I think they were using the racemate. But your "giggles-and-joy" framing of meth is bullshit. Not sleeping for 3 days is psychosis-inducing no matter how you achieve that and methamphetamine is much more neurotoxic than amphetamine no matter which enantiomere.
I have, and the argument that everyone addicted had some other issue going on is pretty pointless imho. Yes, they had some other issue, and now before fixing that issue they also have to deal with being a drug addict.
This is complete rubbish. The peak years of the war on drugs had a variety of hard drugs available on street corners across all major cities.
At best it kept some amount of some drugs less visible in some suburbs and communities, while making it profitable for suppliers to cross those lines.
The main effect of the war on drugs was a level of incarceration outdoing almost any society in human history. The fact that the numbers jailed for victimless and quality of life 'crimes' kept going up is testament to the fact that there was hardly any effective deterrence.
The original Atlantic article, which this one is trying to refute, also doesn't present any evidence for the theory that 'new meth' has significant different effects on health.
After a fact dump about different types of meth, it's literally a collection of anecdotal evidence from meth users going "for the first 5 years of smoking weekly, I had a great time partying in a relaxed way with my best buds, now that I've lost my job, partner, family and home and smoke daily my mental health is fucked up".
And people working in drug care and enforcement saying "when a few rich hedonists would spend $60 for the next level high, it didn't cause schizophrenia. Now that we have thousands of former crack and opiate addicts living in tents injecting $10 bags three times a day it seems to be contaminated with something that causes detachment from reality."
The literal two most common and evergreen things in drug culture are users claiming that the old stuff was much better and would deliver a clean high without addiction for barely any money, and cops claiming that the old users were better, gentlemen fiends who did not sell their bodies or rob and exploit their own families, never bit or stabbed you when being arrested, and did not soil themselves or set fire to their own clothes while in custody.
I really appreciate your take. I think it is correct and reads as accurate. Clearly a batch problem. Also, I'm glad that the read from someone who's been in the trenches and on the ground about this issue is alignment with mine. Thanks for sharing on this thread
I mean tons of back pain is medically unexplained. It's not like physiology has a perfect record here that can be used to dismiss alternative theories.
In California weed is legal but highly regulated. It's easy to buy weed in the legal market but very difficult to be licensed to sell or grow it.
The result is that the illegal market dwarfs the legal market. The legal suppliers simply can't compete with efficient and untaxed illegal or grey market sellers.
Note that the consumers who choose the illegal market are not in general socially excluded, habitual criminals or broken down addicts. Weed is widespread in almost all parts of society and probably less prevalent along dirt poor, mentally unwell or homeless drug users, who favour fent or meth.
People with jobs and houses choose illegal weed because it's both cheaper and easier to get hold of.
Isn't it illegal in the entire US? The question doesn't seem to be whether you can obtain it legally, but how many laws you'd rather break in the process, and how much trace you'd like to leave behind. I imagine the illegal vendors are less likely to leave a discoverable trace (that could affect your future background checks etc.) than the "legal" vendors, which itself is an incentive to obtain it illegally even when it's cheaper and safer and easier to obtain less-illegally right next door.
Which basically means the US hasn't really tried legalizing it at all.
(Not advocating for any position here, just commenting on the facts.)
California is probably the best example going of how not to "legalize" weed.
However, this also highlights the primary difference between weed and meth, opiates: ease of manufacturing. The only other common drugs that come close are things like mushrooms and fermented beverages, and I'd argue both of those are still riskier.
Umm no, they submit thousands of random pages of business communication and system spec in discovery. This does not include the source code of their algorithm, which in any case if not stored in any form which can be recreated and shared. If you pay a lawyer a million bucks to read them all it would say that they don't know how the algo works. At the same time they offer you low four digits to make the case go away, if you have a case. If you don't have a valid case at all, they rapidly spend $250,000 on filings and motions which you would have to spend $100,000 to stay in the game.
The "transaction outside usual hour range" seems pretty basic.
I don't usually buy gas, coffee or snacks at 2am. But on the very rare occasion that I do, I'm dealing with some kind of personal emergency and don't also want to have to call my bank.
I get that that's also a time opportunistic thieves, etc, might be operating. But the cost of false positives is also a thing.
On the other hand, for online transactions I frequently do them outside the usual hour range.
However, before going to a distant country, which was also in very different time zone, I warned the bank that issued the card that I intended to use, so that they would not consider suspicious either the place or the time of the transactions.
reply