|
LP97S posted:Also, could people still stop referring to functional alcoholics as being solely wife beaters and child beaters please. There's plenty of functional alcoholics who don't do those things. People are referring to the stereotypes of the worst case scenarios. Most people can drink just fine, a few will end up violent, abusive, and with a serious case of liver damage. Most people can smoke pot just fine, but a few will end up unemployed or in dead end jobs spending all of the leisure time smoking and eating Taco Bell. The worst that a drug can do should be relevant to how it is regulated.
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2012 20:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 07:25 |
|
|
Shbobdb posted:I think we're all forgetting about the terrible economic consequences that legalizing marijuana would have. The war on drugs provides a steady stream of inmates to our prisons. Think of the construction workers who build those prisons, the engineers and mechanics who build and maintain the construction equipment, the guards who patrol those prisons, the cooks who feed those prisoners and the farmers with contracts who provide that food, the uniform and camera makers -- and the list goes on from there! And that is without factoring in the cheap labor that prisoners provide American companies, companies which pass those savings onto American citizens. While we're at it, consider how much the economy would suffer if we managed to get reasonable results from our healthcare system without spending twice what the rest of the developed world does for no appreciable benefit!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2012 00:57
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:What does that have to do with anything? They also don't come and test your home meth lab or your hydroponic weed farm in most cases either, unless you slip up. The difference is that not only can they come in and test your hydroponic weed farm (or meth lab), the very notion of its existence is probable cause to break down your doors, you can get arrested and have all your assets seized for having one, and it is illegal to farm weed even if you personally consume every last ounce of product. If you have a home vegetable garden that is crawling with salmonella, which is far more dangerous than any weed farm, that is your prerogative until you start trying to sell those vegetables. You can eat the stuff day and night while sending mocking messages to the FDA about flouting their rules, there is nothing that can be done to you. On top of that, even if you do start selling your contaminated vegetables, the worst consequence is usually a civil penalty barring some sort of gross negligence.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2012 21:45
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:But that's not a difference in whether it's allowed at all. Both selling weed and selling food you known is contaminated are illegal. It does not matter that one puts you up to harsher penalties. Of course it's a difference in whether it's allowed, you are the only person here limiting the discussion to sales. Let's try this again, perhaps you can figure this out if it's spelled out for you step by step: -Harmful substances, generally speaking, do not have possession and/or use prohibited. This goes for contaminated food, adulterated drugs, or just plain poisons. To make this as clear as possible, anyone can create and ingest as much of any of these prohibited items as he or she wants, with absolutely no legal penalties even if this person advertises their flouting of regulatory standards. -This is not true for weed. Manufacture and consumption, even for strictly personal use, is prohibited. -That the sale of both items is prohibited does not change the fact that their manufacture and consumption are treated differently by the law. The (very disparate) regulations on sales do not somehow magically eliminate how personal use is regulated.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2012 22:24
|
|
|
It's not legal in Portugal, just decriminalized. You can still have a civil fine levied or be forced into treatment, if I recall correctly. The Netherlands also has a grey, quasi legal status for the stuff, are smokers in cafes completely in the clear legally or is it more of a wink and a nod? I know the cafes themselves mainly get by on non-enforcement since their purchases tend to be illicit. But then if we're being technical, you cannot legally smoke in WA or CO - it's just that local and state authorities have no legal mechanism to prosecute you. A DEA agent can still arrest you for possession if he feels like it and a federal prosecutor can charge you.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 23:40
|
|
|
SilentD posted:It's really easy to make opium, and from there morphine or whatever else you want. It just that it takes a lot of poppies to get a little morphine. In order to get any sort of volume it you'd have to grow so many of the plants someone would come pay you a visit and you'd better have a drat good excuse, like running a bagel factory or something. There's the rub, and the reason it's only done in countries (or parts of countries) that are not subject to some sort of law enforcement. Even growing for personal use would require a field that would be a dead giveaway to any sort of overflight, or some sort of warehouse and enough power use to set off the alarm bells at your power company. Forget about doing any sort of surreptitious illicit commercial cultivation in most developed countries. So yeah, most likely all the opiate junkies who were formerly getting a regular, reasonably priced, properly manufactured supply of their drug are going to pay a ton more to get the same or turn to hard(er) to obtain, grossly overpriced, cut to poo poo heroin, and they're going to start sharing needles and whatnot because good luck setting up harm reduction operations in the states we're talking about. Good times all around!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2012 21:55
|
|
|
EBT posted:Go check the poppy tea thread in TCC, it's full of people talking about how easy it is to get controlled poppies here in the USA (to the point that you can often buy them in craft supply stores because no one actually knows what a drug poppy looks like) You mean the thread full of people complaining about moldy poppies because the one or two people who were willing to skirt that grey area of the law have retired and/or moved on? It doesn't happen inany sort of widespread scale in the US, almost all of the illicit opiates used in the US are imported from Afghanistan (with a small share from SE Asia), or diverted pharmaceuticals.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2012 02:25
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:I would say yes (although replace cases of wine with cases of cheap vodka or something), but I lived in a place where there were a ton of dry communities and supporting smugglers taking advantage of people seems shady to me. Without arms dealers, warring parties would likely be limited to improvised weapons, reducing the amount of harm done in a conflict. Without drug smugglers (or prescription pill pushers, since that's who the analogy is about), addicts tend to turn to whatever else they can find, whether that means moonshine instead of smuggled booze or cut to poo poo heroin instead of high quality pharmaceuticals. You don't have to look at everything so ideologically, sometimes a pragmatic approach is useful.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2012 22:28
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:Now I'm curious, what is an example of 'resposible' diversion? Getting pharmaceutical amphetamines to meth addicts or pharmaceutical opiates to heroin addicts are the obvious options. But really, any activity that lowers the end user price for drugs probably contributes towards harm reduction for addicts. Providing free recreational heroin to Swiss addicts reduced crime and disease among that population. This was done by the government so it wasn't technically diversion, but the general principle is still there - increasing availability and reducing price is a net good. From your last few pages of arguments, you somehow just don't seem to get that limiting the availability of recreational drugs only drives up prices, forces terrible substitutions, and marginalizes addicts. This a medical issue, not one for law enforcement - let doctors deal with the drug problem. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Dec 15, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2012 00:39
|
|
|
Babylon the Bright posted:Except two wrongs don't make a right. If I engage in fraud for the purposes of getting around an unjust law, the fact that my fraud is less bad than the existence of the law is irrelevant, as long as the violation of the law is morally neutral at best (as is the case when selling drugs). Why is it irrelevant? If the underlying law (prohibition) is unjust, why is it "wrong" to circumvent it - because it happened to be written down on a piece of paper by some legislators at some point in the past? No one is claiming that drug dealers are particularly virtuous or anything, there's just no reason to consider the act of selling drugs wrong rather than simply illegal until violence is involved. A law does not hold any moral weight beyond the reasoning supporting that law.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2012 15:19
|
|
|
TheGreySpectre posted:I would think we could look at how they were treating medical dispensaries in the last 2-3 years as a pretty good indication of how they will treat non-medical dispensaries in WA and CO. Get too big or loud and you might get smacked down?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2012 04:57
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:I think marijuana businesses constitute a sufficiently distinct group to qualify for forming a credit union. I hope they enjoy fighting federal money laundering prosecutions.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2012 06:21
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:You can't get in trouble for money laundering when your stated business is selling weed, and selling weed is what you do. There's no laundering going on there. If a bank were to accept and lend only in cash, maybe (and probably not) they could avoid laundering charges, but then they are wide open to civil forfeiture and wouldn't have a functional business model as a bank anyway. Realistically, the moment those funds are made electronic and mixed with the rest of the economy, they would be laundering money because it has to pass through other financial institutions who were not explicitly told that the money is from federally illegal activities. And if they made sure that it was perfectly clear, no one with business outside that state would settle a transaction for or with them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2012 14:08
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Yeah this. These conversations about how it's hard to grow weed are dumb as hell. It's not hard to grow weed. I know because I've met a ton of people who do it and they aren't exactly graduate level botanists if you know what I mean. It's like talking about how hard and expensive it is to grow tobacco by only looking at high-end cigar makers. I mean, yeah, smoking would be crazy expensive if everything was a Partagas Serie P. But there is a huge market for cheap, "does the job" weed and mj products. You don't need the dankest of the dank to make weed butter to bake cookies, for instance. Prices will drop considerably with legalization, at least for common grade stuff which will probably be the majority of it. The thing is that pot is effectively rated based on potency (dankness), and based on that measure, those industrial producers won't just be growing decent weed - they can grow a lot of very good pot very cheaply with a handful of trained and experienced botanists and horticulturalists overseeing a large operation, once all that is legal. It's a specialized science, yes, but nothing that cannot be standardized, mechanized, and turned into an industrial system. This is especially true since THC content is an objective measure, and that is something that will fly through the roof once R&D is more than what amounts to a bunch of enthusiasts e-mailing each other. I personally cannot wait until the first genetically modified strains start sprouting. That's not to say there won't be be specialty growers, as everyone else is quick to point out. These guys will end up like vintners, talking up how the acidity of the soil affects the aftertaste of an indica to the handful of people who have developed the taste to know the difference, but it will be more difficult for specialty growers to maintain a competitive edge when it comes to who has the dankest nugs around. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 05:12 on Dec 24, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2012 05:07
|
|
|
Mrit posted:and wouldn't get me fired. You didn't specifically say otherwise, but it's worth pointing out that with legalization, employers would still be entirely within their rights to fire you for smoking pot, much as they can fire you today for smoking cigarettes or wearing purple shirts, both currently legal activities.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2012 23:45
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Then you could play the whole "laboratories of democracy" card against conservatives, and put them in the position of defending the Federal government running roughshod over the voters of these states. That would take a lot of the wind out of conservative sails. I think you may have politics, especially conservative politics, backwards. There is not a coherent stated ideology (states' rights) that logically leads to particular policy goals (devolution of drug laws), rather policy goals (throw druggies into prison forever) stemming from an ideology that very few are willing to stand behind (the poor and otherwise legally disenfranchised people should have the boot of the law on their necks) incoherently shoehorned into something resembling a stated ideology (states' rights, except when the states make the wrong choices, then the federal government should supersede).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2012 22:22
|
|
|
tastethehappy posted:Yes, every state legal grower (with 6 plants) is totally at the same risk as someone growing 2,000 plants. He was within state limits - he meticulously followed every applicable state law, as far as I can tell. But more to the point, how is a system where arrest and imprisonment are arbitrary acceptable? We all know the FBI, for example, has a history of being racist fuckers. Matthew from Stockton might not be raided until he has 2,000 plants, but what about Jamal from Oakland or Mohammed from Anaheim? Are you just going to assume the federal law enforcement officers are going to enforce things evenhandedly, because they have done very little to warrant that faith. Arbitrary enforcement can be used as a cudgel against demographic groups, political dissidents - really anyone the regime in power wants to put pressure on. And even if enforcement is limited to "fairly" targeting the big fish, this is will have a chilling effect on anyone who is interested in legitimately pursuing growing as a legal business. Keep everything above water, and you might get raided. Try to be surreptitious about it, you still might get charged with tax evasion or something. The Justice Department is saying outright that this raid and prosecution are intended to subvert commercial growers. quote:“Mr. Davies was not a seriously ill user of marijuana nor was he a medical caregiver — he was the major player in a very significant commercial operation that sought to make large profits from the cultivation and sale of marijuana,” the letter said. Mr. Wagner said that prosecuting such people “remains a core priority of the department.” They are trying to contain growing and distribution to some cottage industry that can never benefit from economies of scale, serious investments in research, and so on. This is a deliberate attempt to undermine an industry and state laws, plain and simple. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 13:44 on Jan 15, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2013 13:41
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:And? Of course they're doing that they follow and enforce federal law. I'm having trouble seeing what your point is. I was replying to someone who said that if you just follow state law you'll be fine. That, and do we really need to break out the Nazi analogies? An action being legal or illegal has nothing to do with whether it is moral, and we should all speak out against immoral laws.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2013 16:00
|
|
|
tastethehappy posted:Yes, it's horrible. But what are you going to do? Give up on all future progress? If you're going to push the boundaries, you're going to have to accept the risks. Keep applying pressure on the federal government to drop these pointless prosecutions. You were the one saying he was just asking for it by wearing a short skirt or growing a bunch of plants or something, and that the rest of us should just dress more modestly and not worry about getting tossed into prison because a federal prosecutor can't get his head out of his drug warrior rear end. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Jan 15, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2013 16:56
|
|
|
veedubfreak posted:Acetaminophen does more harm to your body than MJ does. Alcohol and tobacco aside, it's probably the most dangerous drug.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:Hey hey hey smoke meth erryday. Abuse of pharmaceutical amphetamines isn't all that terrible. Addictive, not great for the heart, and not a positive thing generally, but most of the terrible side effects that come with scrounging for cash to buy adulterated meth to smoke aren't really relevant to someone with a regular supply of pharmaceutical amphetamine pills.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2013 02:48
|
|
|
Verviticus posted:Is this averaging out ODs with responsible users or does it actually harm people incrementally? There are a lot of inadvertent ODs, especially people with chronic pain. Even a couple grams a day for a few days and a couple of drinks can cause liver damage, and a lot of people just aren't aware of the danger of a higher dosage - if 625mg is good, 1350 must be better. At 4 times a day, that person may end up in the hospital in a hurry. Sure, these aren't exactly responsible users, but all users will never be responsible no matter the drug, and the difference between a therapeutic and a dangerous dose is razor thin, relatively speaking, for acetaminophen. It would probably be far safer to just hand out a handful of opiate pills for even minor aches and pains. Much, much harder to cause serious damage with those. But hey, people might feel good along the way, and we can't have that happening.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2013 13:18
|
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:They deliberately add massive doses of Tylenonl to opiate pills just to stop you from taking a sufficient amount. I recently had an injured knee ligament and infected jaw at the same time, and the dose of tylenol in the hydrocodone pills was so high that I could only take 4 a day, which was entirely insufficient for managing the pain and left me totally unable to focus at work for most of that time because it hurt so much. Try a cold water extraction next time around. Just wondering if anyone knows, is it illegal to do that with medicine you've been prescribed?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2013 16:08
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Opiates can have a lot of side effects. Many people aren't safe to drive or operate heavy machinery after taking them. Of course opiates can have side effects, where in the world did anyone suggest otherwise? I was talking about comparative long-term physical harm and death, specifically because the difference in dosage between a therapeutic and dangerous dose is so much smaller than with opiates. If you take triple the prescribed dose of, say, morphine (assuming you're not mixing it with anything), the most likely result is you pass out for a while and end up with no lasting physical damage. With acetaminophen, you can easily end up with serious permanent liver damage or just plain dead. Addicts and people who need to operate heavy machinery aside, it seems far safer to use pharmaceutical opiates for even minor pains than acetaminophen. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Jan 18, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2013 20:04
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:David Frum strikes me as the worst offender of the whole bunch. He's a horribly bad political pundit with the worst OP-EDs and uses the "think of the children" argument; he's beating a dead horse. Not to mention an incredible hypocrite 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2013 00:51
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Where are you getting this from? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/20/back-chat-with-david-frum.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/26/back-chat-with-david-frum.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/02/back-chat-with-david-frum.html Not sure if there are more, but yeah, you can ignore anything he says about prohibition. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Jan 20, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:What is decriminalization, exactly? From what little I've read possession is still a crime, but usually reduced to a misdemeanor offense, i.e. still a crime, and possession of large amounts and growing it is still punished harshly. Why isn't 'decriminalization' a misnomer? Possession violations are handled as civil rather than criminal violations.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2013 01:26
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:The thing that kills me about this particular rabbit hole is opiates used to be legal and easy to get and it was a goddamned mess. It's not like this hasn't been tried. What was the mess exactly? Are there any sources describing addiction rates far above today's from the 1890s, or any evidence from that period of the kind of epidemic of murder associated with the drug trade today?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2013 18:18
|
|
|
That DICK! posted:Well, not that I disagree with you, but there was an Opium War. What does that have to do with the domestic legalization? As long as we assume no one is going to invade the US to force more permissive laws on opiates, it's not really relevant to anything. So Delta-Wye, what exactly was this "mess" last time we tried opiate legalization and how is it worse than the situation today?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
breaklaw posted:See, this is where I become a hypocrite because gently caress. Heroin. No matter what anyone ever says about drug legalization that I agree with, I've seen people (ok only 2 people) I know totally ruin their lives with this poo poo, and I somehow don't believe all the benefits would outweigh the fact that we would probably have more people turning themselves into drug zombies for life if it was legal. Who are these people who are prevented from any sort of drug addiction by prohibition? Except for suburban teenagers and pot/alcohol, I have pretty much never seen somebody not use a drug because they couldn't find someone to sell it to them. You've also thrown in some other weird exaggerations ("evil"? really?) that seem to suggest that you're just arguing out of emotion. Most people that use heroin stop, usually before any major medical consequences set in. And there are notable historical examples of people who were able to manage opiate dependencies with a clean, stable supply. What prohibition does do is make sure that users have to purchase adulterated drugs at an entirely unreasonable markup, interact with criminals for the privilege of doing so, probably end up in prison and/or with a criminal record themselves, get cut off from employment, have any financial resources drained, and so on and so on. Making addicts' lives miserable is quite possibly the worst way to encourage them to kick said addiction. I'm all for generous treatment programs, having pharmacies keep records of how much opiates you are buying (and probably even required counseling sessions if consumed above a certain rate), education programs, and so on, but where is the evidence that outright prohibition does anything to deal with addiction rates?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2013 19:18
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:If you phrase it that way, it makes me think that you don't know what I'm referring to. Your previous post, although it didn't call me out by name ( Can you cite anything to support abuse rates above today's? And more importantly, can you cite anything that would support that the legalization regime at the time resulted in more harm than that inflicted by casting drug users as criminals across the board and the generally fun results of putting a multi billion dollar market in entirely unregulated hands? Because I suspect you would be hard pressed to show that any part of opiate legalization from the 1890s or thereabouts was in any way worse than the millions imprisoned and tens of thousands murdered as a result of existing policy. The biggest mistake you seem to be making is that policy decisions a century ago were made for entirely rational reasons. We haven't even gotten close today, you are giving our forebearers far too much credit. Are you even aware of the rhetoric surrounding the introduction of prohibition?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2013 02:11
|
|
) sounded better informed, fyi.
but I seemed to have ruffled a few feathers by reminding people the last time opiates were legal, it was decided prohibition was better so I figured an effort post was in order.
|
KingEup posted:Final paragraph of page 3: Thanks, that's good information. Delta-Wye posted:I'm afraid that proper studies, as we understand them today, weren't exactly done in the 18th and 19th centuries. However, it's not like abuse and addiction didn't occur: This, on the other hand, is not. What exactly are you trying to get at by pointing out a single addict from over a century ago? And couldn't have found a source that is at least remotely neutral? Rehab centers by and large completely dismiss the idea of responsible use and make a ton of money from the current legal state due to court required treatment. Their opinions when it comes to policy tend to be terrible, they simply parrot the ONDCP abstinence line without any semblance of critical thought. e: Wait, how did I miss that you linked a guy that had a full and productive life and despite being addicted to opium for most of it, presumably because he could obtain a reliable supply and was not treated like a criminal for it. Thanks for helping argue against prohibition! And of course legalization has drawbacks. Who ever said otherwise? I have repeatedly said that the issue is that the downsides of prohibition are far worse, and that most people have a bad habit of conflating the downsides of abuse and the downsides of abuse under prohibition. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 13:29 on Jan 24, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2013 13:23
|
|
|
somnolence posted:I think this applies to recreational abuse of any substance. You can't really downplay meth's demonization by society, though. It's one of the most addictive substances out there and really fucks up people's lives. There's more to it though. Pharmaceutical oral methamphetamine isn't great, but it's also not all that much worse than pharmaceutical oral amphetamine or dextroamphetamine. The reason that meth has become this great terror is that is that the lack of availability of clean drugs leads people to (a) adulterated substances and (b) methods of administration that maximize absorption (smoking, shooting, insufflation). If methamphetamine was magicked out of existence, the exact problems you see with meth abuse today would apply to whatever amphetamine was synthesized for illicit use in its place.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2013 17:37
|
|
|
Chitin posted:Everything you've ever experienced causes changes in your brain, using that as the criteria for what constitutes anything physiological would make it a very broad category indeed. But again, all of this is very much beside the point. It certainly would make it a very broad category, but why would it be an inaccurate characterization? Isn't this false distinction why psychological issues aren't regarded as "real" by far too many people?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
TACD posted:Because there's a social stigma associated with 'getting high' (or any preferred 'altered state of consciousness' term) in any non-alcohol based way. Enjoyment and fun is not seen as a legitimate reason to use a substance. That's pretty much it. It's not even that, since drugs are prescribed for purely quality of life issues - see painkillers or erection pills. What seems to be the societal hang-up is that taking drugs to be more "normal" is a-ok, even recommended by doctors, but taking drugs (even the same exact drugs) to be less "normal" is not. Drunkenness (to a certain extent in the appropriate social settings) is not seen as outside of normality, so alcohol is tolerated. Marijuana is approaching the same status as far as society is concerned, and the legality is (slowly) following along.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:The biggest binding factor of the whole city is that most consider themselves Libertarian which is an amazing new political movement that is resulting in people's cognitive dissonance being shattered on the subject of drugs. This is sarcasm, right?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Edit: that said, the person quoted above might have a case for entrapment, IF and ONLY IF the police officer legitimately said "yeah this is legal." Is that true? I thought cops were legally allowed to lie all they wanted without risking tainting evidence or anything, at least in the sense of "yeah, you have to let us search that" and things like that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
showbiz_liz posted:I don't see how this counts as interstate commerce. Sounds like regular ol' one-state commerce to me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn It's a very broad definition.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2013 20:01
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Its not a trap, you said the acts that people commit while abusing substances should be the illegal part, how do you intend to regulate the family where the mom spends every cent of the income on heroin or alcohol, rather than on new school clothes for the children, or the power bill in the summer. Its not technically child abuse, but it is a form of harm caused by substance abusers, obviously not a situation that anyone wants to happen. Do you realize just how cheap opiates are before the markup for being illegal kicks in? The price for heroin, for example, gets inflated something like 5000% between the producer and final street value, and that's with the producer price already ridiculously above cost because it has to be done clandestinely, without access to proper capital markets or equipment, etc, etc. The price of maintenance doses of licitly produced opiates wouldn't factor into the budget of even the most destitute of people.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 07:25 |
|
|
Why does it even matter what the substance is? If you do something dangerous on the road to give a cop cause to pull you over then fail a sobriety test, that should be a DUI. Whether you just took a bong rip, had a few drinks, or prescribed medication is irrelevant to the safety of other drivers.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2013 23:26
|
|