Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT: People climbing Mt. Everest
31 views
Skip to first unread message
popinjay999
May 25, 2012, 1:17:36 PM5/25/12
to
What a bunch of fucking idiots.
brewmaster
May 25, 2012, 3:51:03 PM5/25/12
to
On Friday, May 25, 2012 10:17:36 AM UTC-7, popinjay999 wrote:
> What a bunch of fucking idiots.
Why? I'd love to do that. Of course, I'm a couch potato and can barely walk to the corner, and it costs like $100k to do it.
> What a bunch of fucking idiots.
fffurken
May 25, 2012, 5:49:30 PM5/25/12
to
On May 25, 6:17 pm, popinjay999 <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> What a bunch of fucking idiots.
I'm sure most people are aware of your keen self-preservation
> What a bunch of fucking idiots.
instinct, Paul. When it comes to climbing big mountains, or bungee
jumping or even leaving the country, you steer as far away from that
kind of thing as you can.
When I was reading about these recent deaths on Everest, I'm pretty
sure I read this statistic - Even today, with breathing apparatus and
all that shit, 10% of successful summits end in a fatality.
So in other words, if you achieve the goal you've set yourself, it's
9/1 (or 1/10 if you prefer) that you'll die in the process of doing
it. That is NOT an insignificant number! I mean, that's roughly the
same odds for flopping a set, and how many times have we all done that
for Chrissakes! (I know, it's beautiful isn't it, that shit never gets
old). Mad!
So I'm with you on this one about the Everest climbers, what a bunch
of fucking loons.
I'm glad you're still alive by the way. I even thought of you once or
twice when that particular status was unknown. In fact, just the other
day I watched this YouTube video and I thought to myself, if Popinjay
was a kid, he'd be THIS kid -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2TcvKyKzIw
popinjay999
May 25, 2012, 8:30:44 PM5/25/12
to
you see Zack stop in his tracks? He didn't even skid. lol
otter
May 26, 2012, 11:43:34 AM5/26/12
to
fffurken
May 27, 2012, 12:07:20 AM5/27/12
to
On May 26, 4:43 pm, otter <bighorn_b...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Dying on Everest beats living in Fresno
That's debatable. Everest is really cold. I hate the fucking cold.
> Dying on Everest beats living in Fresno
Clave
May 27, 2012, 1:34:58 AM5/27/12
to
"fffurken" <fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:07c1730f-f84e-4bf1...@k5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
brown -- there was no horizon. Creepy as hell.
I have absolutely no desire to return.
Jim
news:07c1730f-f84e-4bf1...@k5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> On May 26, 4:43 pm, otter <bighorn_b...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dying on Everest beats living in Fresno
>
> That's debatable. Everest is really cold. I hate the fucking cold.
The one time I was in Fresno the sky and the ground were a uniform shade of
>
>> Dying on Everest beats living in Fresno
>
> That's debatable. Everest is really cold. I hate the fucking cold.
brown -- there was no horizon. Creepy as hell.
I have absolutely no desire to return.
Jim
Pepe Papon
May 27, 2012, 3:19:44 AM5/27/12
to
On Sat, 26 May 2012 08:43:34 -0700 (PDT), otter
<bighor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Dying on Everest beats living in Fresno.
All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia.
<bighor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Dying on Everest beats living in Fresno.
fffurken
May 27, 2012, 11:32:57 AM5/27/12
to
On May 27, 6:34 am, "Clave" <clav...@the.monastery.com> wrote:
> The one time I was in Fresno the sky and the ground were a uniform shade of
> brown -- there was no horizon. Creepy as hell.
That actually sounds (sorry, reads to keep WiNH happy) really fucking
> The one time I was in Fresno the sky and the ground were a uniform shade of
> brown -- there was no horizon. Creepy as hell.
creepy!
I have no desire to visit California (nor have I been) but I would
quite happy to meet most Californians on this newsgroup for a beer
there. Except Peptard.
VegasJerry
May 27, 2012, 11:44:33 AM5/27/12
to
Jerry
otter
May 27, 2012, 12:08:24 PM5/27/12
to
If you ignore the fact that it is (or was) the center of the crystal
meth universe.
Pepe Papon
May 27, 2012, 7:34:17 PM5/27/12
to
On Sun, 27 May 2012 08:32:57 -0700 (PDT), fffurken
<fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I have no desire to visit California (nor have I been)
Thank goodness. We have enough pollution here, already.
<fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I have no desire to visit California (nor have I been)
brewmaster
May 27, 2012, 8:14:23 PM5/27/12
to
brewmaster
May 27, 2012, 8:13:43 PM5/27/12
to
On Sunday, May 27, 2012 8:32:57 AM UTC-7, fffurken wrote:
If you are including me in the list of people you'd be happy to meet, I'd be happy to meet you too.
otter
May 28, 2012, 12:43:20 AM5/28/12
to
companies standing in the way.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meth/etc/cron.html
brewmaster
May 28, 2012, 1:52:30 AM5/28/12
to
otter
May 28, 2012, 3:10:06 AM5/28/12
to
up the remaining source, as it did in Oregon. Take a look at the
link. If you can find the Frontline video itself, it explains it in
detail. No ephedrine or psuedoephedrine means no crystal meth.
popinjay999
May 28, 2012, 5:07:17 PM5/28/12
to
On May 28, 12:10 am, otter <bighorn_b...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> If they make psuedoephedrine a prescription drug, it pretty much dries
> up the remaining source, as it did in Oregon. Take a look at the
> link. If you can find the Frontline video itself, it explains it in
> detail. No ephedrine or psuedoephedrine means no crystal meth.
I remember years ago taking Sudafed to dry up my sinuses when I had a
>
> If they make psuedoephedrine a prescription drug, it pretty much dries
> up the remaining source, as it did in Oregon. Take a look at the
> link. If you can find the Frontline video itself, it explains it in
> detail. No ephedrine or psuedoephedrine means no crystal meth.
cold. Is that the same shit?
fffurken
May 28, 2012, 8:22:20 PM5/28/12
to
On May 27, 4:44 pm, VegasJerry <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
> > I have no desire to visit California (nor have I been) but I would
> > quite happy to meet most Californians on this newsgroup for a beer
> > there. Except Peptard.
>
> Had some motorcycle work done in Fresno at a place called Williams. Is it still there?
Jerry, how the fuck would I know?
> > I have no desire to visit California (nor have I been) but I would
> > quite happy to meet most Californians on this newsgroup for a beer
> > there. Except Peptard.
>
> Had some motorcycle work done in Fresno at a place called Williams. Is it still there?
Beldin the Sorcerer
May 28, 2012, 10:33:18 PM5/28/12
to
"popinjay999" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ee13350c-e9c2-435b...@l10g2000pbi.googlegroups.com...
Yes, Peepee. It's why that stuff is behind the counter at pharmacies now
popinjay999
May 28, 2012, 11:35:34 PM5/28/12
to
On May 28, 7:33 pm, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net>
wrote:
> Yes, Peepee. It's why that stuff is behind the counter at pharmacies now
I thought I saw some recently in the regular aisles. Not that I was
looking for it, because I don't use that shit. When I feel a cold
coming on I load up on garlic and use sodium chlorite, and it works
great. Perhaps it is Massachusetts that makes them keep the sudafed
behind the counter. That would figure. It's ok to butt-fuck your
"civil union companion" on a public bus stop, but don't try to buy any
sudafed or they'll throw you in jail. Sounds like Massachusetts.
wrote:
> Yes, Peepee. It's why that stuff is behind the counter at pharmacies now
looking for it, because I don't use that shit. When I feel a cold
coming on I load up on garlic and use sodium chlorite, and it works
great. Perhaps it is Massachusetts that makes them keep the sudafed
behind the counter. That would figure. It's ok to butt-fuck your
"civil union companion" on a public bus stop, but don't try to buy any
sudafed or they'll throw you in jail. Sounds like Massachusetts.
Beldin the Sorcerer
May 29, 2012, 12:13:32 AM5/29/12
to
news:47c54637-4915-4c40...@ra8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
Not the original stuff.
It's a federal law.
Switch to phenylephrine
In late 2004, Pfizer publicly disclosed its plans to make available a new
over-the-counter product, Sudafed PE, which does not include
pseudoephedrine. Decongestants with other ingredients were completely
converted to phenylephrine later in 2005. Original Sudafed is still offered
behind the counter to customers 18 years of age or older upon request,
requiring the customer to show ID and sign a sales log next to a record of
their name and address.
In the United States, section 711 of the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act
of 2005 reclassifies phenylpropanolamine, pseudoephedrine and ephedrine as
Schedule Listed Chemicals (SLC).[10] SLCs were reduced by the Federal
pertransaction sales limit from 9 grams to 3.6 grams. The amount recently
proposed by the Administration requires behind-the-counter storage or locked
cabinet storage.
On May 28, 7:33 pm, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net>
wrote:
> Yes, Peepee. It's why that stuff is behind the counter at pharmacies now
I thought I saw some recently in the regular aisles
***
wrote:
> Yes, Peepee. It's why that stuff is behind the counter at pharmacies now
I thought I saw some recently in the regular aisles
Not the original stuff.
It's a federal law.
Switch to phenylephrine
In late 2004, Pfizer publicly disclosed its plans to make available a new
over-the-counter product, Sudafed PE, which does not include
pseudoephedrine. Decongestants with other ingredients were completely
converted to phenylephrine later in 2005. Original Sudafed is still offered
behind the counter to customers 18 years of age or older upon request,
requiring the customer to show ID and sign a sales log next to a record of
their name and address.
In the United States, section 711 of the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act
of 2005 reclassifies phenylpropanolamine, pseudoephedrine and ephedrine as
Schedule Listed Chemicals (SLC).[10] SLCs were reduced by the Federal
pertransaction sales limit from 9 grams to 3.6 grams. The amount recently
proposed by the Administration requires behind-the-counter storage or locked
cabinet storage.
BillB
May 29, 2012, 12:55:50 AM5/29/12
to
On 5/25/2012 10:17 AM, popinjay999 wrote:
> What a bunch of fucking idiots.
Mountaineering can be a lot of fun. Everest...not so much. I would never
> What a bunch of fucking idiots.
attempt it, no matter how well supported. You think getting up it is
crazy - try getting down.
Bill "The Truth" Bradley
BillB
May 29, 2012, 1:01:38 AM5/29/12
to
On 5/27/2012 5:13 PM, brewmaster wrote:
> California is awesome.
I couldn't agree more. I can't wait to go again.
Bill "The Truth" Bradley
> California is awesome.
I couldn't agree more. I can't wait to go again.
Bill "The Truth" Bradley
VegasJerry
May 29, 2012, 9:04:29 AM5/29/12
to
Jerry "(In) The Way" 'n Vegas
otter
May 30, 2012, 9:51:55 AM5/30/12
to
is climbable.
You can die on any mountain. I have a friend who got mountain
sickness on Rainier, which is only about 14K ft. He was young, in
great shape, and an experienced climber. Luckily, they were able to
get him down.
Still, if I were to die, and I'm pretty sure that will happen, I can
think of worse places than on a mountain.
Randy Hudson
May 30, 2012, 6:20:14 PM5/30/12
to
In article <9efa1842-127e-4023...@f7g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
the ton. The laws making first ephedrine, and then pseudoephedrine, harder
to obtain in the US just made it harder for garage labs to compete,
protecting the bigger manufacturing and smuggling operations ("organized
crime").
otter <bighor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If they make psuedoephedrine a prescription drug, it pretty much dries
> up the remaining source, as it did in Oregon. Take a look at the
> link. If you can find the Frontline video itself, it explains it in
> detail. No ephedrine or psuedoephedrine means no crystal meth.
Nonsense. Meth comes across the longest undefended border in the world, by
> If they make psuedoephedrine a prescription drug, it pretty much dries
> up the remaining source, as it did in Oregon. Take a look at the
> link. If you can find the Frontline video itself, it explains it in
> detail. No ephedrine or psuedoephedrine means no crystal meth.
the ton. The laws making first ephedrine, and then pseudoephedrine, harder
to obtain in the US just made it harder for garage labs to compete,
protecting the bigger manufacturing and smuggling operations ("organized
crime").
popinjay999
May 30, 2012, 6:47:20 PM5/30/12
to
On May 30, 3:20 pm, i...@panix.com (Randy Hudson) wrote:
> In article <9efa1842-127e-4023-8335-
this cesspool of a newsgroup after all these years? Trust me, if you
wait another five years to check in again you probably won't miss
much.
If I remember your name correctly, you were one of the more
knowledgeable people who used to post. VERY knowledgeable.
> In article <9efa1842-127e-4023-8335-
>
> Nonsense. Meth comes across the longest undefended border in the world, by
> the ton. The laws making first ephedrine, and then pseudoephedrine, harder
> to obtain in the US just made it harder for garage labs to compete,
> protecting the bigger manufacturing and smuggling operations ("organized
> crime").
Well now, this is a surprise, Randy. What prompted you to check in on
> Nonsense. Meth comes across the longest undefended border in the world, by
> the ton. The laws making first ephedrine, and then pseudoephedrine, harder
> to obtain in the US just made it harder for garage labs to compete,
> protecting the bigger manufacturing and smuggling operations ("organized
> crime").
this cesspool of a newsgroup after all these years? Trust me, if you
wait another five years to check in again you probably won't miss
much.
If I remember your name correctly, you were one of the more
knowledgeable people who used to post. VERY knowledgeable.
otter
May 31, 2012, 7:38:57 AM5/31/12
to
On May 30, 5:20 pm, i...@panix.com (Randy Hudson) wrote:
> In article <9efa1842-127e-4023-8335-ef4c53a6c...@f7g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
still holds. I didn't say just limiting it in the US would solve the
problem. But it IS a problem that can be solved on the supply side.
It takes factories to create these 2 drugs, and it is possible to
control production, as long as you prevent leaks. Mexico, Canada, and
India have all worked with the US to combat the problem, however it is
difficult to tell other countries what to do, when we refuse to take
the simple step of making psuedoephedrine a prescription drug
ourselves.
If you have an argument with this, you should at least take a look at
the Frontline Show. They go into detail on the history of the
problem, and what's been done in Mexico, Canada, India, etc. They
also have some interesting graphs that clearly show the effects of
limiting the supply side.
> In article <9efa1842-127e-4023-8335-ef4c53a6c...@f7g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> otter <bighorn_b...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If they make psuedoephedrine a prescription drug, it pretty much dries
> > up the remaining source, as it did in Oregon. Take a look at the
> > link. If you can find the Frontline video itself, it explains it in
> > detail. No ephedrine or psuedoephedrine means no crystal meth.
>
> Nonsense. Meth comes across the longest undefended border in the world, by
> the ton. The laws making first ephedrine, and then pseudoephedrine, harder
> to obtain in the US just made it harder for garage labs to compete,
> protecting the bigger manufacturing and smuggling operations ("organized
> crime").
The statement " No ephedrine or psuedoephedrine means no crystal meth"
>
> > If they make psuedoephedrine a prescription drug, it pretty much dries
> > up the remaining source, as it did in Oregon. Take a look at the
> > link. If you can find the Frontline video itself, it explains it in
> > detail. No ephedrine or psuedoephedrine means no crystal meth.
>
> Nonsense. Meth comes across the longest undefended border in the world, by
> the ton. The laws making first ephedrine, and then pseudoephedrine, harder
> to obtain in the US just made it harder for garage labs to compete,
> protecting the bigger manufacturing and smuggling operations ("organized
> crime").
still holds. I didn't say just limiting it in the US would solve the
problem. But it IS a problem that can be solved on the supply side.
It takes factories to create these 2 drugs, and it is possible to
control production, as long as you prevent leaks. Mexico, Canada, and
India have all worked with the US to combat the problem, however it is
difficult to tell other countries what to do, when we refuse to take
the simple step of making psuedoephedrine a prescription drug
ourselves.
If you have an argument with this, you should at least take a look at
the Frontline Show. They go into detail on the history of the
problem, and what's been done in Mexico, Canada, India, etc. They
also have some interesting graphs that clearly show the effects of
limiting the supply side.
Pepe Papon
Jun 1, 2012, 2:28:27 AM6/1/12
to
On Thu, 31 May 2012 04:38:57 -0700 (PDT), otter
<bighor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On May 30, 5:20 pm, i...@panix.com (Randy Hudson) wrote:
>> In article <9efa1842-127e-4023-8335-ef4c53a6c...@f7g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>> otter <bighorn_b...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > If they make psuedoephedrine a prescription drug, it pretty much dries
>> > up the remaining source, as it did in Oregon. Take a look at the
>> > link. If you can find the Frontline video itself, it explains it in
>> > detail. No ephedrine or psuedoephedrine means no crystal meth.
>>
>> Nonsense. Meth comes across the longest undefended border in the world, by
>> the ton. The laws making first ephedrine, and then pseudoephedrine, harder
>> to obtain in the US just made it harder for garage labs to compete,
>> protecting the bigger manufacturing and smuggling operations ("organized
>> crime").
>
>The statement " No ephedrine or psuedoephedrine means no crystal meth"
>still holds. I didn't say just limiting it in the US would solve the
>problem. But it IS a problem that can be solved on the supply side.
>It takes factories to create these 2 drugs, and it is possible to
>control production, as long as you prevent leaks.
That sounds like a great idea! We could start something along the
<bighor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On May 30, 5:20 pm, i...@panix.com (Randy Hudson) wrote:
>> In article <9efa1842-127e-4023-8335-ef4c53a6c...@f7g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>> otter <bighorn_b...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > If they make psuedoephedrine a prescription drug, it pretty much dries
>> > up the remaining source, as it did in Oregon. Take a look at the
>> > link. If you can find the Frontline video itself, it explains it in
>> > detail. No ephedrine or psuedoephedrine means no crystal meth.
>>
>> Nonsense. Meth comes across the longest undefended border in the world, by
>> the ton. The laws making first ephedrine, and then pseudoephedrine, harder
>> to obtain in the US just made it harder for garage labs to compete,
>> protecting the bigger manufacturing and smuggling operations ("organized
>> crime").
>
>The statement " No ephedrine or psuedoephedrine means no crystal meth"
>still holds. I didn't say just limiting it in the US would solve the
>problem. But it IS a problem that can be solved on the supply side.
>It takes factories to create these 2 drugs, and it is possible to
>control production, as long as you prevent leaks.
lines of a metaphorical war on those drugs. What could possibly go
wrong?
--
Pepe "The Revelation" Papon
Randy Hudson
Jun 3, 2012, 12:41:39 AM6/3/12
to
The Governor of Idaho is also named Otter.
In article <1f1d9203-2384-4653...@v33g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>,
with simple labs to produce the end product, but labs can be designed to
make methamphetamine or amphetamine from other feedstocks, at a lower cost
for raw materials.
> I didn't say just limiting it in the US would solve the problem. But it
> IS a problem that can be solved on the supply side.
And I'll disagree with that, too. Marijuana needs to be grown outdoors, is
easily spotted by satellite photography, and is hugely bulky; yet there has
been no success in reducing the supply available in the US.
> It takes factories to create these 2 drugs, and it is possible to
> control production, as long as you prevent leaks. Mexico, Canada, and
> India have all worked with the US to combat the problem, however it is
> difficult to tell other countries what to do, when we refuse to take
> the simple step of making psuedoephedrine a prescription drug
> ourselves.
It takes labs with precision controls to make consistently safe and
effective drugs. But those selling methamphetamine have different
priorities than those selling pseudoephedrine.
> If you have an argument with this, you should at least take a look at
> the Frontline Show. They go into detail on the history of the
> problem, and what's been done in Mexico, Canada, India, etc. They
> also have some interesting graphs that clearly show the effects of
> limiting the supply side.
What is your goal? What are you willing to suffer, to achieve that goal?
It is possible to drive up the price of methamphetamine. At that point
you'll have succeeded in rewarding the most effective (probably the
best-organized and most violent) methamphetamine production and sales
organizations.
The cost to achieve that dubious "benefit" is that even the best-paid meth
addicts won't be able to support their habits with legal jobs, and will
shift toward crimes that victmize you and I; meth addics that commit crimes
now will have to commit more crimes, and more lucrative crimes. Again, the
main harm is done to the innocent victims of those crimes. Law enforcement
will be more active, and because they will be at greater risk and under more
pressure, they will make more mistakes, further harming innocent people.
Not to mention the people who just want to be able to get through the day
with a manageable level of sniffles, but can't because a safe, effective
drug to manage that cannot readily be obtained.
--
Randy Hudson
In article <1f1d9203-2384-4653...@v33g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>,
otter <bighor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 30, 5:20 pm, i...@panix.com (Randy Hudson) wrote:
>> In article <9efa1842-127e-4023-8335-ef4c53a6c...@f7g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>> otter <bighorn_b...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If they make psuedoephedrine a prescription drug, it pretty much dries
>>> up the remaining source, as it did in Oregon. Take a look at the
>>> link. If you can find the Frontline video itself, it explains it in
>>> detail. No ephedrine or psuedoephedrine means no crystal meth.
>>
>> Nonsense. Meth comes across the longest undefended border in the world, by
>> the ton. The laws making first ephedrine, and then pseudoephedrine, harder
>> to obtain in the US just made it harder for garage labs to compete,
>> protecting the bigger manufacturing and smuggling operations ("organized
>> crime").
>
> The statement " No ephedrine or psuedoephedrine means no crystal meth"
> still holds.
I'll still disagree, though. Those precursors make it easy for non-experts
> On May 30, 5:20 pm, i...@panix.com (Randy Hudson) wrote:
>> In article <9efa1842-127e-4023-8335-ef4c53a6c...@f7g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>> otter <bighorn_b...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If they make psuedoephedrine a prescription drug, it pretty much dries
>>> up the remaining source, as it did in Oregon. Take a look at the
>>> link. If you can find the Frontline video itself, it explains it in
>>> detail. No ephedrine or psuedoephedrine means no crystal meth.
>>
>> Nonsense. Meth comes across the longest undefended border in the world, by
>> the ton. The laws making first ephedrine, and then pseudoephedrine, harder
>> to obtain in the US just made it harder for garage labs to compete,
>> protecting the bigger manufacturing and smuggling operations ("organized
>> crime").
>
> The statement " No ephedrine or psuedoephedrine means no crystal meth"
> still holds.
with simple labs to produce the end product, but labs can be designed to
make methamphetamine or amphetamine from other feedstocks, at a lower cost
for raw materials.
> I didn't say just limiting it in the US would solve the problem. But it
> IS a problem that can be solved on the supply side.
easily spotted by satellite photography, and is hugely bulky; yet there has
been no success in reducing the supply available in the US.
> It takes factories to create these 2 drugs, and it is possible to
> control production, as long as you prevent leaks. Mexico, Canada, and
> India have all worked with the US to combat the problem, however it is
> difficult to tell other countries what to do, when we refuse to take
> the simple step of making psuedoephedrine a prescription drug
> ourselves.
effective drugs. But those selling methamphetamine have different
priorities than those selling pseudoephedrine.
> If you have an argument with this, you should at least take a look at
> the Frontline Show. They go into detail on the history of the
> problem, and what's been done in Mexico, Canada, India, etc. They
> also have some interesting graphs that clearly show the effects of
> limiting the supply side.
It is possible to drive up the price of methamphetamine. At that point
you'll have succeeded in rewarding the most effective (probably the
best-organized and most violent) methamphetamine production and sales
organizations.
The cost to achieve that dubious "benefit" is that even the best-paid meth
addicts won't be able to support their habits with legal jobs, and will
shift toward crimes that victmize you and I; meth addics that commit crimes
now will have to commit more crimes, and more lucrative crimes. Again, the
main harm is done to the innocent victims of those crimes. Law enforcement
will be more active, and because they will be at greater risk and under more
pressure, they will make more mistakes, further harming innocent people.
Not to mention the people who just want to be able to get through the day
with a manageable level of sniffles, but can't because a safe, effective
drug to manage that cannot readily be obtained.
--
Randy Hudson
0 new messages