[removed]

[removed]

Are you pre approved and/or have a real estate agent? Because Zillow has a bunch of homes under 600 and you’ve just got to comb through for what you want.

Be flexible on area or wants/needs. First house we settled for one bathroom bc we knew we wouldn’t stay forever. It was fine. This second house we “settled” to be farther outside our desired area and I LOVE where we purchased. But it was on the “No” list bc of location until we physically drove around. Beautiful.

[deleted]

This 100%

Was quickly scrolling through Reddit and barely saw this picture. Immediately said “that looks like Hoh Rain Forrest” and scrolled back up. Beautiful place. It was my grandpas favorite place on this earth. We actually spread his ashes their upon his request.

Uh, serious. If you make 150K, you can afford to buy a home in surrounding areas of Seattle.

I just want to know where you get all your free mushies.

87 years ago

Thanks for posting this! I emailed my senator and Ann Rivers has sent me an automated response that she has signed on to the bill.

[removed]

So everyone is like your old roommate, whose abuse of illegal substances and pattern of self-harm is a lesson of what not to do and very much what supervised therapeutic treatment is intended to treat?

Do you expect someone with a broken body to not use a crutch? Are they supposed to suffer the indignity of dragging themselves around by their two or three good limbs just so you can feel better? It seems like your version of reality is wholly detached from the experience of others.

Fun fact: managing pain, trauma and disability is an important part of healing and survival.

Or… if you don’t believe that you have a perfectly respectable difference of opinion…

I wasn't aware psilocybin was free and available here in the state already. Most people I know have to pay someone money.

Yup. Like I’m not even 30, closer to 20 really, and lake Mead is at 1/4 capacity compared to when I was born.

I sincerely don’t get the people who want to bury their heads in the sand and pretend like CA is fine. It is going to be even more severely fucking in the coming decades…

I guess permanent drought and no water is “objectively better” weather to the ill informed.

They’re being facetious. They’re just trying to minimize the fact CA is in a massive drought

House prices have been nuts around here for a long time. I pretty much gave up on buying a house around here around 2001-02…when I was still in high school.

In looking around the north SnoCo, Skagit area, for a 4+ bedroom house (I have 4 kids) on some land, I would be paying around $500k for a ramshackle POS, and $800k for something nice, at minimum. Or, $120k-ish for a mobile.

I make $80k a year, so those higher prices are out my range. Renting is almost out of my range. Yeah, housing costs are crazy across the entire region.

…small state? Compared to what, Texas, Alaska? Are we talking land mass, population?

Or is it “small” because you’re looking at it on the grand global scale?

Thanks for the article.

In retrospect it seems really obvious, but I like Colorado's idea of having a less serious charge for a less level of impairment. Making 0.05% an infraction with a fine would still have a deterrent effect. It actually would probably be easier to prosecute, since infractions do not have to proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Most folks don’t even realize how utterly screwed California is.

Since the 1920s the Central Valley has subsided almost 30 feet because people have been pumping too much water out of the ground.

The recent droughts and population growth have only made things worse.

I think a lot of folks still perceive California as the ideal place to live due to the states massive advertising budget and all the movies that picture it as such.

As somebody who grew up there who has spent time in both Southern California and the Bay Area I can say with 100% certainly that California is t what most folks think it is.

Sure, it seems all bright and shiny from afar, but get up close and you start to see it for what it really is.

I'm not necessarily going to disagree, but I do wonder if that slight reduction in the legal limit really addresses the issue effectively.

Certainly it would be expected that a lower limit would incrementally reduce the rate of accidents, but by how much?

Actually converting the more strict law into results means more strict enforcement. Will it be more effective to focus that enforcement on mildly impaired drivers, or on better enforcement of seriously impaired drivers.

We aren't currently achieving adequate enforcement, treatment, etc of drivers operating over 0.08%...often well over. Will law enforcement even be able to identify drivers a meaningful fraction of drivers operating over 0.05%?

Of course, there's the people like me who will obey the law whatever the limit is, but I already stay well away from 0.08%.

I see someone else posted an article discussing Colorado's law, where they have an 0.08% limit for a DUI, but a lower limit of 0.05% for a less serious charge of Driving While Ability Impaired.

I think I like that idea - there is some level of escalation in seriousness of the violation correlated to increase in risk. We do similar with speeding versus reckless driving.

>Them not having applied the 12 other times

You're either stupid or entitled. Which one is it? I can understand being short on money, but don't be shocked when your luck finally runs out and get zero sympathy without owning the situation you put yourself in. I find it hard to believe that 12 different officers didn't warn you about your lack of insurance and registration( or what ever else) in the past, and even so, it sounds like you've been driving long enough to know better as to what was going to happen when your number came up.

Eating before you start drinking absolutely impacts BAC.

[deleted]

https://lmgtfy.wtf/go.html?q=0.05%20vs%200.08%20Bac