3 ms·
> the statute that created his agency, in 1988, specifically forbids the office to support legalizing any substance classified in Schedule I by the Drug Enforce
by MichaelGG 12y ago
> the statute that created his agency, in 1988, specifically forbids the office to support legalizing any substance classified in Schedule I by the Drug Enforcement Administration
... That's so beyond obviously moronically corrupt I'm not sure what to make of it.
The idea that police should have naloxone is nice, but why should the police be responding to such things in the first place? Naloxone should be available OTC. (Well it should come bundled with OTC opiate packages, but that's probably hoping for too much.)
The big undercurrent of this article remains the same: using opiates and other drugs is a problem. I'm also a bit cynical. He appears to have been an alcoholic, only went to rehab after being arrested. Wanna guess how many alcoholics there are in government? That occasionally used coke and smoked some pot?
On the plus side, comparing medication usage to gay rights - well that's super encouraging.
- InclinedPlane 12y ago> "Wanna guess how many alcoholics there are in government? That occasionally used coke and smoked some pot?" Screw that, that's an easy bet. A recent President was an alcoholic who had used pot and almost certainly cocaine. You want something even more interesting, ask how many folks in government are currently addicted to prescription opioids, or currently regular users of cocaine. The effective legality of certain drugs is highly dependent on how much money you have and the likelihood that you will ever be pulled over by the cops and an impromptu search of your vehicle conducted, which breaks it down very much into a class/race issue.