII well, sense isn't made by those who wrote the text, it is given by those that read it, this moght sound rude, but it isn't and offensive against you. And I'm very good when it comes to huge texts with lots of subliminal messages that nobody else but me realizes and a very lost meaning of sense. And it might be that I do not have the best english in the world :P
And well, I think tellling tales that happened to me in real life may be interesting, but some sort of misleading (well, I can say I am like Jan Jansen, since I fell from a 2nd floor, commanded armies trough thousands of battles... What you'll need is more imagination and some sort of "lies" (I fell from asecond floor, but grabbed to a window two meters below, and I've played so much strategy games in my computer...) that comes to your storytelling ability). And I do not know what good things the pot could provide, outside medicinal needs or curing alzheimer.
@Heindrich1988 - I'll always prefer a good ol' gentlemen's debate over senseless arguing
I've personally never been a fan of the stuff - it makes me tired. I'd always prefer a pint in a pub over a joint sat at home. I have friends who love it though.
I guess I put a lot of my argument down to the fact that if it was legal, the authorities would be able to regulate it more. As of now, in the UK, if people want to smoke weed they will do so regardless of laws. That includes the usual covert operation of meeting up with the usual dangerous types in dark allies. These dangerous types usually belong to some form of gang which would eventually lead up to cartels or syndicates.
If it was legalised our streets would be safer, of that I have no doubt.
Also: Wasn't weed a class C drug for a little while and then they moved it back to class B? Our government should make up their mind at least.
@CrevsDaak - I am completely and utterly confused by everything you just said, but I managed to catch your Jan Jansen comparison. From this day on, I will refer to you as Jan, if this is ok?
The worse drug is by far alcohol it is one of the most toxic and is prelude to countless examples of rape,violence,theft, and death.
Everything you could find in this world, when passing a determinated amount, it becames harmful (really, everything). And most of the people that I know that drink alcohol, do so in a non-barbaric way, and they've drink maybe a glass or two in the sunday's meal.
Since legalization in Colorado, I have *never* been exposed to cannabis smoke outside of someone's private property.
Good for you. Really.
Yeah, maybe I'm misreading sarcasm here- the point of my post was to mitigate fears that legalization of a substance will yield unwanted exposure to that substance by non-users. It won't.
This WHOLE argument is unnecessary, because cannabis decriminalization is no longer a hypothetical concept- we now have entire countries, as well as 2 US states, that have implemented this.
Look to these places. Their societies have not crumbled, their addiction rates have not soared, and the use of harder drugs (where statistics are available) has not increased.
One thing they do tend to have? Less-crowded prisons. The jury is not out on this one.
@EntropyXII you can call me Jan if you'd like to. I was going to ask if I could call you Coldyman (well, you know, entrpoy is the energy lost in a process, and negative energy creates cold (there is another meaning of entropy, know as invense and total vacuum (mostly known as "Void"), mostly is what is going to happen when all the stars stop burning and strikes all across the universe...) and as Entrpoy is a part of your username you can easily be Coldyman) but it still making no too much sense me calling you like that.
hahah - You may. Honestly, I picked the name a long time ago when I first played BG2. One of Haer'dalis' swords is called Entropy. I thought the word sounded cool. It was only later that I realised the sheer awesome meaning of the word.
Now lets not forget the real benefit of pot being legal...(builds suspense)... supply and demand says every ones pot will get cheaper. Now the parent in me says oh no cheap and available cannabis, but the jew in me loves a good deal (Say hi moses)... Don't worry kids it's kosher!!
I have resisted the temptation to wade into this rather intense (and largely one-sided) debate, because I don't feel particularly informed about the specifics. But I would like to make some points:
Most of you are speaking as (probably) young Westerners, for whom 'pot' might be largely harmless, and public attitude to even harder drugs is relatively relaxed. Hell celebrities even publicly admit to taking drugs, part of the 'cool rock n' roll' lifestyle, which later provides some material for autobiographies where they explain how they 'grew up and got better'...
Actually, on this forum, people probably don't skew very young as video game fans go. I myself am 34, which may or may not be "young" depending on your viewpoint. Also, the kind of thing you're describing is more "American" then Western in general - they aren't the same, any more than China, Japan, Korea and Thailand are the same.
I am no expert, maybe cannabis isn't very harmful, and for sure I have no problems with its medicinal use... However, the way I see it, because it is seen as an illicit drug, never mind how dangerous it may or may not be, legalising it just sends out the wrong message about recreational drug use.
And for those of you who think recreational drug use should be legalised...
Let me remind you that for most of human history, a succession of Chinese empires accounted for between 1/4 to 1/3 of world GDP. Even in 1820, the Chinese Qing Empire's economic output was significantly greater than all of Western Europe combined, and still accounted for nearly 1/3 of global GDP, despite the Renaissance and Industrial Revolution in Europe. Less than 100 years later in 1913, The Qing Empire had collapsed into anarchy and Chinese GDP was now just 4.6% of global GDP.
What happened?
Opium.
I can't agree. I get your point, and I appreciate your concern, but that's a fairly simplistic assessment of what happened at that time period. There was a lot more going on than opium usage.
First off, the Qing economy was based on a very carefully managed supply of silver, the basis for the currency. That was the real reason they very strictly regulated imports; the Qing wanted to sell things, and receive silver, not buy things and have to pay it. The British especially, but all the European trading powers, resented this situation for much the same reason people now are hostile about the trade deficit between China and the US. They wanted to break it, but China did not actually NEED any European goods aside from modern weapons, and modern weapons were obviously the one thing Europeans weren't eager to sell to them.
Hence, opium. Opium was a way to drain the silver out of the Chinese economy, used in a very deliberate way as a wedge to crack open the vast wealth of China. That is why the Qing economy collapsed so precipitously; all of its economic management were based on that carefully regulated supply of (ever-increasing) foreign silver, and when the flow of currency reversed, the entire system fell apart, with cascading effects over all of China's economy. The massive amount of addiction to opium was, of course, a secondary contributing factor.
Why this isn't a good reason to not legalise drugs (aside from it not being a "thing that happened", or even "Britain had opium to sell", but rather "a very deliberate attempt to destabilise the Chinese economy"), is that the Qing government DID try to prohibit it, it had no particularly useful effect except to draw the Qing into a ruinous war that further destabilised the country, leading into the Taiping Rebellion and other such catastrophes.
Even more important, it was not the first time opium had been legally suppressed either; it had also happened in 1729, and then in 1799 (with little effect). But China didn't collapse due to opium importation at those time periods, even though the amount imported continuously climbed in that time period. The disastrous 19th century in China came from a multitude of factors, for which opium addiction is merely a scapegoat (and one that, to be honest, makes good political fodder since it puts the blame squarely on Evil Westerners and to a lesser extent the Manchus).
This is not to say opium addiction wasn't a social problem, because it was (but so was rampant alcohol addiction in the lower social classes Western powers throughout that century, leading to the various prohibition movements), but what really hurt the Qing was that the opium trade drained silver out of the economy at a time when the economy was already fragile due to a number of other factors.
The upshot of all this is that opium wasn't solely or even primarily responsible for what happened in China, and that making it illegal didn't help anyway no matter how many times they tried it. The same is true in modern society. Legalisation largely removes the criminal element from the drug trade and makes it much safer for users; honest education (instead of exaggerated propaganda) helps people make more informed decisions, and proper help for drug addicts helps them quit and also in many cases saves lives. It just works better on every level, and this is proven time and time again in the real world.
To take the black market out of your country, you can esily use one of those zillions of Nukes that were created during the Cold War. Or use USA's giantic army to catch those guys, and the hung them in the parks, so everybody knows that it is a bad thing to do.
If you'd followed the events of the last decade - or the last five - you'll notice a continuing trend where the USA's army is actually not very good at that sort of thing, for a lot of reasons.
It's also a bad idea because a) capital punishment is wrong, and b) even if you think it isn't, government-sanctioned murder of people just for being black marketeers is a ridiculously disproportionate punishment.
If you do not agree with my Middle Age types of dealing with people, you will see it with my E-11 blaster rifle (in real life, I'm not violent, but Law is there, not to be broken, to be accomplished without pride and questions). I can say the worst trouble is with teenagers and kids since society tells them that "the pot is good" (society, based on thing that are not needed at all, its more dangerous than liquid hidrogen or anything you could find in the earth)
Umm, you have that backwards. Marijuana is a natural plant that grows wild. Liquid hydrogen does not exist on this planet naturally (it does exist naturally elsewhere in the universe, however). And part of the "pot is good" subculture is a deliberate reaction to authority figures telling ridiculous and obvious lies about how dangerous marijuana (and other drugs) are. Once someone knows the government and their teachers and other authority figures have obviously lied about how dangerous a drug is, why wouldn't they a) be tempted to try it in reaction to being lied to, and b) believe other warnings about how dangerous it is?
That is why proper, honest education about drugs is far more effective than scaremongering.
As someone who lives in a state that's already legalized marijuana, I can proudly say that I don't do the stuff, our society hasn't crumbled (for the most part), and everyone's pretty hunky-dory about the whole thing. It's treated a lot like alcohol--no stumbling around high in public places, no driving under the influence, no lighting up around schools...oh, and you have to be 21 years and older to try it.
Heck, even the cops are having a blast. Here, have some humor from Seattle.
Our country is in a slump because of bills passed by Bill Clinton. It has resulted in companies outsourcing 95% said companies work requirements. We in turn must legalize drugs in order to make up the tax revenue. While it may not be an optimal solution it is a solution but don't worry too much you must have money to buy pot(Pot Subsidy? ). Because of that fact those that do not smoke pot will not, and those that do will have a credible market to buy from; increasing economic opportunity along with raising tax revenue. Now think about healthcare and medical pot... If it does not become a over the counter med insurance companies have to fit the bill, and that isn't really fair to anyone because of lax consideration for terms of use in some states.
A much larger social benefit will be to the kids that would be stereotyped as criminal because they were caught with a little pot. That have their ability to get student loans taken away causing them to fall through the cracks of society. This more so than anything else is what causes people to become career criminals.
A much larger social benefit will be to the kids that would be stereotyped as criminal because they were caught with a little pot. That have their ability to get student loans taken away causing them to fall through the cracks of society. This more so than anything else is what causes people to become career criminals.
That is why proper, honest education about drugs is far more effective than scaremongering.
I knew that, but I was giving my Chaotic Neutral/Lawful Evil point of view as a joke, as I said, almost everyday disagrees with me when I get to murders and masses. And that's why I'm saying liquid hydrogen or anything you could find in earth, as a joke that only you've understood, but you thought I was an idiot instead of getting the joke.
hahah - You may. Honestly, I picked the name a long time ago when I first played BG2. One of Haer'dalis' swords is called Entropy. I thought the word sounded cool. It was only later that I realised the sheer awesome meaning of the word.
I had heard of Entropy before as the "void", what Eragon's elves think as the "Limbo", "the Nine Hells" for norse mythology (unless you go to Valhalla :P ) and "Hell" in other terms, where we go when we die. But then I've heard about cold being the missing of energy (heat, in this case) and that it couldn't ve reverted (from a tale written by Isaac Asimov), and if it were possible to do so, you'll be generating more entropy because of the energy your spending to do so. And then I've heard about Entropy as a poetic or lyric thingie (nothin' to mention here) But the best meaning of entropy makes us a play with the word "End", when all the suns stop burning hydrogen (non-liquid for sure :P ), and that will mean an end for all the life around the universe, because I can't explain anything more without starting to lie like Jan, I will say all MY theories in a parenthesis < jokes > (Well, when that happens, at 0 kelvin everything (but helium won't :P ) will freeze, and crack in parts with time, it molecules may disintegrate and that'll mean the end for all the types of positive particles we know and would ever have known if this wasn't happening. Also, energy get used with time and in more time, as nothing could generate more, it will literally be the end) < /jokes >
Come on dude. This is the internet. As everyone knows you have to be 100% serious 100% of the time. If you say something it is clearly your absolute point of view which anyone can construe to mean whatever they want.
Come on dude. This is the internet. As everyone knows you have to be 100% serious 100% of the time. If you say something it is clearly your absolute point of view which anyone can construe to mean whatever they want.
Maybe they think that I know nothing and I'm just lying :P and it was a joke too :P
Comments
I know Opium and Marijuana are on different levels, which is why I did not comment on this debate earlier, since I don't feel THAT strongly about the specific topic in question. But the general attitude of the debate that followed seemed to develop in a way that I felt was rather irresponsible at best. Hence in my rant I had 2 major points.
1) Legalising Marijuana might be sending out the wrong message about recreational drug use.
2) Recreational drug use is 'not cool', it can have catastrophic effects on individuals and societies.
So my 'history lesson' was "...for those of you who think recreational drug use should be legalised..."
And not a specific objection to the original news about legalisation of cannabis in one particular place.
I know it, but if I ever stop joking one day... But you had to say it was funny after all :P
And my opinions are not considered the best by the society, I'm often considered mad, and I ever reply mad people have a different way of thinking (actually, madness is confused to be a disease, but its when your conscious mind is messed up heavily or its completely Chaotic, thats why I think mad people have a totally way of thinking and they are not mad as the society thinks of mad people and since they tell me that I must be mad while they hear my opinions) and that they do not consider some things.
Also, I think the world has too many people on it, a city more, a city less, just hear the society telling you to get drugged to relax yourself. Or hear me and get a book and a glass of water, it will do better.
@Heindrich1988 - Point taken - However, I think I will not be the only person here (I would hope most people would agree with this) when I say that in no way do I think all recreational drugs should be made legal. There are some substances that are incredibly dangerous and have a very high rate of addiction and death from usage.
Weed however, I would put in the same bracket as alcohol and cigarettes. Less hazards, less addiction and less violence. Sure it could be sending out the wrong message about recreational drugs, but I do not think this is the case. Take a look at Amsterdam for example. Incredibly friendly people, hard-working and good fun. Now the interesting part is: There is no nationwide epidemic in Holland. People aren't smoking themselves into an abyss of drug abuse. In fact as far as I know: People smoke weed about as much as they drink alcohol. Only on weekends, or the odd joint after work in one of their cafes. In fact, it is only a small part of the population that indulges. Not everyone who lives there smokes.
Now I try to look at the nationwide benefits:
1) Less drug-related crime.
2) Drug gangs/syndicates have lost a serious revenue stream.
3) More money brought into the country through added tax revenues.
4) Much less money being spent on trying to combat drug crime.
The truth is: Marijuana is a pretty harmless substance and when you look at the points above, is it really worth keeping illegal?
Remember: Prohibition and Al Capone. Was it worth it?
Pot and heroin are actually on the same lv.
I am not in the tea party but this is one area where government does not belong. Regulation attempts are fine but the government really should not be in the business of telling what can and can not be done. After all the cost and benefits are to the states and regulation should fit the states needs. With the exception of environmental concerns. You can very well let one shameless politician sell the ground out from under the states feet so to speak.
The worse drug is by far alcohol it is one of the most toxic and is prelude to countless examples of rape,violence,theft, and death.
You make some sensible arguments, which is why my rant was never aimed at people like you, more at the blasé attitude some have implied/expressed with regards to drugs.
As for your arguments for the benefits of legalisation, you might be right in that the prohibition of cannabis, but not alcohol, is pretty irrational. That said, there is conflicting medical evidence regarding just how dangerous it is, probably because it has become such a politically sensitive topic.
@Chaotic_Good
I don't know about US laws specifically, but certainly in the UK, Heroin and Cannabis are treated very differently by police. Heroin is 'You're goin to jail son' Class A and Cannabis is Class B, but there has been a movement to reclassify it as Class C, or even legalise it.
And it might be that I do not have the best english in the world :P
And well, I think tellling tales that happened to me in real life may be interesting, but some sort of misleading (well, I can say I am like Jan Jansen, since I fell from a 2nd floor, commanded armies trough thousands of battles... What you'll need is more imagination and some sort of "lies" (I fell from asecond floor, but grabbed to a window two meters below, and I've played so much strategy games in my computer...) that comes to your storytelling ability).
And I do not know what good things the pot could provide, outside medicinal needs or curing alzheimer.
I've personally never been a fan of the stuff - it makes me tired. I'd always prefer a pint in a pub over a joint sat at home. I have friends who love it though.
I guess I put a lot of my argument down to the fact that if it was legal, the authorities would be able to regulate it more. As of now, in the UK, if people want to smoke weed they will do so regardless of laws. That includes the usual covert operation of meeting up with the usual dangerous types in dark allies. These dangerous types usually belong to some form of gang which would eventually lead up to cartels or syndicates.
If it was legalised our streets would be safer, of that I have no doubt.
Also: Wasn't weed a class C drug for a little while and then they moved it back to class B? Our government should make up their mind at least.
@CrevsDaak - I am completely and utterly confused by everything you just said, but I managed to catch your Jan Jansen comparison. From this day on, I will refer to you as Jan, if this is ok?
And most of the people that I know that drink alcohol, do so in a non-barbaric way, and they've drink maybe a glass or two in the sunday's meal.
This WHOLE argument is unnecessary, because cannabis decriminalization is no longer a hypothetical concept- we now have entire countries, as well as 2 US states, that have implemented this.
Look to these places. Their societies have not crumbled, their addiction rates have not soared, and the use of harder drugs (where statistics are available) has not increased.
One thing they do tend to have? Less-crowded prisons. The jury is not out on this one.
xD
Hey, we already got legal alcohol and legal tobacco, both as well threats to health.
I was going to ask if I could call you Coldyman (well, you know, entrpoy is the energy lost in a process, and negative energy creates cold (there is another meaning of entropy, know as invense and total vacuum (mostly known as "Void"), mostly is what is going to happen when all the stars stop burning and strikes all across the universe...) and as Entrpoy is a part of your username you can easily be Coldyman) but it still making no too much sense me calling you like that.
First off, the Qing economy was based on a very carefully managed supply of silver, the basis for the currency. That was the real reason they very strictly regulated imports; the Qing wanted to sell things, and receive silver, not buy things and have to pay it. The British especially, but all the European trading powers, resented this situation for much the same reason people now are hostile about the trade deficit between China and the US. They wanted to break it, but China did not actually NEED any European goods aside from modern weapons, and modern weapons were obviously the one thing Europeans weren't eager to sell to them.
Hence, opium. Opium was a way to drain the silver out of the Chinese economy, used in a very deliberate way as a wedge to crack open the vast wealth of China. That is why the Qing economy collapsed so precipitously; all of its economic management were based on that carefully regulated supply of (ever-increasing) foreign silver, and when the flow of currency reversed, the entire system fell apart, with cascading effects over all of China's economy. The massive amount of addiction to opium was, of course, a secondary contributing factor.
Why this isn't a good reason to not legalise drugs (aside from it not being a "thing that happened", or even "Britain had opium to sell", but rather "a very deliberate attempt to destabilise the Chinese economy"), is that the Qing government DID try to prohibit it, it had no particularly useful effect except to draw the Qing into a ruinous war that further destabilised the country, leading into the Taiping Rebellion and other such catastrophes.
Even more important, it was not the first time opium had been legally suppressed either; it had also happened in 1729, and then in 1799 (with little effect). But China didn't collapse due to opium importation at those time periods, even though the amount imported continuously climbed in that time period. The disastrous 19th century in China came from a multitude of factors, for which opium addiction is merely a scapegoat (and one that, to be honest, makes good political fodder since it puts the blame squarely on Evil Westerners and to a lesser extent the Manchus).
This is not to say opium addiction wasn't a social problem, because it was (but so was rampant alcohol addiction in the lower social classes Western powers throughout that century, leading to the various prohibition movements), but what really hurt the Qing was that the opium trade drained silver out of the economy at a time when the economy was already fragile due to a number of other factors.
The upshot of all this is that opium wasn't solely or even primarily responsible for what happened in China, and that making it illegal didn't help anyway no matter how many times they tried it. The same is true in modern society. Legalisation largely removes the criminal element from the drug trade and makes it much safer for users; honest education (instead of exaggerated propaganda) helps people make more informed decisions, and proper help for drug addicts helps them quit and also in many cases saves lives. It just works better on every level, and this is proven time and time again in the real world. And yet, the Chinese still drink a lot of tea, which is a recreational drug.
It's also a bad idea because a) capital punishment is wrong, and b) even if you think it isn't, government-sanctioned murder of people just for being black marketeers is a ridiculously disproportionate punishment. Umm, you have that backwards. Marijuana is a natural plant that grows wild. Liquid hydrogen does not exist on this planet naturally (it does exist naturally elsewhere in the universe, however). And part of the "pot is good" subculture is a deliberate reaction to authority figures telling ridiculous and obvious lies about how dangerous marijuana (and other drugs) are. Once someone knows the government and their teachers and other authority figures have obviously lied about how dangerous a drug is, why wouldn't they a) be tempted to try it in reaction to being lied to, and b) believe other warnings about how dangerous it is?
That is why proper, honest education about drugs is far more effective than scaremongering.
Heck, even the cops are having a blast. Here, have some humor from Seattle.
A much larger social benefit will be to the kids that would be stereotyped as criminal because they were caught with a little pot. That have their ability to get student loans taken away causing them to fall through the cracks of society. This more so than anything else is what causes people to become career criminals.
But then I've heard about cold being the missing of energy (heat, in this case) and that it couldn't ve reverted (from a tale written by Isaac Asimov), and if it were possible to do so, you'll be generating more entropy because of the energy your spending to do so.
And then I've heard about Entropy as a poetic or lyric thingie (nothin' to mention here)
But the best meaning of entropy makes us a play with the word "End", when all the suns stop burning hydrogen (non-liquid for sure :P ), and that will mean an end for all the life around the universe, because I can't explain anything more without starting to lie like Jan, I will say all MY theories in a parenthesis < jokes > (Well, when that happens, at 0 kelvin everything (but helium won't :P ) will freeze, and crack in parts with time, it molecules may disintegrate and that'll mean the end for all the types of positive particles we know and would ever have known if this wasn't happening. Also, energy get used with time and in more time, as nothing could generate more, it will literally be the end) < /jokes >
Come on dude. This is the internet. As everyone knows you have to be 100% serious 100% of the time. If you say something it is clearly your absolute point of view which anyone can construe to mean whatever they want.