"The best way to prevent drug addiction and overdose is to prevent people from abusing drugs in the first place. If they don't start, they won't have a problem." – President Donald J. Trump
President Trump has declared the "Opioid Crisis" a nationwide public health emergency. This action will allow for "expanded access to telemedicine services" to remotely prescribe medicines for substance abuse, allow the Department of Health and Human Services to "more quickly make temporary appointments of specialists with the tools and talent needed to respond effectively to our Nation's ongoing public health emergency", allow the Department of Labor to issue dislocated worker grants for those "displaced from the workforce" due to the Opioid Crisis, and will help people with HIV/AIDS to receive substance abuse treatment. The press release lists several actions that the Trump Administration has taken to respond to the Opioid Crisis, including the July 2017 law enforcement action against AlphaBay.
The declaration has been criticized for not requesting any funds to respond to the Crisis. The "nationwide public health emergency" declaration is also distinct from a promised "national emergency declaration", which would have freed up money from the Disaster Relief Fund to be spent on the Crisis. 14 Senate Democrats have introduced a bill that would authorize $45 billion to address the Opioid Crisis. The Obama Administration called on Congress last year to pass just over $1 billion in funding for opioid treatment programs nationwide. This funding was included in the 21st Century Cures Act.
The Department of Justice has arrested and charged the founder and majority owner of Insys Therapeutics Inc., John Kapoor, along with other executives from his company. Kapoor is accused with leading a nationwide conspiracy to bribe doctors and illegally distribute the company's fentanyl spray, intended for cancer patients, so that it could be prescribed for non-cancer patients. Kapoor stepped down as CEO of Insys in January. Acting U.S. Attorney William D. Weinreb said, "Mr. Kapoor and his company stand accused of bribing doctors to overprescribe a potent opioid and committing fraud on insurance companies solely for profit. Today's arrest and charges reflect our ongoing efforts to attack the opioid crisis from all angles. We must hold the industry and its leadership accountable - just as we would the cartels or a street-level drug dealer." Six former Insys executives and managers were charged in December.
[takyon: a262 would like you to know that Insys Therapeutics donated $500,000 to help defeat Arizona's 2016 ballot initiative that would have legalized recreational use of cannabis.]
Walgreens has announced that it will stock Narcan® (naloxone) nasal spray in all of its over 8,000 pharmacies nationwide. Naloxone is a life-saving essential medicine that can reverse opioid overdoses and treat opioid withdrawal. Naloxone is available over-the-counter in 45 states, but still requires a prescription in Hawaii, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, and Wyoming. Delaware recently allowed over-the-counter sales of naloxone. Laws in Hawaii and Missouri are pending, and Montana has agreed to grant CVS wider access to the drug.
Maybe banning kratom was a mistake.
Nationwide Public Health Emergency: Also at NYT, BBC, Reuters, and Fox News.
Insys Therapeutics Inc.: Also at NPR and Bloomberg.
Walgreens Narcan: Also at NPR, ABC, and CBS.
Previously: 4/20: The Third Time's Not the CharmJeff Sessions Reboots the Drug WarDevelopment of a Heroin VaccineGoal of US's First Opioid Court: Keep People AliveChicago Jail Handing Out Naloxone to Inmates Upon Release
another day, another case of dual construction.its not hard to figure out how these people were enable by lawmakers or what has happened with all the poppy growing in afghanistan, is it now? ... but let me step aside while the DFG designated fall guys get shredded.
Ha ha what is this guy even talking about? The U.S. doesn't protect opium fields!
🇦🇫 🇺🇸 💊💊💊 💉💉💉
Those emoji look like the pills from Dr. Mario.
Actually - it's a little hard to support your statement. The Taliban had gone a long, long way toward shutting down opium production in Afghanistan. Then, the US invaded, and opium production is at an all time high. If the US does nothing more than turn a blind eye toward to poppy fields, then they are, in effect, "protecting" the opium production.
I ABSOLURTLY DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT
U.S. Turns a Blind Eye to Opium in Afghan Town [nytimes.com]How opium defeated America in Afghanistan [salon.com]U.S. KICKS DRUG-WAR HABIT, MAKES PEACE WITH AFGHAN POPPIES [wired.com]File:Afghanistan opium poppy cultivation 1994-2007b.PNG [wikimedia.org]2016: Afghanistan opium production up 43% - UN drugs watchdog [bbc.com]
Are you okay, brother? Perhaps you should settle down and get a grip.
We can help you with that.
" "The best way to prevent drug addiction and overdose is to prevent people from abusing drugs in the first place. If they don't start, they won't have a problem." – President Donald J. Trump "
Hahahaha, that sounds a lot like one of those "winners don't use drugs" public service announcements we saw during the Reagan era. Well, fuck cracking down on doctors, go after big pharma themselves. Motherfuckers are the reason why weed is still federally illegal. CBD oil actually saved a friend of a friend's kids life (epilepsy)!
Fucking junkies are ruining things for the rest of us. Once fucked up my back during a trip and had to go to a hospital in Lancaster, which is a dump out in the middle of nowhere. Instead of responding to my intense pain quickly, the doctors thought I was just another pillhead jonesing for a fix, even though I had no history of painkiller prescription (and, indeed, I dislike opiates and never enjoyed using them recreationally. When I was prescribed Vicodin from that injury I ended up throwing half the bottle in the trash even though I could have sold them on the street for two bucks a pop).
The largest determining factor in becoming addicted is how long the initial prescription is. You get into the danger territory at about one week. Less than that and patients get a renewal if they're in pain, and get another renewal if they're in pain... Patients who get a two week prescription get hooked more often than patients who have four four-day prescriptions.
junkies are ruining things for the rest of us.
No. It's congress and the state legislatures. It's been going on for a long time.
Junkies are only ruining things for themselves. Which is fine by me.
Junkies wrecking their own lives should be fine with all of us. It doesn’t hurt me if you kill yourself. But instead of living by that idea, we’re stuck between conservatives that want the government enforcing arbitrary moral standards and liberals that want the government to save us from ourselves.
I disagree. Mostly because junkies wrecking their own lives always affects others:
The government's objective here is not arbitrary, and they're saving more than just the junkies. If they can reduce the number of junkies, they can reduce the strain on the whole of society, and improve the happiness of their citizens (both potential junkies and potential affected-by-junkies). If that means you can't inject whatever you want into your veins then I say to you - Boo Hoo.
Ah, the practical argument. It's a damn shame more people don't think that way. In this and many other political issues.
Nobody ever thinks of where all of the drug money that the junkies steal goes to. AFAIK it goes to the hands of the drug dealers who want to expand their territories and user bases.
The rich yuppies of today are not the hippies of yesteryear who grew their own dope. They are quite literally funding gang warfare with their hedonism, because they are supporting the existence of the gangs. No, established, private, independent pot shops are not always the sole growers of the products they sell. They too require sources of the stuff. So long as junkies are making their own meth/heroin/pot/whatever, then it's fine by me.
Part of it (which is a lot of money, and property turned into money) is skimmed by law enforcement. My local cops in my tiny little rural town have a very nice vehicle that says in huge letters on the side something to the effect of "bought with drug money" (I'd have to go find it to get the exact wording, but that's precisely what it means.) And of course even more goes into the pockets of law enforcement and prisons as it is taken directly from taxpayers pockets, people who otherwise aren't involved in the illicit drug trade at all.
The yuppies (and other customers) are strictly second-order, downstream effects. Not causes.
The problem boils down to the legislation that created the black illicit / otherwise unavailable drug market, which in turn creates arbitrarily high prices (and unreliable quality and dosage), which in turn puts needy druggies squarely into the "I need more money than I have" category, while at the very same time they enjoy being in the "I am already a criminal, why not just steal what I need, it's not like it'll change my status" class.
The manufacturing cost of most addictive and/or highly attractive drugs is very low. That's why the illicit market is so well addressed, and why there is so much internecine violence involved. The illegals don't bother making expensive drugs for the "home entertainment" market. The margins are too low. Why should they bother when the various governmental entities have made sure that they can make loads of money whipping up the cheapest stuff anyway?
You know how much pot and peyote are actually worth outside of the costs brought on by ill-advised legislation? A bucket of dirt and some water, that's what. Many other popular drugs are in the same, or nearly the same, class. Some require a little bit of chemistry, but really, not much. Any legal drug manufacturing facility worthy of the name could manufacture them in high quality and very, very inexpensively. If, you know, legislation wasn't in the way.
The whole black drug market is an artificially created thing, and the most of the serious problems that came along with it directly consequent to its illegal status.
Also a direct insult to personal liberty. Not a small thing, that, IMHO.
"go after big pharma themselves. "
I think a top-down approach, as well as a bottom-up, is fitting. Remember all the crap we were told about pushers, decades ago? They were predators, lowlifes, less-than-human, pushing their poison to children, and the weak. The hell with the street corner pushers. Forget about some old crack whore running a crack house. Those are small time players, and putting them out of action will do diddly-squat.
The people to go after are the LAWMAKERS who passed the laws allowing all those "legal" drugs. Go after the Big Pharma executives, those bastards KNOW they are pushing poison to old, young, and everyone. The doctors? Well, those sons of bitches know at least as well as those Big Pharma execs that they are helping to push poison. All of those are the real parasites.
A large number of junkies wouldn't even BE junkies, if their trusted medical professional hadn't got them hooked. But, it wasn't just the doctor - those execs were pushing, and the lawmakers made it "legal". The rest of the junkies couldn't have become junkies either, if the shit wasn't even being manufactured, and pumped into the supply line.
But, "Less than 1% of medical opioid users get hooked" - or words very similar to that.
Poetic justice would be, if those lawmakers and pharma execs all bury all of their own god damned children - and grand children too. They need to lose everything dear to them, to understand how badly they have fucked the American citizens.
You are partially right and partially wrong.
Of all the addicts I know not one got addicted because of their doctor. I am not saying it does not happen. But most were recreational up until it was no longer recreational. I also know many who keep it recreational and never progressed.
Well, big pharma started lacing opiods with acetaminophen so they'd kill addicts and reduce the PR problem.
According to the FDA, acetaminophen remains the leading cause of liver failure in the U.S., despite repeated government warnings. However, the majority of acetaminophen-related deaths are due to prescription drugs, not over-the-counter medications.
How about at least manslaughter charges?
There's some truth to it, normally people didn't get hooked on drugs if their lives were good, there wasn't any reason to try.
The reason we're having these issues with opioid abuse is that people get legitimate prescriptions for opioids, insufficient monitoring and wind up hooked. If we'd ban the sale of these substances there'd be more pain, but fewer addicts.
And if we'd get medical marijuana nationally, it would be a manageable problem.
If opioids were banned or more restricted you would see more suicides in addition to greater pain. People forget about all of those legit pain patients that are out there that these medicines at least make their lives semi-tolerable, if not always productive. You can cut the opioid death rate, but I suspect that most methods used will simply end up raising the suicide rate by an amount roughly equal to any reduction in opioid deaths, and driving yet more people to the black market.
His party believes it works for financial and family planning, too.
If you just do what they tell you, they'll be fine.
Yep, it's the bad hombres from south of the border poisoning America, not big pharma.
Build the wall! It will solve all problems!
As it was (not) learned during Prohibition, as long as there is demand there will be supply. Gangs are reputed to give free samples to hook people into buying their drugs, big pharma bribes doctors to push their addictive drugs. Is there any moral difference between the two?
A street pusher will be sent to jail, when are sending doctors to jail?
They have been cracking down on doctors, there's been a lot of pressure to get people with "chronic pain" (nudge-nudge, wink-wink) weaned off of painkillers. I have seen it firsthand because a lot of my friends are addicted to painkillers.
Especially since we're by the Mexican border, and those Mexican Farmacias sell anything to just about anyone.
Is there any moral difference between the two?
Big pharma pay some (minimized to the max, yes) taxes
Where's the @realDonaldTrump when we really need him?
He's busy fighting the Opioid Crisis one sermon at a time.
But I really need him... you know, really, really need @realDonaldTrump right now
@rdt was posting all night and this morning, he's probably sleeping off that binge.
As a U.S. Attorney in Alabama in the 1980s, Sessions said he thought the KKK "were OK until I found out they smoked pot.”
If he doesn't fix it, will he win in 2020?
The GOP's War on Drugs – and Itself: The administration's push for tougher prosecution of drug offenders could backfire and whittle away Trump’s base. [usnews.com]
Study: Communities Most Affected By Opioid Epidemic Also Voted For Trump [npr.org]
The revenge of the 'Oxy electorate' helped fuel Trump's election upset [businessinsider.com]
Trump argues he won New Hampshire because it is a 'drug-infested den' [cnn.com]
Drug addicts don't vote. Drugs are bad. Imprisoning drug addicts will make America great.
Trump could be the catalyst that turns his own voters onto drugs.
So the problem solves itself? Half will be on drugs, the other half will be sick or dead (no health care) and/or jobless :/
Granada, panama, El Salvador, Gulf I Gulf II, Iraq I, II, III... what not involved and greeted as liberators are we up to ?
It's all war for profit, is the Colombian war still happening ? what where the CIA's profits from Afghanistan this year?
So like all of the warfare drugs no one will really be held responsible, the war on the disenfranchised and the poor will continue and 7000 people will walk away from they misery the caused all the richer.
No one will say a word, only the 7000 matter
Please Mr. President press that button
The problem is far more complex. Opiates are still the best treatment we have for severe pain. We can minimize their necessity by also legalizing marijuana, but even then there will be a non-zero need for opiates. Some pain just won't relent with an aspirin.
The problem cuts both ways. Doctors over-prescribing or falling for marketing and prescribing riskier formulations are a problem. On the other side, doctors cutting patients off cold turkey sometimes create street junkies out of otherwise average patients. Most people who take medically indicated opoids will be just fine, but some may need a little help stopping. That should be treated as just another phase of the treatment. Doctor and patient need to be able to be confident that there will be no legal implications to that phase of treatment.
We also know that stress can make withdrawal much more difficult. For example, getting ambushed by surprise bills for more money than you make in a month "due immediately" and you can't even tell what the hell they're for or why insurance didn't cover it. Meanwhile, the people dunning you are a billing service that has no idea what it's for, just that they're like super sure it's valid even though that means insurance should have covered it.
We know that cannabis reduces opioid consumption [drugabuse.com] in states that legalize it. We know that kratom has been used as an alternative to opioids [wired.com]. We know that municipalities can reduce deaths by providing safe [cbslocal.com] places [sifnyc.org] for addicts [wbur.org] to shoot up (supervised injection sites [wikipedia.org]).
There are a lot of simple solutions out there. What we've gotten instead is a ban on kratom and other previously legal highs [dea.gov] (irrespective of harm/safety), a promise of stronger drug enforcement [theatlantic.com] (same old failed policies that didn't stop crack), mixed messages on cannabis with zero momentum on descheduling it and legalizing it federally, a few token needle exchanges, and a slow rollout of Narcan (relative to its life-saving importance).
The simplest solution might be to let people die. Let tens of thousands of Trump voters die of opioid overdoses until they demand real change or can't re-elect tough-on-crime Republicans. And let the old people in both parties die so they can be cleared out (might not be feasible if anti-aging is developed, then you have to shame them instead).
When the simplest solution is to let people die then we know we've gone wrong. Sad face.
Time to hit up the bong for some more giggles. Damn, this is some good shit.
At least I don't have a fucking opioid problem!
P.S. I too miss @realDonaldTrump at these times.
P.P.S. Watching Trump on YouTube while totally baked is surreal and often hysterical... he's got to be reading from a chatbot right?
Hell yeah. Don't forget to Praise Kek btw.
If he isn't posting on his official SoylentNews account [soylentnews.org], you could always check out his official Twitter account [twitter.com]. I am getting a feeling that he might send Jimmy Carter to negotiate with Kim Jong-un [nytimes.com] based on a tweet from 8 hours ago.
All of those are potential parts of a solution. I'll believe the feds are serious about actually solving the problem when they let go of their sacred cows. Part of the problem is that for way too much of law enforcement and even the justice system, justice was long ago forgotten. Today it's all about hunting people and locking them in cages. Guilt, innocence, and justice are irrelevant to them. Decriminalizing any drugs means only that they lose a perfectly good excuse to exert their authority.
I had a procedure this summer and they gave me opiates for the pain. The first day was fantastic. The second day was ok. The third day they gave me intense headaches. What am i doing wrong? How can i develop a more sustainable addiction?
I would enjoy having that lovely feeling on a regular basis.
Have you tried doing something you enjoy doing in life? Maybe some exercise, some cupcakes... or shooting up a school or music event? Regular stuff, not drugs.
Cupcakes are a drug.
Oh, yes, those chocolate cupcakes, or White cake cupcakes, are both delicious to the extreme.
When the frosting is put on them you become a pure addict. I don't give a flying fuck about mainlining cake, but when you cut a piece off that has that nice cake frosting, all bets are off.
There is a reason why Star Trek had a whole episode dedicated to...mint frosting. You will never understand unless you felt that addiction yourself.
Personally, if the neural peptide cake is covered with mint whipped cream frosting, I'd rather not partake.
Not sure if there's an element of sarcasm there or not.
Whatever, it bothers me to have odd sensations and feelings from drugs. Very low levels of an opiate are good sometimes, for my aches and pains. Very low - just enough to relax all those tensions. No feel-good though. If I start the feel-good, I know I've had far to much. It fuzzes the senses, clogs thoughts, and just generally screws me up. I've never wanted any part of that.
Why have you stopped having sex, then?
Sex is an expensive habit.
Study your agonists, avoid rigorous scheduling (the "ritual" and routine tell your body to prepare for drugs - effectively raising your tolerance), allow yourself to come down before re-dosing to avoid quckly building a high tolerance, better to simply avoid daily use though if you want a sustainable high that won't require large amounts of drugs.
It is even more pervasive than doctors prescribing to patients. I've mentioned a coupe of times that I had medical problems last year. A pinched hernia put me into shock, the ambulance was called, and almost the first thing they did was to shoot me up with morphine. You mention "severe pain". There was little "pain" associated with my problem. On a scale of one to ten, the pain was about 1 - comparable to maybe stubbing your toe. Maybe hitting your finger with a hammer. Or a moderately bad headache. I was simply NOT in any kind of severe pain. But, the ambulance crew shot me full of morphine, all the same.
From my own EMT training, that medical crew should have given me NOTHING. My teacher harped on one them more than any other - stabilize and transport. By "stabilize" she meant stop bleeding, get respiration going, treat for shock. An EMT is simply NOT supposed to administer drugs, unless ABSOLUTELY necessary.
I needed no drugs, period. But the ambulance crew is part of the system into which Big Pharma is pumping their drugs. Those executives have to get their bonuses, but there will be no bonuses if they aren't pushing unnecessary drugs.
That is a problem. I can only imagine how many average people became street junkies because big pharma advertised one of the most addictive formulations ever as non-addictive.
No, they're not. If they're going to be legal at all, they need to be used as last line options after already having tried the other safer options. Marijuana, hypnosis and medication are all effective methods of managing pain. And then there's the numerous other pharmaceuticals that don't have the risk of addiction that opioids have.
There's also just simply allowing people to feel pain. At a certain point, if you don't learn how to manage your own pain, you're going to be stuck on pills forever. Which isn't a good thing, even the ones that don't have the issues with addiction have long term consequences when taken for years on end.
Disclaimer: Posting anonymously as I could lose my job.
Are we sure that free access to Cannabis is the answer? Many years ago I smoked a lot of that shit and the long term effects were not good. I went from being a "normal", fully functioning member of society to a complete drop out within a very short period of time (couple of years). I loved the weed, being stoned was amazing, granting me true freedom of mind, sometimes just laughing for hours, other times exploring the real deep meanings of life and the universe with like minded friends.
But then the dark side... unnerving paranoia, inability to maintain relationships even with the stoner "friends" and no hope of a job because I was way too wasted all the time. Endless cannabis means you will spiral down - even if each individual session seems fantastic your life will start to unravel. And worst of all, once you're in that state of mind and while you're constantly wasted you probably won't notice how bad things are getting.
And then the depression sets in. Hard. I've never experienced a down like it and I hope never get to that same place again. Got to the point where I was seriously considering making the last exit... to the point where I was working through a list of suicide methods and trying to work out which would be "best" (I know, sounds screwy now, thinking that jumping off a skyscraper would at least give a couple of minutes of free fall).
Luckily I met my anchor and I was pulled back from that abyss but it was a close thing. I cut down the weed and eventually gave it up altogether. Now I'm so "normal" my ex stoner friends wouldn't recognise me but I'm alive with a family who genuinely don't know anything about any of this. Well, obviously my partner knows I'm an ex-smoker but not how close to the edge I was when we met.
We need something better than cannabis to replace the opioids - hang on, isn't cannabis just another opioid itself?
Use a strain that has a minium of 5% CBD and you will avoid most of the negative effect you describe.
Cannabis is not considered an opioid, although it can affect opioid receptors [wikipedia.org].
States with legalized cannabis have seen lower opioid overdoses:
https://drugabuse.com/legalizing-marijuana-decreases-fatal-opiate-overdoses/ [drugabuse.com]https://www.leafly.com/news/science-tech/medical-marijuana-opioid-pain-relief-substitute [leafly.com]
Cannabis overdoses are non-existent. Cannabis while driving (potentially leading to a higher frequency of car crashes) is illegal, and could be made moot to a degree by self-driving cars when they land (or today's Uber and yesterday's taxis).
The other AC suggests a strain with more CBD instead of THC in it. Now that states are allowing legal/medical cannabis, many new strains have been developed with precise labeling of chemical components. You can have an idea of what you're getting, unlike the dime bags of yore. And you have greater choice. Although some strains are pushing THC to ridiculous heights, you can just avoid those.
Kratom [soylentnews.org] may be an alternative to cannabis and opioids.
My wife watches a lot of those Camera Cops shows and it seems like every single car they stop has "a strong smell of cannabis". Those drivers must know that driving on cannabis is illegal because here in the UK any cannabis use is still illegal. Well, sort of, there are very strange rules depending on the amount you are caught with (self use, but you can't buy it legally or carry it in public, more than a small amount is 'attempt to supply' I think and above that who knows).
When/where cannabis becomes legal, the problem is not the "smell" of cannabis (often used as justification for a search). Unless it's illegal for passengers to use or even carry cannabis in the car (compare to state open alcohol container laws), the main question becomes "Is the driver driving while intoxicated?" That question is not necessarily easy to answer [npr.org].
I like to think that, when it comes to driving, small amounts of cannabis or alcohol actually make people better, safer drivers. Obviously too much of either will reverse the effect and make them retarded drivers, like a distant family member who while drunk crashed his car into the front of a pet store, or like my friend's then-fiancee who while stoned took us right off the edge of a freeway off-ramp.
"I only had one Bud, occifer."
You do realize that "I like to think" isn't an argument for or against any position.
But, just how "small" an amount of alcohol or cannabis are you talking about? With alcohol, I'd like to stick to pretty well established facts. A single drink doesn't impair the average adult. Two drinks begin to impair. Three drinks impair the driver a bit more. By the fourth drink many people are acting downright stupid. You metabolize a drink per hour, so two drinks over the course of two hours is pretty much equivalent to one drink when you leave the bar. Before the laws got stupid, it was pretty routine for me to nurse three or four drinks over the course of three or four hours, then drive home.
Today - sniffing a beer cap is just about enough to get you arrested for drunk driving.
You take your chances with your ideas on becoming a better driver. I'll pass.
" By the fourth drink many people are acting downright stupid. "
Lightweight. It takes me at least a 12-pack -- of strong beer like Natty Ice or Stone -- to start acting stupid.
We're talking people in general. The masses. Unless you have a tour bus of booze hounds, then the average tour bus has people starting to get stupid on just three or four beers. Ethanol Fueled is not the average American. Ethanol Fueled is the standard by which insecure rednecks judge their own performance. Some of my neighbors and work mates have proudly proclaimed "I bought a 30 pack on the way home Friday night, and then bought another one Saturday so that I'd have some beer for Sunday."
I don't like beer enough to buy a thirty pack - I prefer some kind of spirit, preferably Scotch whiskey. But then, I feel no need to drink a bottle on the weekend to prove how manly I am.
Both Scotch and Scots Whiskey or Whisky are for tryhard pretenders. Even the shit that's been aged 15 years. But you've already admitted that you're not a hardcore drinker, so could I suggest something more to your taste?
Like, Boones Farm Stawberry Hill? Maybe other Wine-coolers that come in 4-packs. Perhaps some Michelob Ultra?
To my taste, you say? Scotch works just fine. Long ago, when I was more adventurous, I'd go for almost anything - rum, gin, vodka, almost anything with a bunch of fruit in it, anything with sloe, Jaegameister (sp?) tequila. I seldom demanded the best stuff, but I never drank the crap, either. Beer never was really my thing, especially not pilsener. I do enjoy a good ale, preferably a nice dark one, with some body to it. Wine coolers mostly suck - though I have bought a few for women who liked them. Andre' Cold Duck was probably the best of all that stuff.
Surprised you didn't offer some of those putrid flavored beers. The wife stuck a bottle in my face some years back, "Here, try this - you don't need to read it, just taste it." Well - it didn't exactly "taste" like anything. After I drank, I was allowed to read it. Some stupid name, like Uncle Elmer's hard lemonade. Or, Ebenezer's kettle cleaning brew - it's hard to remember now. The bunch of women she was with at the time had at least 9 different drinks, with various silly names, but ALL of them were pilsener beers, with various flavorings added in. That's the kind of thing that can give a man nightmares, I tell you. The label says "strawberry flavored beer", but my shoe probably tastes more like strawberries.
I have seem a few studies that suggest that stoned driving tends not to be a problem since stoned drivers tend to drive slower and more carefully in proportion to their impairment.
It's interesting that the complaint is that they can't tell you're stoned but they still worry about it.
The complaint isn't that they can't tell that people are stoned, the issue is that it's more difficult to enforce the rules than it is with alcohol. Same goes for prescription medications and anything else that might effect how people drive and their reaction time.
Bottom line is that anybody that's driving impaired ought to be pulled over and arrested. I have no particular issue with people being drunk or high at home, but the moment they get in their cars and risk other people's lives is the moment they completely lose any of my support in the matter. Just because they tend not to speed doesn't mean that they're cool to drive, it just means that they're going to be driving slower when they run people over and the like.
"This person sucks at driving or is tired" usually results in much less punishment than "this person failed a field sobriety test".
"This person hit the bong an hour ago" = ???
Sure, but not zero. The goal is to correct the bad behavior, not maximize punishment (at least that is supposedly the goal). We managed w/ alcohol before the breathalyzer.
If the person demonstrates coordination, balance, good orientation, and reasonable reaction time, it's a bit silly to whine that they might have smoked pot. Honestly, is it REALLY worse if someone habitually drives intoxicated than if they habitually drive while impaired by fatigue? Impaired is impaired.
Of course, if we are going to make things illegal just because something may be hard to enforce, we'll have to ban tomatoes. It seems pot growers have been known to hang red Christmas balls on their plants (I'm not kidding!).
You have to have probable cause that they've done something illegal in order to get the blood draw necessary to make that determination in general. Pot is a particular problem because nobody really knows how to adequately determine if somebody is too impaired to drive.
Determining whether or not somebody is too drunk to drive is relatively straightforward, there's a field sobriety test and breathalyzer that can be used to establish the probable cause necessary for an arrest and more invasive testing. With pot and most other drugs, the limits aren't as well established, which makes it really tough to set the rules, you can't just say that you can't have more than X in your system because nobody really knows what that value should be and it seems to vary significantly more than for alcohol.
As it stands a lot of the impairment comes from just being tired, hungry or sleepy, none of which are currently illegal. There also isn't a legal standard of how focused and attentive you need to be in order to operate a motor vehicle in any country that I know of.
We managed DUI enforcement before there even was a breathalyser. Close your eyes and touch your nose. Walk the line heel to toe. Recite the alphabet, etc. If you flunk, there's your probable cause.
> ...Endless cannabis means you will spiral down ...
While it was interesting reading your story, you are being very presumptuous to use "you will" instead of "I did". Your experience may or may not be common, but it is not the only possible experience with dope.
For just one counter-example, a brilliant friend got a job doing extremely complex mathematical analysis (nonlinear fluid dynamics). He found that when he was high he had more focus and was more productive -- and he was a star at that job. He mostly quit smoking pot after that job was over.
You've got unlimited access to alcohol. Did that make you an alcoholic? I've got access to pretty much everything and yet I sit here sober.
Alcohol is the solution.
It sounds like you abused pot hard. But I'm betting despite that that spending a year or two in jail and coming out with a scarlet letter saying nothing but menial jobs for you for the rest of your life would not have helped. In fact, it might have more or less stuck you there until you took that exit.
Our answer to controlling cannabis is so bad that free access is actually better, even for those who refuse to use moderation. At least it leaves them some chance to get it together.
Sounds like you had more problems than just weed. Smoking, for me, made my life complete. I have never been happier, more succesful, had more friends and better relationships, than when I spent almost 100% of my waking hours high. Being sober is a pitiful existence being crushed by daily drudgery, depression, and an inability to connect or communicate with others.
...to the Tyrant behind the platitudes!I have to be honest, if there wasn't already proof that unser Fuhrer was a racist idiot, it's this right here. His primary voter base, i.e. rural white rednecks and 3k out-of-work coal miners, are the ones suffering from the opioid crisis the most. So of course it's a national emergency that his voterbase is dying, oh no! But when us colored folk get killed by cops, or Hispanics get blasted by hurricanes, or, GOD FORBID an undocumented citizen has cancer and needs medical attention -- he's willing to just throw us all under the bus time and time again. It's true -- only white votes matter, and this is just more proof of it. Makes me sick this man hasn't been impeached yet. Opioid crisis? What about the War on Drugs? That wasn't good enough? Why not Repubs just call it what it always is for them: "Platitudes for our Voterbase! Because Your Vote Matters more than You Do(tm)!"
So of course it's a national emergency that his voterbase is dying, oh no!
Trump foot-dragged for months on declaring a "nationwide public health emergency", skipped the "national emergency declaration" option, and hasn't committed real resources to the problem. You live up to your username yet again.
He also foot-dragged on condemning actual Naz- Oh wait. He never condemned any Nazis for killing a woman at a White Supremacist rally.Meanwhile, Puerto Rico is without electricity and millions of undocumented citizens might have their livelihoods ripped from their hands because those voters he "foot-dragged" about hate brown people.You seemed to miss the word "platitudes," as in, he's a sociopath-racist who also simultaneously doesn't care about who he steps on as long as he sucks votes out of what's left of uneducated whites while keeping his educated, rich white friends in power. The biggest part of that is pretending those uneducated whites matter to him, because that's how he and his bigot-capitalist buddies stay in control.
Look what's the point of "fixing" coal jobs or fixing opioid deaths if people think it's the other team's fault? Half the country thinks Obama destroyed the country. So long as it stays destroyed these are guaranteed votes. That's how they're playing everything. It's chaos. Nukes in North Korea? Not my fault. Here's some noise to fill the front 4 pages of the news this week.
Oh, FFS - one more time. As much as I detest Nazis, those particular Nazis were permitted to take part in a legal protest, and they were obeying the law. The bitch who was killed was a socialist activist who was there for the sole purpose of instigating a riot. Her fellow socialists attacked the Nazis. The socialists were using potentially deadly force. The Nazi in the car has a pretty valid case of "self defense". That defense may or may not work in court, but the fact is, he was under attack by the group that the socialist activist was attached to.
Yes, Nazi evil. But, socialist equally evil. So, just fuck off with your whining about some dead socialist bitch.
The Nazi in the car has a pretty valid case of "self defense".
The Nazi in the car has a pretty valid case of "self defense".
Whatever you smoke, stop it, seems it leads in a bad trip and triggers paranoia at the end.
Self defence require the presence of immediate danger - I find hard to believe that the idiot went back to his car and instead of escaping the danger (assuming he was in one) he heads back for quite a distance towards the crowd which supposedly threatened him [youtube.com].If that's a "self-defence" reaction, then I suppose him driving in reverse afterwards makes him offensive?
If you weren't already going to hell, that post would have punched your ticket.
I'll be in good company with Arnaud Amalric, right? Except, I don't like Nazis or commies. Let them kill each other. Arnaud was willing to kill a bunch of his own, to ensure he got the other side. Isn't that worser? Or not?
Some people use standard time; others observe daylight saving time. Let the killing begin, eh?
> The Nazi in the car has a pretty valid case of "self defense".
You haven't seen the videos, I say hopefully.
" His primary voter base, i.e. rural white rednecks and 3k out-of-work coal miners, "
It's that kind of dismissive attitude that loses elections and gets establishments overthrown. Even I'm a Californian and there's nothing that pisses me off more than Silicon Valley wagging their fingers and trying to dictate to the rest of the nation what to believe and how to behave. And the worst part about those types is that they're nothing but a bunch of goddamn hypocrites -- Silicon Valley is to diversity just as Hollywood is to feminism.
If North Korea manages to launch a nuke towards the West Coast, I will pray to Jesus Christ that it hits San Francisco or Sunnyvale or something -- though taking out Los Angeles would also do the rest of the nation a favor.
was a racistCould you post a few videos of him being racist? I am sure those exist. I am coming up a little dry to back you up. My google fu is failing today.
> Could you post a few videos of him being racist? I am sure those exist. I am coming up a little dry to back you up. My google fu is failing today.
If you can't find videos of Trump being racist, it's time to seek help for your condition.
AC's "condition" seems to be that he thinks for himself.
Listen to you - "We told you that he's racist, boy, wtf you need some kind of proof? We say who's racist, you take our word, or you're one of them!"
That's kinda interesting and all - but WTF are "colored folk" killing "colored folk"? Don't black lives really matter? And, if the "colored folk" don't realy care about black lives, then WTF should any of the rest of us?
No matter what you do with drugs, people will use them. If you make weed hard to get, people will use spice--Which is far worse. Limiting safe supply of drugs will simply make drug seeking individuals go somewhere else, and possibly somewhere much more dangerous for their high. Meth? Spice? These are responses to making drugs illegal.
If people want to use drugs, let them. Yes, some people will be harmed but life isn't a safe thing and you won't get out alive anyway. Legal weed will absolutely help A LOT, however, it won't really really be stigma-free for quite some time.
You just watch: now they've legalized weed, CO, WA and CA will become basket cases like the southern States.
To an extent yes, but the people who wind up having serious drug problems are usually either hooked because they were given an opiod prescription without adequate monitoring or who have serious issues with their lives that they're trying to avoid.
It's unrealistic to ever expect to completely solve drugs, but fixing our broken medical system and making sure that people have the means to work their way up in society would likely do wonders for cutting the rates down in a way that incarceration hasn't.
So, tell me - how many people do you know who DON'T issues in their lives?
Seriously, why is this _necessarily_ a bad thing?
It's been shown that living entities turn to drugs when it's a better alternative than their living situation. If we prevent people from overdosing to death, are we going to pull them out of poverty? Give them friends to hug and be merry with? Give them a _reason_ to live, as opposed to dope up? The studies have shown that if they have a good living situation and are part of a friendly community, they turn away from offers of drugs -- so it's (almost) only people with severe underlying problems that are abusing the drugs. Never have I heard a discussion about helping those underlying problems.
Lets continue. So what if people overdose and die? Seriously. Why is that a drawback? Because they _might_ be happier later? Because 1% of those that do were unhappy family people, and disturbing a family is more abhorrent than a car wreck? Are we angry because 5% of them work and help build the economy? What about the 50% on the streets who don't have a job, and die there? Do we care if they die? _Why_ do we care? (Are you _certain_ that remaining alive, living on the streets, with the _hope_ of becoming a millionaire one day is better than dying on the streets tomorrow because you haven't eaten but rotten dumpster food for three days?)
Are these deaths really affecting people that would be happy and content without these drugs? Are these deaths really affecting the economy? Without a religious, "If You Can Live You Must Live"-decree, _why_ are we so concerned about druggies, homeless, depressed, chronically miserable people dying?
How do we prevent overpopulation? What do we do with people who can't work for their living? What if we don't have enough food readily available for everyone? In the past we had wars; in the present, we just keep growing. I see a distinct benefit to these deaths.
Why is this country so hell-bent on maintaining individual suffering for as long as possible?
Let them use the drugs. Let them die whenever they happen to die. They're not losing anything and we're not losing anything. It doesn't matter. Or does it? Please elaborate.
Democrats want to spend 45 billion on this? Surprise, surprise.That's over $100 per person; an obvious money grab.
You're right! Tax cuts and deregulation to the rescue.