I believe it. I was buying smokes without an ID by the time I was 17.

Cancer rates in the US are up about 500% since 1970. My brother is in late 20s and is already needing testosterone meds, presumably due to years of work in industrial settings.

That makes sense. Thanks.

It just seemed like bot behavior to me that someone would make so many posts so fast is all, but I guess “terminally online” is one way to describe a disabled person.

Maybe you can understand how always having a lot of content primed and ready to go and already having a plan of where to post it so that it can be done quickly seems like a “terminally online” thing from my perspective. It seems like an excessive effort to me for a human to post that much content daily with such a time crunch. In order to repost content in the first place, a human user would also have to be active on multiple social media sites, so maybe “internet addict” would be a better descritpion.

Why do you have a pattern of uploading in bursts of posts all within a single minute of each other then going quiet for several hours?

I hang out in enough blue spaces to see the cries for renewed bans on particular styles of guns. A lot of the stuff I own in Texas would already be a felony to own in NY and Cali.

There also appears to be a variety of definitions for “common sense” gun laws, and it seems to depend largely on an individual’s locality. Universal background checks is a no-brainer, but I’d like to keep my semi-auto rifle and standard capacity mags.

Besides, everyone knows it’s actually handguns that are responsible for a vast majority of violent crimes involving firearms, which potentially makes them next up on the chopping block once the precedent is set by the first ban of a style of firearm that’s rarely used in violent gun crimes rarely in comparison.

If you can’t turn someone red, just make them a single issue voter.

Voting blue can hurt sometimes as a gun-owning Texan, but I do what I must. I didn’t always have that mentality.

The only thing that drug screening welfare applicants has ever done is shown that the percentage of welfare applicants that use drugs is much lower than the general population.

But it makes sense that usage rates would be lower if they had to stop taking to keep their presumably much-needed benefits.

Title is highly misleading, but that’s to be expected of The Guardian.