What do you think are scams?

[jeffandnicole]

I don't think government-run vetting and production would be great. If nothing else, clinical trials are about someone proving to the government that the drug work, and production oversight is again proving things to government inspectors. Having two offices of government work against each other - and probably ultimately reporting to the same appointed official...  They are here to help, run away as fast as you can!

Do you feel the same way about the Department of Transportation?

Can you be more specific? I certainly have less than great (and actually less than unfavorable) opinions about the engineering work of certain DOTs. But who is going to hold them responsible until there is a headline-worthy scandal? Even then, it appears to be a search for the guilty and punishing the innocent...
More competitive operation could be more efficient (or even more mismanaged, but that is a different story)

Engineering work of certain DOTs...and yet a lot is contracted out through competitive bidding...
Who specifies the layout, for example? Of course there is a public hearing, where two options of a poorly thought of roundabout and a very poorly thought of roundabout are presented.
Who is getting held responsible for a poor design? I thought we discussed it a few times, and the answer was "meh"

Things you don't like aren't scams.

In that case, mushrooms are scams.

I didn't say "scam".
But if you will, the lack of accountability in any government office is an open door for scams. On one hand, it makes sense to have at least some degree of government immunity. The other side of the coin, though...
Not that promoting away incompetent people is unique for the government as well....
UPD: "too big to fail" may be on the same page.

But where's the lack of accountability? Road design goes thru numerous approvals. If it meets federal and state guidelines, then what's wrong with it other than "I don't like roundabouts"?

[kalvado]

I don't think government-run vetting and production would be great. If nothing else, clinical trials are about someone proving to the government that the drug work, and production oversight is again proving things to government inspectors. Having two offices of government work against each other - and probably ultimately reporting to the same appointed official...  They are here to help, run away as fast as you can!

Do you feel the same way about the Department of Transportation?

Can you be more specific? I certainly have less than great (and actually less than unfavorable) opinions about the engineering work of certain DOTs. But who is going to hold them responsible until there is a headline-worthy scandal? Even then, it appears to be a search for the guilty and punishing the innocent...
More competitive operation could be more efficient (or even more mismanaged, but that is a different story)

Engineering work of certain DOTs...and yet a lot is contracted out through competitive bidding...
Who specifies the layout, for example? Of course there is a public hearing, where two options of a poorly thought of roundabout and a very poorly thought of roundabout are presented.
Who is getting held responsible for a poor design? I thought we discussed it a few times, and the answer was "meh"

Things you don't like aren't scams.

In that case, mushrooms are scams.

I didn't say "scam".
But if you will, the lack of accountability in any government office is an open door for scams. On one hand, it makes sense to have at least some degree of government immunity. The other side of the coin, though...
Not that promoting away incompetent people is unique for the government as well....
UPD: "too big to fail" may be on the same page.

But where's the lack of accountability? Road design goes thru numerous approvals. If it meets federal and state guidelines, then what's wrong with it other than "I don't like roundabouts"?

Well, what happens when an approved and signed-off design ends up a high accident location?
When design not performing to the expectations becomes a bottleneck for decades?
I may dislike roundabouts (although that's not true - I dislike the way they are abused by designers), but I am thinking specifically non-roundabout locations.

[Big John]

I don't think government-run vetting and production would be great. If nothing else, clinical trials are about someone proving to the government that the drug work, and production oversight is again proving things to government inspectors. Having two offices of government work against each other - and probably ultimately reporting to the same appointed official...  They are here to help, run away as fast as you can!

Do you feel the same way about the Department of Transportation?

Can you be more specific? I certainly have less than great (and actually less than unfavorable) opinions about the engineering work of certain DOTs. But who is going to hold them responsible until there is a headline-worthy scandal? Even then, it appears to be a search for the guilty and punishing the innocent...
More competitive operation could be more efficient (or even more mismanaged, but that is a different story)

Engineering work of certain DOTs...and yet a lot is contracted out through competitive bidding...

Construction work is based in price.  Engineering is supposed to be based on qualifications and not price, if the governmental agency is ethical.

[abefroman329]

I know of no non-intoxicating recreational uses for weed. You don't smoke it because you like the aroma. You smoke it to get high.

Nonsense - in fact, if you use medical cannabis as prescribed, you won't get high.

There's no such thing as using medical marijuana as prescribed.  It's illegal for doctors to prescribe it in the United States.  Some doctors may recommend it, but that recommendation is not a prescription.  As a schedule 1 substance, even doing medical research that might lead to confirming medical benefit for mariuana is illegal.

If you must split that hair, you must, but I'd be happy to share the medical advice my late father-in-law received on using cannabis to treat the pain, lack of appetite, etc. associated with his cancer, and I can assure you that he did not spend his last ~6 months on Mars.

[kphoger]

I don't think there should be a right to make a profit in any given field. In fact, I'd say something like medicine is critical enough to the well-being of society that making a profit in medicine should be illegal.

What do you think about unions?

As I said not too long ago when the subject came up, "At my last job, I'd have gladly paid $20 a month to tell my boss to go fuck herself."

With the recent nurses' strike making headlines, my mom brought it up in conversation the other day.  She worked in nursing all her pre-retirement life, since 1973.  She told me that, historically, nursing has remained non-unionized because (1) it was seen as a profession rather than a trade, and because (2) of the fear of what would happen if all nurses went on strike.

On that second point, what would happen to the patients' health if there were no nurses to care for them?  Or, in other words, it was considered to be in the best interest of the well-being of society that nurses not be able to unionize.

[abefroman329]

it was considered to be in the best interest of the well-being of society that nurses not be able to unionize.

I don't think there's any such thing as a profession that shouldn't be allowed to unionize.  And if hospitals don't want nurses to go on strike, then they shouldn't try to, you know, screw over nurses on pay/benefits/etc.

[kphoger]

it was considered to be in the best interest of the well-being of society that nurses not be able to unionize.

I don't think there's any such thing as a profession that shouldn't be allowed to unionize.  And if hospitals don't want nurses to go on strike, then they shouldn't try to, you know, screw over nurses on pay/benefits/etc.

I don't personally have a strong opinion about unions.  In general, I think they were probably necessary decades ago, but some industry unions nowadays don't seem to be very effective.  Anyway, I wasn't saying nurses should or should not be able to unionize.

[abefroman329]

I think they were probably necessary decades ago

I don't think mine owners are any less likely to knowingly murder their employees now than they would have been 100-150 years ago.

[mgk920]

Health insurance is a scam.

In the US, where medicine is regarded as a field for free enterprise, there are few checks on provider lobbies, and the health care system has spawned its own ecosystems for medical billing--yes, absolutely.

Health insurance being tied to employment is especially a scam. Suspending employer-paid health insurance is one of the go-to methods for an employer to attempt to break a strike. Employment-based health insurance also helps to disincentivize entrepreneurship (reducing competition in the workplace, natch) and forces some people to work when they'd otherwise not–I had plenty of coworkers at the casino who were well over the normal retirement age who were working because they needed the health coverage. And then there's the whole chicken-and-egg problem of what to do with those whose medical needs are so great they temporarily or permanently cannot work because of them.

That was all fallout from homefront rules during World War II.  FDR administration wage and price controls during the War prevented employers from rewarding good, loyal employees with cash wage raises so they started offering non-cash things ('fringe benefits') such as covering their major medical insurance plans, instead.

Mike

[abefroman329]

Health insurance is a scam.

In the US, where medicine is regarded as a field for free enterprise, there are few checks on provider lobbies, and the health care system has spawned its own ecosystems for medical billing--yes, absolutely.

Health insurance being tied to employment is especially a scam. Suspending employer-paid health insurance is one of the go-to methods for an employer to attempt to break a strike. Employment-based health insurance also helps to disincentivize entrepreneurship (reducing competition in the workplace, natch) and forces some people to work when they'd otherwise not–I had plenty of coworkers at the casino who were well over the normal retirement age who were working because they needed the health coverage. And then there's the whole chicken-and-egg problem of what to do with those whose medical needs are so great they temporarily or permanently cannot work because of them.

That was all fallout from homefront rules during World War II.  FDR administration wage and price controls during the War prevented employers from rewarding good, loyal employees with cash wage raises so they started offering non-cash things ('fringe benefits') such as covering their major medical insurance plans, instead.

Mike

Right, but that was intended as a stopgap measure, and it should have been replaced with some sort of government-sponsored health care (as was the case in, you know, every other first-world country), but it never was.  The NHS was founded in 1948; we didn't even get Medicare until almost twenty years later.

[kalvado]

Health insurance is a scam.

In the US, where medicine is regarded as a field for free enterprise, there are few checks on provider lobbies, and the health care system has spawned its own ecosystems for medical billing--yes, absolutely.

Health insurance being tied to employment is especially a scam. Suspending employer-paid health insurance is one of the go-to methods for an employer to attempt to break a strike. Employment-based health insurance also helps to disincentivize entrepreneurship (reducing competition in the workplace, natch) and forces some people to work when they'd otherwise not–I had plenty of coworkers at the casino who were well over the normal retirement age who were working because they needed the health coverage. And then there's the whole chicken-and-egg problem of what to do with those whose medical needs are so great they temporarily or permanently cannot work because of them.

That was all fallout from homefront rules during World War II.  FDR administration wage and price controls during the War prevented employers from rewarding good, loyal employees with cash wage raises so they started offering non-cash things ('fringe benefits') such as covering their major medical insurance plans, instead.

Mike

Right, but that was intended as a stopgap measure, and it should have been replaced with some sort of government-sponsored health care (as was the case in, you know, every other first-world country), but it never was.  The NHS was founded in 1948; we didn't even get Medicare until almost twenty years later.

Stopgap.... NYC still has 16000 rent-controlled apartments, which were a stopgap measure for soldiers returning home after WW2....

[jeffandnicole]

Well, what happens when an approved and signed-off design ends up a high accident location?
When design not performing to the expectations becomes a bottleneck for decades?
I may dislike roundabouts (although that's not true - I dislike the way they are abused by designers), but I am thinking specifically non-roundabout locations.

Obviously it depends on why an intersection has become a high accident location or becomes a bottleneck. If the intersection was designed for a certain level of traffic and suddenly a high-volume warehouse is built nearby, or an obstruction that didn't previously exists now does, that's not the fault of the engineers. Maybe enough people got together to persuade the state to knock down an interstate highway, and suddenly a minor roadway becomes a heavily traveled alternative.

Since normal traffic engineering looks about 25 years into the future, if designed for such time and nothing abnormal happens, it'll be about 2-3 decades anyway when the intersection may be reviewed for upgrading. Why would it be 'decades' (which you appeared to make out as a longer time period) if someone doesn't work out?

I don't think there should be a right to make a profit in any given field. In fact, I'd say something like medicine is critical enough to the well-being of society that making a profit in medicine should be illegal.

What do you think about unions?

As I said not too long ago when the subject came up, "At my last job, I'd have gladly paid $20 a month to tell my boss to go fuck herself."

With the recent nurses' strike making headlines, my mom brought it up in conversation the other day.  She worked in nursing all her pre-retirement life, since 1973.  She told me that, historically, nursing has remained non-unionized because (1) it was seen as a profession rather than a trade, and because (2) of the fear of what would happen if all nurses went on strike.

On that second point, what would happen to the patients' health if there were no nurses to care for them?  Or, in other words, it was considered to be in the best interest of the well-being of society that nurses not be able to unionize.

Members of a union don't have to strike. And in some cases, it's illegal to strike. NJ doesn't permit teachers and public workers to strike, for example. Of course, they could do a sick-out. And you don't have to be in a union to have a sick-out.

[kalvado]

it was considered to be in the best interest of the well-being of society that nurses not be able to unionize.

I don't think there's any such thing as a profession that shouldn't be allowed to unionize.  And if hospitals don't want nurses to go on strike, then they shouldn't try to, you know, screw over nurses on pay/benefits/etc.

What I hear is that  east coast nurses are treated much worse than their west coast colleagues. Now that nurses don't want to work in those conditions, fewer remaining ones are assigned more work. What can go wrong?...

But there are different situations. In the same thread mentioned above someone characterized certain union as "not going to defend indefencible things"
My pet peeve with NY handling on it....
A guy, not on duty, got into an accident.
He was drunk, run a red light, hit another car and drove away. Person in a car he hit had to seek some medical help.
Union insisted on giving the guy a second chance. He had to pay dearly, though, reimbursing $50 medical expenses to the person who was hurt.
Again - an off-duty police officer in DUI hit-and-run with injury  got a second chance and continued as police officer after paying $50 fine
He did it again in a few months, though - and I believe was transferred to a more rural department....   That's the type of a strong union we need....

[kalvado]

Well, what happens when an approved and signed-off design ends up a high accident location?
When design not performing to the expectations becomes a bottleneck for decades?
I may dislike roundabouts (although that's not true - I dislike the way they are abused by designers), but I am thinking specifically non-roundabout locations.

Obviously it depends on why an intersection has become a high accident location or becomes a bottleneck. If the intersection was designed for a certain level of traffic and suddenly a high-volume warehouse is built nearby, or an obstruction that didn't previously exists now does, that's not the fault of the engineers. Maybe enough people got together to persuade the state to knock down an interstate highway, and suddenly a minor roadway becomes a heavily traveled alternative.

Since normal traffic engineering looks about 25 years into the future, if designed for such time and nothing abnormal happens, it'll be about 2-3 decades anyway when the intersection may be reviewed for upgrading. Why would it be 'decades' (which you appeared to make out as a longer time period) if someone doesn't work out?

One example I have in mond is a ramp from the interstate to interstate which was designed to handle 2 lanes at 55 MPH. After accidents started to pile up, same ramp signed down to 30 MPH single lane cannot handle traffic. Lane signage wasn't really updated as well. I live in the area for about 20 years, and nothing changed.     

[J N Winkler]

In any society, those without economic power deserve advocacy on their behalf.  Unions can be a very effective vehicle for this, but they can also be extremely dysfunctional, as is also true of corporations and the government.

Most of us--I would say almost all of us who are American and below the age of 50--have not lived in a time when private-sector unions in the US were not in decline.  My grandmother, who lived and worked when they were at the apogee of their influence, had nuanced views on them.  She saw them as beneficial for her uncles and cousins who mined coal in southwestern Pennsylvania (her mother's oldest brother served as head of his UMWA local), but lived through disruption in the early 1970's when Southwestern Bell (her employer) had nonunionized clerical employees cover for union employees during a strike, and had trouble getting a settlement out of the International Typographical Union (my grandfather's union) when he died of cancer at age 59.  (The ITU folded almost a decade later.)

[formulanone]

The TL;DR version: Most rewards programs are fine if you use them regularly, know how it works, and remember to use them, but can seem like a scam if you don't use them often enough. Rewards programs that seem too good to be true usually prove to be so one way or another and are eventually changed or replaced.

I wouldn't go as far as to call them scams, but..(1) company sets the terms (2) artificially sets the "value" of the points (3) changes the rules frequently (4) good luck transferring any of them reliably. And that goes for airlines, hotels, rental cars, food services, or any other rewards program.

The point is that you're paying for the system in some small way to offset the freebies you (or someone else) may get. Which isn't any different if a business is giving away a product/service due to policy or resolve an issue, but a rewards system involves some cost of maintenance and infrastructure, but that's keeping up with everyone else.

For a limited-use member of a rewards program, it's not terribly useful, especially if the points expire. I just don't bother keeping up every possible rewards program if I only use them once every 5-6 years. One problem that annoyed me was Panera's program, which I'd use about once a month; I linked it to my old phone number years ago and didn't change it to my new number because I felt I didn't want to be bothered with spam calls...someone else got the number and proceeded to dispose of my points. Ooops, but that's probably only $10 lost. But like social media, your info also keeps it going.

[abefroman329]

Health insurance is a scam.

In the US, where medicine is regarded as a field for free enterprise, there are few checks on provider lobbies, and the health care system has spawned its own ecosystems for medical billing--yes, absolutely.

Health insurance being tied to employment is especially a scam. Suspending employer-paid health insurance is one of the go-to methods for an employer to attempt to break a strike. Employment-based health insurance also helps to disincentivize entrepreneurship (reducing competition in the workplace, natch) and forces some people to work when they'd otherwise not–I had plenty of coworkers at the casino who were well over the normal retirement age who were working because they needed the health coverage. And then there's the whole chicken-and-egg problem of what to do with those whose medical needs are so great they temporarily or permanently cannot work because of them.

That was all fallout from homefront rules during World War II.  FDR administration wage and price controls during the War prevented employers from rewarding good, loyal employees with cash wage raises so they started offering non-cash things ('fringe benefits') such as covering their major medical insurance plans, instead.

Mike

Right, but that was intended as a stopgap measure, and it should have been replaced with some sort of government-sponsored health care (as was the case in, you know, every other first-world country), but it never was.  The NHS was founded in 1948; we didn't even get Medicare until almost twenty years later.

Stopgap.... NYC still has 16000 rent-controlled apartments, which were a stopgap measure for soldiers returning home after WW2....

It would be really helpful if you explained why you're bringing up a completely unrelated topic.

[abefroman329]

it was considered to be in the best interest of the well-being of society that nurses not be able to unionize.

I don't think there's any such thing as a profession that shouldn't be allowed to unionize.  And if hospitals don't want nurses to go on strike, then they shouldn't try to, you know, screw over nurses on pay/benefits/etc.

What I hear is that  east coast nurses are treated much worse than their west coast colleagues. Now that nurses don't want to work in those conditions, fewer remaining ones are assigned more work. What can go wrong?...

But there are different situations. In the same thread mentioned above someone characterized certain union as "not going to defend indefencible things"
My pet peeve with NY handling on it....
A guy, not on duty, got into an accident.
He was drunk, run a red light, hit another car and drove away. Person in a car he hit had to seek some medical help.
Union insisted on giving the guy a second chance. He had to pay dearly, though, reimbursing $50 medical expenses to the person who was hurt.
Again - an off-duty police officer in DUI hit-and-run with injury  got a second chance and continued as police officer after paying $50 fine
He did it again in a few months, though - and I believe was transferred to a more rural department....   That's the type of a strong union we need....

Oh, believe me, I have nothing kind to say about the FOP.  A few blocks from where I live, a cop driving a vehicle with numerous illegal modifications ran a stop sign and killed an eight-year-old boy on a bicycle, and up went the ol' Blue Wall of Silence.  But advocating for the abolition of unions for cops turns into advocating for the abolition of unions for all public employees if you're not careful about it.

[kalvado]

Health insurance is a scam.

In the US, where medicine is regarded as a field for free enterprise, there are few checks on provider lobbies, and the health care system has spawned its own ecosystems for medical billing--yes, absolutely.

Health insurance being tied to employment is especially a scam. Suspending employer-paid health insurance is one of the go-to methods for an employer to attempt to break a strike. Employment-based health insurance also helps to disincentivize entrepreneurship (reducing competition in the workplace, natch) and forces some people to work when they'd otherwise not–I had plenty of coworkers at the casino who were well over the normal retirement age who were working because they needed the health coverage. And then there's the whole chicken-and-egg problem of what to do with those whose medical needs are so great they temporarily or permanently cannot work because of them.

That was all fallout from homefront rules during World War II.  FDR administration wage and price controls during the War prevented employers from rewarding good, loyal employees with cash wage raises so they started offering non-cash things ('fringe benefits') such as covering their major medical insurance plans, instead.

Mike

Right, but that was intended as a stopgap measure, and it should have been replaced with some sort of government-sponsored health care (as was the case in, you know, every other first-world country), but it never was.  The NHS was founded in 1948; we didn't even get Medicare until almost twenty years later.

Stopgap.... NYC still has 16000 rent-controlled apartments, which were a stopgap measure for soldiers returning home after WW2....

It would be really helpful if you explained why you're bringing up a completely unrelated topic.

Just analogous "stop-gap" solution in what is supposed to be a somewhat-free market.  People who were benefiting from stopgap are mostly dead, situation changed many times - but stopgap will outlive most of us.

[abefroman329]

Health insurance is a scam.

In the US, where medicine is regarded as a field for free enterprise, there are few checks on provider lobbies, and the health care system has spawned its own ecosystems for medical billing--yes, absolutely.

Health insurance being tied to employment is especially a scam. Suspending employer-paid health insurance is one of the go-to methods for an employer to attempt to break a strike. Employment-based health insurance also helps to disincentivize entrepreneurship (reducing competition in the workplace, natch) and forces some people to work when they'd otherwise not–I had plenty of coworkers at the casino who were well over the normal retirement age who were working because they needed the health coverage. And then there's the whole chicken-and-egg problem of what to do with those whose medical needs are so great they temporarily or permanently cannot work because of them.

That was all fallout from homefront rules during World War II.  FDR administration wage and price controls during the War prevented employers from rewarding good, loyal employees with cash wage raises so they started offering non-cash things ('fringe benefits') such as covering their major medical insurance plans, instead.

Mike

Right, but that was intended as a stopgap measure, and it should have been replaced with some sort of government-sponsored health care (as was the case in, you know, every other first-world country), but it never was.  The NHS was founded in 1948; we didn't even get Medicare until almost twenty years later.

Stopgap.... NYC still has 16000 rent-controlled apartments, which were a stopgap measure for soldiers returning home after WW2....

It would be really helpful if you explained why you're bringing up a completely unrelated topic.

Just analogous "stop-gap" solution in what is supposed to be a somewhat-free market.  People who were benefiting from stopgap are mostly dead, situation changed many times - but stopgap will outlive most of us.

OK, well, I'd be fine with eliminating rent-control laws.  Clearly they've failed, since affordable housing is still lacking in NYC.

And if you want to mention other stop-gap measures, I'll let you know if I agree that they should be eliminated as well.  I can't think of any right now.

[kalvado]

it was considered to be in the best interest of the well-being of society that nurses not be able to unionize.

I don't think there's any such thing as a profession that shouldn't be allowed to unionize.  And if hospitals don't want nurses to go on strike, then they shouldn't try to, you know, screw over nurses on pay/benefits/etc.

What I hear is that  east coast nurses are treated much worse than their west coast colleagues. Now that nurses don't want to work in those conditions, fewer remaining ones are assigned more work. What can go wrong?...

But there are different situations. In the same thread mentioned above someone characterized certain union as "not going to defend indefencible things"
My pet peeve with NY handling on it....
A guy, not on duty, got into an accident.
He was drunk, run a red light, hit another car and drove away. Person in a car he hit had to seek some medical help.
Union insisted on giving the guy a second chance. He had to pay dearly, though, reimbursing $50 medical expenses to the person who was hurt.
Again - an off-duty police officer in DUI hit-and-run with injury  got a second chance and continued as police officer after paying $50 fine
He did it again in a few months, though - and I believe was transferred to a more rural department....   That's the type of a strong union we need....

Oh, believe me, I have nothing kind to say about the FOP.  A few blocks from where I live, a cop driving a vehicle with numerous illegal modifications ran a stop sign and killed an eight-year-old boy on a bicycle, and up went the ol' Blue Wall of Silence.  But advocating for the abolition of unions for cops turns into advocating for the abolition of unions for all public employees if you're not careful about it.

I said it before and I say it again: very strong teacher's union is one of major - if not the biggest -  economic problems of NYS.
And as public employers are, effectively employed by the public, including yours truly, those unions are my direct opponents. Unions are a great idea when they     have some ethical do and do nots. Pushing things to the limit... well, I may have a right to do the same in response. 

[kalvado]

OK, well, I'd be fine with eliminating rent-control laws.  Clearly they've failed, since affordable housing is still lacking in NYC.

And if you want to mention other stop-gap measures, I'll let you know if I agree that they should be eliminated as well.  I can't think of any right now.

All I am saying is that there is nothing more permanent than a temporary stopgap.
And rent control in NYC is not the same as rent stabilization. But that is a totally different story.

[abefroman329]

I said it before and I say it again: very strong teacher's union is one of major - if not the biggest -  economic problems of NYS.

The existence of a teachers' union is fine with me.  Teaching isn't seen as a profession in jurisdictions where teachers don't have unions (see, e.g. Florida declaring that any military veteran can teach with no additional credentials).

Unions are a great idea when they have some ethical do and do nots.

Unless they're actively working to ensure their employees can, quite literally, get away with murder, as police unions do, then I'm not too worried about ethics.  Especially when employers have shown themselves to be completely unethical, and the response from the public is "well, just go work somewhere else if you don't like it!"

[kalvado]

I said it before and I say it again: very strong teacher's union is one of major - if not the biggest -  economic problems of NYS.

The existence of a teachers' union is fine with me.  Teaching isn't seen as a profession in jurisdictions where teachers don't have unions (see, e.g. Florida declaring that any military veteran can teach with no additional credentials).

Unions are a great idea when they have some ethical do and do nots.

Unless they're actively working to ensure their employees can, quite literally, get away with murder, as police unions do, then I'm not too worried about ethics.  Especially when employers have shown themselves to be completely unethical, and the response from the public is "well, just go work somewhere else if you don't like it!"

Teachers certainly should be able to unionize. But the result is that NY is a distant top 1 in school costs in US, and "schools are underfunded!" is heard all the time.
However, if you think about school cost as a credit society gives to a person which is repayed via taxes... You think $50k college debt is a significant handicap? NY 12 years of school cost over $250k per student today...

[hbelkins]

I know of no non-intoxicating recreational uses for weed. You don't smoke it because you like the aroma. You smoke it to get high.

Nonsense - in fact, if you use medical cannabis as prescribed, you won't get high.

You, and one other poster who responded, missed the word in bold in my quote above. Recreational. That, by definition, excludes any medical uses.