Today's low-quality rielsing is rosemount. A little less acidic, but you really can't tell there is sugar in here. However, the base of the bottle (not the rest) is square, which is really cool.
I'm tired lately, I suppose going through the motions of progression from lots of energy to no energy, but I don't like it. I prefer endless energy. I suppose everyone would if possible. So why are scientists not focusing on this? Currently the problem is that everything that encourages energy is addictive and as a result, highly regulated by the FDA. Perhaps the reason for this is that the body is really better as a result of endless energy and so the addiction to energy is good? The interesting part about the drug problem is that it is a problem because people who are (this whole thing is my opinion but I want to reinforce that this is my opinion here) naturally prone to addiction become addicted, a certain percentage of those people create problems, and we focus all our energy on that small percentage. We never discuss the number of people who try drugs and don't become addicted, or who become addicted but manage to get by. Is so much energy, so much pain, the cost of incarceration of small time dealers, is everything associated with the fight on drugs responsible given the real effect that drugs have on a certain percentage of the population? Just from a practical perspective, it probably makes no sense to have a war on drugs, since such a small percentage of Americans actually use drugs and then cost the country money as a result of that use. In fact, I posit that it is impossible that the war on drugs is economically justifiable. I don't doubt that if you rearrange the priorities, it is justifiable, but lets associate our justification with reality, whenever possible, 'kay? The reality is that many many people use drugs casually without cost to the US government. I just object to the use of my tax dollars for this purpose.
Posts
