>Florida have enacted mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients
which is, ironically, the kind of Big Government bullshit the right-wing in this country claims to want less of. it's hypocritical.
1,411 karma · joined November 14, 2012
which is, ironically, the kind of Big Government bullshit the right-wing in this country claims to want less of. it's hypocritical.
You can't buy prepared food with food stamps, a fact welfare bashers seem totally ignorant of.
I wonder if Star Wars will suffer the same fate at the box office eventually.
harm reduction circles always recommend testing the drugs yourself with a reagent kit, easily acquired online, because otherwise there is absolutely no way to know what was ingested.
not saying your friend didn't take LSD, nor am I naive enough to think LSD does no harm, just that if your friend didn't test the tab themselves, they have no idea what they took. unless they personally know the chemist, I suppose.
I'd save Christmas and birthday cash to pay for my subscription annually.
Then World of Warcraft came around...looking back, that was the end of the Realm.
It's still around, believe it or not. The player count is usually ~20 people. Sometimes I get nostalgic and install it just to hear the music when it launches.
Ahh, memories. Damn shame the game is owned by a private family now instead of actual developers, the game would be a massive hit on mobile with a f2p model.
I naively walked around this planet giving the benefit of the doubt to anything and everything as well, for a long, long time.
Frankly, it's apples and oranges IMO.
Ulterior motives aside, how about if you wanted to run that same study with LSD?
Would a Schedule I drug have been as accessible as a Schedule II drug?
kratom is usually sold as a powdered leaf. you can't smoke it, you can't snort it. you can make a tea out of it if you're diligent. a spoonful is usually swallowed as a powder with a thick juice.
it is habit-forming. to an addict it can stop withdrawals in it's tracks, to an opiate naive person it can provide a buzz, nothing extreme and the subsequent withdrawals are also nothing too terrible.
to an opiate addict it is, frankly, a life saver. this is something with the potential to free a person of an opiate addiction, provided they want to be free badly enough.
it's quite easy to use kratom to replace your drug of choice, not for getting high, it'd be pointless. you simply use the kratom to keep the withdrawals at bay. then, simply get off the kratom after a few weeks of use. you do this because kratom withdrawal is more forgiving than something like heroin.
this is impossible with methadone and suboxone. once you go on methadone, you better plan on never getting off. the withdrawals can quite literally last months.
people have successfully transitioned from methadone/suboxone to kratom and then quit use of opiates altogether, being free from the prison of withdrawal in a week instead of months.
this ban will only serve to worsen the structure fire that is the opiate epidemic.
it is habit-forming. to an addict it can stop withdrawals in it's tracks, to an opiate naive person it can provide a buzz, nothing extreme and the subsequent withdrawals are also nothing too terrible.
to an opiate addict it is, frankly, a life saver. this is something with the potential to free a person of an opiate addiction, provided they want to be free badly enough.
it's quite easy to use kratom to replace your drug of choice, not for getting high, it'd be pointless. you simply use the kratom to keep the withdrawals at bay. then, simply get off the kratom after a few weeks of use. you do this because kratom withdrawal is more forgiving than something like heroin.
this is impossible with methadone and suboxone. once you go on methadone, you better plan on never getting off. the withdrawals can quite literally last months.
people have successfully transitioned from methadone/suboxone to kratom and then quit use of opiates altogether, being free from the prison of withdrawal in a week instead of months.
this ban will only serve to worsen the structure fire that is the opiate epidemic.
this is pretty clever, it reminds me of the "cheater pool" solution to cheating in video games. flagged players are placed in a matchmaking pool with other flagged players. I'm not sure of the pros and cons to this being applied to real world competition, but I wouldn't mind it as a spectator.
A service, a product, a bribe. Something of tangible value.
If my data is being taken and I'm not interested in the service being provided in return, I feel like I'm being ripped off.
because it's an election year?
After taking these precautions, I haven't had an issue with malware since.
If you want to know what kind of black market arises when you prohibit a popular drug, you have multiple examples from recent history to look to. Such as the drug war, and the last time we tried to 'save lives' with alcohol prohibition.
punish the paying customer and hope for the best.
The argument that a hashtag should qualify as proper disclosure is without merit IMO.
Posts on social media are covered in hashtags, sometimes more than twenty hashtags are used on Instagram.
A well-hidden #sponsored hashtag buried in between, or even under, several variations of #YOLOSWAG and #drinksprite sounds nothing like proper disclosure.
someone addicted to a certain amount of heroin per day who stops using (money, access, etc) will come back to heroin with a much lower tolerance than before.
if they are sold fentanyl unknowingly, using a familiar amount can be a death sentence. if they are sold heroin cut with fentanyl, it could result in death as well.
these aren't entirely new concepts, nor are they explicitly attributable to fentanyl. addicts across the country are keeling over every day from traditional overdoses, fentanyl's presence means everyone using heroin intravenously, even the 60 year old junkie, needs to have a test shot first.
in my experience, fentanyl is good for withdrawal only. it is a cold, unfriendly high that leaves the user irritable.
it's nothing like the warm embrace of morphine.
We went to fight extremists who happen to use terrorism. We also spent most of our time and money with our dicks in our hand instead of 'killing them before they killed us.'
They don't want you dead, anyway. they want you terrified.
hook, line and sinker.
A fight wasn't stopped when a gladiator couldn't defend himself. In a Roman arena, you fought to the fucking death. Maybe against an opponent 3 times your size. Maybe against a den of lions. People held and watched these events with the explicit purpose of watching other people die.
In the UFC, once you are unable to defend yourself the fight is over. In the UFC, you can submit an opponent. Sometimes that means a fight lasts 10 seconds, with not a drop of blood spilled.
That's as apples and oranges as a comparison gets.
Yes. I just don't think it applies to the UFC. Violence is not the goal of the UFC. It isn't a bloodsport, it isn't cockfighting. Moral arguments hold no water with me in regards to the UFC.
If you tune in to the UFC just to watch someone get the shit kicked out of them, you're missing the point entirely.
Personally, I watch the UFC to see two athletes of equal skill compete in what I consider a sport. Many fights end with zero blood. Some fights end in seconds. Blood is a very much a by-product IMO, not the end goal.