I had some good shit typed out about addiction and booze (two posts in a row!), but then I mostly-read the article and see that he wants to get rid of a ruling which overturned a law making narcotics illegal (assuming the story didn’t just use that word).
So I’m now wondering if he would hold onto that until big pharma is off the hook for their role in the opiate epidemic.
So I’m now wondering if he would hold onto that until big pharma is off the hook for their role in the opiate epidemic.
Get the most lower class Americans struggling for healthcare (dawn of country)
Have them stick to their low paying jobs because they have healthcare (Dawn of the 20th century)
Get them hooked on opiates a rigged FDA approved of due to the company that made it funded the studies and had them on the board
Make them dependent on them when they get injured by buying doctors
Now you have a low income addict to a drug. Job fucks him over? Arrest him for homelessness. Police terry stop him? Arrest him for drug possession. He starts questioning how it all happened, “you’re some kinda commie lib hippy, arrest him!”
Thomas wants liberals in jail, he doesn’t care how.
“Thomas said in his opinion in the case that he would like to “dispose” of a 1962 ruling that struck down a California law that criminalized being addicted to narcotics, reported Newsweek.”
I had some good shit typed out about addiction and booze (two posts in a row!), but then I mostly-read the article and see that he wants to get rid of a ruling which overturned a law making narcotics illegal (assuming the story didn’t just use that word).
So I’m now wondering if he would hold onto that until big pharma is off the hook for their role in the opiate epidemic.
Thomas wants liberals in jail, he doesn’t care how.
And now that he’s in prison, he can be a slave for corporate profit. Truly wonderful, the mind of a capitalist is
“Thomas said in his opinion in the case that he would like to “dispose” of a 1962 ruling that struck down a California law that criminalized being addicted to narcotics, reported Newsweek.”
Should this be interpreted literally?
I interpret this as a metaphor for life.
I’m looking at it more like the literal usage of the word “addicted”.
Like, even if an addict legitimately quits, they still might feel addicted for many years later. Is that illegal? 🤔
I’m confused as to how that would even work