technically speaking, i'm beat. my head isn't exactly working at the usual locomotive speed. -frowns- who am i kidding? my brain usually works at that sedantary pace, with rather frequent spurts of sudden bothering to think. muahaha. i can think when i want to. it's just that usually my life seems so much more happier when i don't think.

anw, i just read a discussion at International Herald Tribune online, and let me tell you this: i'm loving that website as much as The Economist. it's so intriguing how these news/discussions can actually make me think. or rather, make me conscious that i'm thinking. [fine, this is all economics fault. i don't even seen opportunity cost literally nowadays. it's not a question of whether if i spend $1.50 on a chocolate waffle, that $1.50 is my cost. my actual cost is actually the things that i could spend on with that $1.50, like buy my notes, or add it up to my savings for a HSM3 lock diary. ehh, the lock diary is so cute and cool, okayyy! i saw it at taka and i was like, i wanttt! alongside the hannah montana bags! umai, you know what i'm talking about!]

back to the IHT discussion. the topic was on whether the US laws on drugs like marijuana are actually too tough, and with the election of a drug czar from a state that's known for its lax drug laws, could it be that the US policy is shifting to a different gear? i had always thought that criminilazing recreational drugs should be the way to go, but then again, you hear of drug addicts being addicted to codeine and subutex - decriminalized drugs. so how valid is it really to have drugs criminalized? then again, what constitutes dangerous recreational drugs and 'harmless' ones?

i'd love to sit down and think about it, y'know. there's always cost and benefit to criminalizing or decriminilazing these said drugs. and oh yeah, you know, talking about cost-benefit, this struck me earlier: how come some ppl still take action despite knowing that the cost is so much more higher than benefit? hmm.. food for thought..

@ 6:10 AM