4 ms·
This outrage-bait is curiously at odds with the sentiment in the sibling post by /u/fnordfnordfnord. Do you want front-level employees to judge whether somebody
by ufmace 4y ago
This outrage-bait is curiously at odds with the sentiment in the sibling post by /u/fnordfnordfnord. Do you want front-level employees to judge whether somebody "look like a person who would manufacturer amphetamines" or not? If the answer is yes, then people who look sketchy in some random pharmacy worker's opinion are the only ones to get arrested, whether or not they're actually up to anything. If the answer is no, then yes indeed it's correct to arrest grandmas who break the law because we're not allowed to judge whether they look like they're cooking meth or not.
- ultrarunner 4y agoPersonally, no, I don't really want front-level employees refusing to sell sinus medication on a whim. It doesn't really work for alcohol (i.e. it doesn't stop kids from getting alcohol, but does create headaches for adults). Alcohol is, in aggregate, probably more destructive to society. But it's also wrong to arrest grandmothers on drug charges and send them through the system for a violation of some legislator's arbitrary limit. Turns out it didn't solve the meth problem, but it did make the world a little worse to live in. Also, I think describing the article as "outrage-bait" is in poor taste for this site. A different implication might be that when criminal charges are tied to an action with the intent of limiting an activity, those charges will inevitably be applied to "the wrong people" (maybe you?) for a different activity, and that we should be skeptical of problem-solving-through-force.