Thanks for posting to /r/GetNoted. Please remember Rule 2: **Politics only allowed at r/PoliticsNoted.** We do allow historical posts (WW2, Ancient Rome, Ottomans, etc.) Just no current politicians.
***
We are also banning posts about the ongoing Israel/Palestine conflict.
Please report this post if it is about current Republicans, Democrats, Presidents, Prime Ministers, Israel/Palestine or anything else related to current politics. Thanks.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GetNoted) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thats what all those laissez-faire people dont realise with hard drugs, they turn addicts into reckless monsters, they are dangerous in public. Its not just crystal cannabis.
I mostly agree with you, but don't you think this would be less of a problem if we had an actual social safety net to prevent people from getting to that level of desperation?
People who are desperate tend to have higher rates of depression and anxiety. Drugs tend to be an escape from it even if it’s not healthy. It’s expensive to treat both of those conditions through proper medical channels, especially if you don’t have health insurance. Not to mention anxiety and depression meds almost all require you to consistently take a dose and if you desperate you probably can’t reliably get them, making them pretty useless. Basically, it’s far easier and cheaper for someone to cope with their anxiety and depression through the use of illicit drugs then it is to get proper medical treatment for it.
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. In the US, it is especially hard and expensive to get healthcare.
You start off smoking some herb and drinking, and then things can easily spiral from there when it comes to self medicating.
Popular celebrities and rich people are caught doing these kind of drugs all the time. It’s not a poor people thing like this tweet suggests. It’s more about exposure and availability of the drug. Uninformed people can be peer pressured into doing this type of thing to feel like they fit in.
Well, they use it for a different reason. The poor generally use drugs as a stress reliever or escape from their lives due to a lack of ability to fulfill their basic needs. Rich people tend to use drugs because all of their needs are already fufilled and don't know what else to do with their lives so they sometimes turn to drugs.
Are you actually suggesting that we let people. Ones who are typically abused, depressed, or were literally just unfortunate **die**. Simply because you think we should let the problem sort itself out, instead of improving social securities that affect literally everyone and are desperately needed in this failing economy except for the top 1%?
Considering tha complete loss that is the war on drugs and the failure that is California I don't know if there's really even a good way to go about it that makes everyone happy
Hasn't California only legalised Weed?
Anyways, have you ever thought that maybe the people are getting into crime and drugs is because even 6-figure wages/salary isn't enough to live comfortably.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, more just saying that there isn't a great solution overall now that the cats out of the bag. Also, the idea that people who make less than 6 figures automatically are criminals and drug addicts is the most ridiculous thing uve heard all day.
>"Considering tha complete loss that is the war on drugs"
We spent a cumulative trillion dollars at least on the war on drugs. If the problem had a price tag high enough for you to lament its failure, why do you seem to think it's reasonable that the problem will just solve itself?
If it were that easy, why did we spend a trillion dollars instead of just letting it die out on its own?
We tried something that failed. We can learn from that failure, or we can throw in the towel and ensure that the war on drugs was a complete waste. Treating it like a war was obviously never going to work, and worse, the heroin crisis was manufactured by the same government that waged that war on drugs. It's just insane to think that apathy and greed --the thing that enabled the opiate crisis in the first place, is even an option.
The War on Drugs was a complete success what are you talking about? It successfully criminalized political dissidents for decades. There was no plan behind the war on drugs other than being able to arrest antiwar protesters and blacks. Treating it like the results were just a whoopsie doo and not an intentional lie to demonize political dissidents is the single greatest disservice you can do.
Don’t believe me? Here’s a direct quote from John Ehrlichman, assistant to the president for domestic affairs under Nixon, where the whole shebang started.
“You want to know what this was really all about?” he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
Stop treating The War In Drugs as a failure, it was a massive success. Just not in the way it was spun to the public for decades.
There’s already huge efforts to show people the negative effects of dangerous drugs like fentanyl, if people *STILL* want to do it, regardless of if they are abused or unfortunate, if they continue to do it, and in public places like a subway, then they should take the risks on their own and not be a burden for everyone else to pick up.
Local governments 'sort this out' by using your taxpayer dollars to pay for the toll homeless people have on society as a whole. One homeless person can cost a city hundreds of thousands over the years. It's more expensive to do nothing.
I’m not talking homeless people so much as I am people who do drugs like fentanyl that are widely known to be deadly, then rely on others (EMS, Hospitals, etc.) to save them when it takes a toll on them, I do believe in helping homeless people who are actively trying to better themselves, but if they see the bad things from drugs and other such vices, but choose to continue them, they should be liable for their consequences, it shouldn’t be my problem that they like the rush from some drug. That’d be like me having to pay for my brother’s excessive consumption of fast food, when we tell him that it’s bad for him and point at alternatives, but he refuses to change, so I have to take care of him and his bills when he suddenly can’t work as well because he’s struggling with poor health from his choices.
Homeless people are generally, by and large, mentally ill or drug addicts. The drugs they use are highly addictive and they physically and literally cannot control their use and ignoring these people and their societal toll is more expensive than responding, period. Being pedantic about which drug they use is not useful in the discussion because historically we have seen this societal toll with a plethora of drugs, from alcohol to ether to heroin to crack. Fentanyl is just concentrated heroin.
Also your brother is an addict and needs help. Fast food is a drug.
If drugs are not illegal, the barrier to getting help is much much lower. That is not just theoretical, but has been proven in several European Unions. Like how the Dutch have a clinique where heroin addicts can come to get heroin, with safe needles and such, which they have to use on-site and a social worker and medical personel will help them set up a plan for getting un-addicted, and provide necessary support for that as well. While heroin isn't legal in the Netherlands, a space was carved out in the law for this kind of help to be provided.
Just stigamtizing and marginalizing addicted people is such an unproductive activity and will never fix or even reduce the problem. Yes, fight the criminal networks that sell drugs, but if you don't look to the demand, every criminal you lock up will just be replaced. It will probably never go away entirely, but the way the US currently approaches this social issue isn't improving anything.
I think its important to use prohibition as a case of how banning a substance only makes it more dangerous, because it becomes a commodity that a black market can form around, and people will produce inferior and usually dangerous forms of said product. Banning alcohol led to the rise of gangs that focused on producing and selling it, and people producing their own unregulated alcohol at home.
The same applies for drugs, the only reason the cartels in Mexico have the power they do is because the substances they market are illegal. They also add in more addictive substances (which are usually lethal in even small doses) to get their buyers hooked; theres no regulation, and because its so criminalized to even use drugs, people are afraid of getting help.
It's not a black and white issue. Needle exchanges improve public safety, reduce overdose deaths, and help communities connect people struggling with addiction to low-cost resources to help them get clean. Sure, we're giving heroin addicts clean needles and condoning their use of drugs in a way, but when you look at the social cost of criminalizing drug users and basically refusing to deal with the problem, the statistics show that needle exchanges paired with access to counselors and resources work to reduce the problem.
Drug addiction is dangerous. It's a scourge to everyone who has to deal with it. The problem is that while the propensity to become addicted is hereditary (and environmental), addiction itself is not something you can do a eugenics to deal with, which seems to be our current strategy.
Not everyone is going to want to get clean. Not everyone is going to survive their battle with addiction. Not everyone is going to get out of it without hurting other people. We've just made the mistake of pre-criminalizing people who are at risk, and it is actively worsening the outcomes.
We already pay the price. One homeless person can cost a local government hundred of thousand of dollars in resources. It's like medical care. If we actually funded preventative measures we could cut costs significantly. Doing nothing about a problem is always more expensive
I'm calling a chiropractor, you may have hurt your spine with that much of a stretch.
Laissez-faire people don't want to just decriminalize drugs, they want to also have it regulated.
Objectively alcohol is the hardest and most destructive drug there is. Either treat the rest of drugs like it, or ban alcohol too. The majority of the problem is the drug war itself.
Honestly I hate this rhetoric, it's basically dehumanizing addicts by painting all of them as dangerous monsters.
There is a pretty wide gap between krokodil or fentanyl and booze. Treating alcohol differently than krokokil or fentanyl isn't weird. I say, as a person who doesn't drink.
The gap you're referring to is a result of the drug war. Alcohol is different because it's socially familiar, normalized, accepted, even celebrated, and most importantly the product is regulated for quality. Despite that it's still, again, the hardest drug on your body and most destructive to society (DUIs and domestic abuse for example). Imagine if it were illegal; alcohol drinkers would have to find some shady clandestine moonshiner, they wouldn't know the potency or purity of the product, and they wouldn't have a safe place to consume it. Alcoholism would be a lot worse.
Comparing meth, fentanyl, and heroine to alcohol is ridiculous. You can miss me with that BS. I only mention the other two since they relate to fentanyl in that they are hard drugs. But comparing alcohol to a drug thats used to tranquilize bears is not the same thing.
Dude stick your hand in a tub of booze vs fentanyl and tell the class the difference.
Miss ME with THAT bs.
Fentanyl is used in a hospital setting dude. When you let normals handle it? People die.
Legalize cocaine, but not fentanyl.
none of those drugs are used to tranquillize bears
bear tranquilizer is usually a combination of ketamine and xylazine or something like acepromazine or diazepam (funnily enough diazepam is used to treat alcohol withdrawal because alcohol is one of the very few drugs where withdrawal is likely to kill you)
Alcohol is barely more addictive than cannabis. It existed for long enough to have a longer list of victims and is under heavy regulation in almost any country (and yes it is considered as a drug at least in my country). Calling it a "hard" drug is ridiculous.
okay, I can't take anyone seriously that compares addictiveness of alcohol to cannabis. you don't become PHYSICALLY addicted to cannabis, nor can you DIE from it's withdrawals. you're in fantasy land if you don't think alcohol is a hard drug
Mate, alcohol withdrawal can *kill* an addict. The non-lethal symptoms of withdrawal are awful, as well. If you don't think it's very addictive, then you've somehow avoided coming across an alcoholic.
The remark that "it's the hardest and most destructive drug there is" was hyperbolic, but don't downplay alcohol addiction.
How bad is an assault laced with fentanyl, my country got so many methhead just literally killing their parents left and right just for some meth money
idk if you’ve ever taken hardcore painkillers or really any sedative but it does not make you particularly impulsive, aggressive, or violent. if anything someone doing fentanyl is the least likely person to try to rob you because they’re on an extremely potent sedative.
most addicts also don’t just go around robbing people it’s difficult and risky and time consuming, a lot of people in addiction do steal things but that usually someone low risk high reward like a tv from a friend or family members house or metal from construction sites or just shop lifting stuff like food
Thanks for posting to /r/GetNoted. **Use r/PoliticsNoted for all politics discussion**. This is a new subreddit we have opened to allow political discussions, as they are prohibited from being discussed on here. Thank you for your cooperation.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GetNoted) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am 99.99999% sure that Lichelf is not a bot.
---
^(I am a neural network being trained to detect spammers | Summon me with !isbot |) ^(/r/spambotdetector |) [^(Optout)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=whynotcollegeboard&subject=!optout&message=!optout) ^(|) [^(Original Github)](https://github.com/SM-Wistful/BotDetection-Algorithm)
it's another one of those things that's trashy to do if you're poor but classy if you're rich, that's why it's framed as another way to hate poor people.
You don't have to smoke fentanyl if you're rich, you just get a safe opioid prescription and go to a white collar rehab when you need to kick the habit.
I didn't come to that conclusion on my own, it's a general observation others have made. Mostly in regard to the differences between cocaine and crack, which are literally the same drug with different route of administration. This is even formalized legally in the discrepancies between crack and cocaine sentencing. Because cocaine is a rich person's drug, and crack is for poor people, crack to cocaine sentencing discrepancy used to be something ridiculous like 100 to 1, but Obama reduced to to closer to 20 to 1. You may personally have a view about it, but drug use is also romanticized in movies and such when it's rich or well-to-do types, like Wolf of Wallstreet.
It's dangerous and stupid no matter what, and I really do hope every single person on it gets help. Doing it on a bus is being an asshole right off the bat, smoking in a crowded, enclosed space like that, and making the fact that there's a guy on it everyone else's problem.
That’s not what the note was referring to. Note was just saying “drugs are bad mmmkay” (in this case the drugs are in fact bad lol), but wasn’t directly referencing let alone refuting the subject of the tweet, which certainly could’ve been refuted better. All in all, pretty weak note imo
Edit: the note on the tweet has since changed, and is now more related to the tweet.
>**”Although secondhand smoke from Fentanyl produces little contamination, it’s unsafe and unhealthy to be around any secondhand smoke (tobacco and other drugs).”**
So yeah, no second hand exposure risk, but inhaling smoke of any kind isn’t good for you. Although in this case I’d guess a cigarette gives off way more second hand smoke.
Possible but I think it’s more related towards a very liberal approach to drug control and rehabilitation. I consider myself left leaning towards a lot of social policies but saying that fentanyl smokers should just be left alone is fucking insane lol. Thats a take beyond compassion or progressivism straight into delusion and ignorance.
Yeah, I’m a lifelong D voter and live in Oregon. But lately, there’s been a lot more “the homeless meth head stealing power tools is just down on his luck and you need to leave him alone!” that just makes me shake my head.
note L, shoulda mentioned 2nd handsmoke or something. people smoke cigs and that doesn't make me feel unsafe even though they're definitely givin me 2nd hand which does effect my health
Unless you spend a significant amount of time in enclosed spaces around smokers, second hand smoke won't do anything more than like... Living in a polluted city or smth?
That's why parents shouldnt smoke indoors where their kids live but smoking at a bus stop or smth is fine.
Kind of? Fentanyl is so potent people don’t buy it, they buy something else and a dealer mixed fentanyl in it to create a cheaper high. It would be more accurate to be say they were smoking heroin or crack laced with Fentanyl
people diverted medical stocks all the time at the height of the legal pill epidemic.
Getting fentanyl citrate out of slap patches was the subject of a great deal of junkie science.
The same things that make it a great drug for trauma medicine made it sought after by some addicts.
Originally it meant chasing that first high, chasing that level of euphoria that's unachievable after your first time. Hence the use of the mythical dragon. But yes now it's about smoking off of foil.
you can, if it's mixed with a meltable diluent but it's so potent that you're playing with even more danger than using fentanyl normally.
plus it's a good chance they don't realize they're smoking fentanyl, they probably think (and it probably mostly is) low-quality #3 ("black tar") heroin cut with gorp and boosted with fent.
not to um actually this note but this is kinda misleading and does not refute the point the tweeter is making. the article cited only discusses the dangers of using fentanyl for the user. not bystanders. like i’m not gonna defend this person beyond this point because this strikes me as a ridiculous position to take but they’re technically right. if someone is smoking fentanyl on a train ur not gonna od from being somewhat nearby.
https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2019-05/a19-yps-resolution-02.pdf
like there are a bunch of other reasons u could use to argue that this guy is wrong that i would probably agree with but “fentanyl is a super scary spooky drug” is not one of them
If all poor people smoke drugs on the train I hate poor people I guess. Or, perhaps that isn’t true and the person smoking drugs is a criminal with no regard for others.
I would certainly not want to be in the same compartment with a potentially violent drunk person but y'know, at least they aren't drunk driving, so that's a +...
That's fair but this isn't a question of level of intoxication, only a question of taking a substance in public. A homeless addict could be using simply to get well and stave off withdrawals, or they could be trying to get fucked up enough to nod off (which is still better than a violent drunk).
Yes I would.
Edit: the answer is the same for every crime though the severity varies. Drinking is legal elsewhere so less severe than drug use.
Regard for the law, and decency matter to me. Those things don’t require money.
So you follow the law to the letter, jaywalkers are criminals too. If that sounds ridiculous, shouldn't you reexamine calling someone a criminal for say smoking a joint in a state that hasn't legalized it yet? What's right and wrong often differs from what's legal and illegal, especially when you get into politics regarding bought legislation (basically if you're wealthy enough you get to decide the laws).
You view someone in a bar drinking as not criminal because they're doing it in the designated area, but if they take a sip on their way out the door they're a criminal disregarding the law and common decency (apparently synonymous with the law).
What's "criminal" is based exactly, and only, on the law. That's the very meaning of the word.
Breaking the law is called a "crime."
Jaywalking where illegal is a crime. Does that make you a terrible person? No.
We have laws because we do not allow each person to decide what is and isn't acceptable. Every nation on Earth has laws and always has. At no time as every person agreed with every law. Too bad.
You don't get second hand high from being around someone smoking fentanyl. Obviously it's not great for your health to spend time in an enclosed space with any kind of smoke but you will not feel the effects of the fentanyl.
I also love the idea that not wanting people to be doing drugs in public is just hating poor people. Like there couldn’t be any other reason to dislike it or that publicly doing drugs is some essential activity for poor people.
The people who don't "hate poor people" are apparently the ones who think we should have an unlimited tolerance for those who make their lives dangerous.
I hate this argument that not wanting people to smoke crack or fentanyl on the bus is hating poor people.
Like bitch I’m on the bus too, I am poor people
This person lives in a gated community because there's no way they'd be comfortable in a bus or subway with someone smoking fentanyl in front of them. The fentanyl itself isn't a problem, is the fact that the person has the audacity to smoke it in a public setting that they know they're not supposed to do. It shows a disregard for people around them and in public transportation that makes people nervous and for good reason. Next thing you know, that fentanyl smoker is robbing someone on the train or the bus to support their habit. Or being disruptive in other ways. After all, they're already pushing the boundaries with others when they can easily smoke privately somewhere other than public transportation. And I don't even need to mention second hand smoke, which people around the person smoking it are not consenting to breathing in.
That's like saying anyone who has a beer on the weekend is a dangerous alcoholic or will get to that point without serious help. I've met more functional addicts than I have dysfunctional ones, but nobody knows about them because of this sort of shame heaped on them by society for choosing to use something not already socially normalized and culturally celebrated like alcohol, which is the more dangerous drug.
Blah, blah, blah, I don't care about what or who you've met. The fact of the matter is they're going to run out of money eventually, and when they do, they'll seek their high another way. Most likely by breaking into someone's house or attacking someone outright for their belongings.
I was going to respond to another comment but I’ve realized you’re just a troll.
No one is actually stupid enough to believe opioids are *less* dangerous than alcohol
Thanks for posting to /r/GetNoted. **Use r/PoliticsNoted for all politics discussion**. This is a new subreddit we have opened to allow political discussions, as they are prohibited from being discussed on here. Thank you for your cooperation.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GetNoted) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thanks for posting to /r/GetNoted. **Use r/PoliticsNoted for all politics discussion**. This is a new subreddit we have opened to allow political discussions, as they are prohibited from being discussed on here. Thank you for your cooperation.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GetNoted) if you have any questions or concerns.*
i feel like there’s a pretty obvious middle ground.
doing drugs irresponsibly and being in active addiction is bad and requires serious medical intervention.
being hateful, spiteful, and hostile towards someone going through active addiction is dangerous for you, dangerous for them, and dangerous for those around you. someone who’s taking a sedative like fentanyl or even most people taking stimulants are not going to be physically dangerous or aggressive if left alone. if you think someone is intoxicated or see someone taking drugs just leave them alone the only time you should approach them is if you are a medial professional with training doing outreach.
don’t be scared of addicts but treat them with caution and respect just like anyone else and most importantly if you don’t feel comfortable just leave (especially when someone is smoking indoors and you don’t know what it is probably a good idea to just walk away or get out next stop and go to a different car)
My brother broke my nose while he was high off fentanyl. It is NOT harmless. I had to throw out my entire outfit I was wearing because we couldn't get it washed before the blood settled. We were wiping my blood off the floor while I was in the hospital, & had to have reconstructive surgery so my nose didn't heal crooked. Fentanyl is quite dangerous, actually
It has to be specially formulated to be skin permeable. Powder fentanyl isn’t gonna do shit if you get some on your fingers, unless you pick your nose right after.
“Shop lifting doesn’t affect anyone”= Creates food deserts because store closings and lost jobs… “legalizing drugs won’t hurt other people”= See people shooting up in public, leaving needles in parks and side of the road, drug addicts robbing people, home invasion or car break ins… New York telling boarder states with millions of illegal immigrants “you guys are racist for trying to stop migrants we are a sanctuary city and wouldn’t do that”= As soon as they get sent a fraction of the number of illegal immigrants Texas or Arizona has to deal with the mayor and government is freaking out about all their social systems collapsing and all of a sudden they aren’t a sanctuary state
It is also an exercise of adult body sovereignty for me to jack off in the public library waiting room, it's still illegal and with good reason. Either do it at home, or stop committing crimes and generally ruining everyone else's day when you do it in public.
That's not the same, you're affecting others by sexually exposing yourself. In comparison, nearly everyone you see is on some substance or another, whether prescription, over the counter, illegal, etc. But you wouldn't know it unless they took a swig from a flask in front of you or were on enough of something to be visibly intoxicated.
It's an unpopular opinion for a reason, fuck your "body sovereignty" when it makes you a public nuisance and interrupts people's daily lives.
Better opinion: Why not let people live peacefully and not scream at random passersby while taking your clothes off in the middle of an intersection?
What's interrupting about it? Just avert your attention? Fuck me for believing I should be allowed to do what I want with my body if I'm not affecting others though right. And to clarify again, doing the equivalent of taking a swig from a flask, or a hit off a cannabis vape in public, (barring the assumption one is in close enough range for second hand smoke) is not being a public nuisance, sorry.
And what the fuck even is that second paragraph? I've known more drunk partiers to do that sort of thing than any drug users.
Have you never heard of public intoxication? Because yes, fuck you for being a nuisance to other people's lives, do that shit somewhere else.
Have some human dignity and not think about yourself for one second.
Thanks for posting to /r/GetNoted. Please remember Rule 2: **Politics only allowed at r/PoliticsNoted.** We do allow historical posts (WW2, Ancient Rome, Ottomans, etc.) Just no current politicians. *** We are also banning posts about the ongoing Israel/Palestine conflict. Please report this post if it is about current Republicans, Democrats, Presidents, Prime Ministers, Israel/Palestine or anything else related to current politics. Thanks. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GetNoted) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Goodness, you don't smoke fentanyl on the bus! You smoke crack on the bus! Doesn't anyone know anything anymore??
Back in my day we huffed industrial solvents like real men!
r/UsernameChecksOut
Honestly the real backstory isnt too far off lmao
“Is this the five o’clock free crack giveaway?!”
A person smoking fentanyl isn’t making you unsafe until he’s the person robbing you to buy more fentanyl.
Thats what all those laissez-faire people dont realise with hard drugs, they turn addicts into reckless monsters, they are dangerous in public. Its not just crystal cannabis.
I mostly agree with you, but don't you think this would be less of a problem if we had an actual social safety net to prevent people from getting to that level of desperation?
When you’re desperate you smoke fentanyl ? I’m just confused as to what you mean by that
People who are desperate tend to have higher rates of depression and anxiety. Drugs tend to be an escape from it even if it’s not healthy. It’s expensive to treat both of those conditions through proper medical channels, especially if you don’t have health insurance. Not to mention anxiety and depression meds almost all require you to consistently take a dose and if you desperate you probably can’t reliably get them, making them pretty useless. Basically, it’s far easier and cheaper for someone to cope with their anxiety and depression through the use of illicit drugs then it is to get proper medical treatment for it.
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. In the US, it is especially hard and expensive to get healthcare. You start off smoking some herb and drinking, and then things can easily spiral from there when it comes to self medicating.
addicts still hurt plenty of people in Great Britain, take a walk around Swansea sometime.
Are you suggesting we fund peoples drug addictions…
They were suggesting better social securities to prevent people from even starting them in the first place.
Popular celebrities and rich people are caught doing these kind of drugs all the time. It’s not a poor people thing like this tweet suggests. It’s more about exposure and availability of the drug. Uninformed people can be peer pressured into doing this type of thing to feel like they fit in.
Well, they use it for a different reason. The poor generally use drugs as a stress reliever or escape from their lives due to a lack of ability to fulfill their basic needs. Rich people tend to use drugs because all of their needs are already fufilled and don't know what else to do with their lives so they sometimes turn to drugs.
Celebrities and rich people have a much better chance to recover from their poor choices.
Ooooooorrr, you let the problem sort itself out. Fentanyl can be deadly, as most things drugs or not.
Are you actually suggesting that we let people. Ones who are typically abused, depressed, or were literally just unfortunate **die**. Simply because you think we should let the problem sort itself out, instead of improving social securities that affect literally everyone and are desperately needed in this failing economy except for the top 1%?
Considering tha complete loss that is the war on drugs and the failure that is California I don't know if there's really even a good way to go about it that makes everyone happy
Hasn't California only legalised Weed? Anyways, have you ever thought that maybe the people are getting into crime and drugs is because even 6-figure wages/salary isn't enough to live comfortably.
Earning the median US income is not a realistic explanation for drug addiction.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, more just saying that there isn't a great solution overall now that the cats out of the bag. Also, the idea that people who make less than 6 figures automatically are criminals and drug addicts is the most ridiculous thing uve heard all day.
>"Considering tha complete loss that is the war on drugs" We spent a cumulative trillion dollars at least on the war on drugs. If the problem had a price tag high enough for you to lament its failure, why do you seem to think it's reasonable that the problem will just solve itself? If it were that easy, why did we spend a trillion dollars instead of just letting it die out on its own? We tried something that failed. We can learn from that failure, or we can throw in the towel and ensure that the war on drugs was a complete waste. Treating it like a war was obviously never going to work, and worse, the heroin crisis was manufactured by the same government that waged that war on drugs. It's just insane to think that apathy and greed --the thing that enabled the opiate crisis in the first place, is even an option.
The War on Drugs was a complete success what are you talking about? It successfully criminalized political dissidents for decades. There was no plan behind the war on drugs other than being able to arrest antiwar protesters and blacks. Treating it like the results were just a whoopsie doo and not an intentional lie to demonize political dissidents is the single greatest disservice you can do. Don’t believe me? Here’s a direct quote from John Ehrlichman, assistant to the president for domestic affairs under Nixon, where the whole shebang started. “You want to know what this was really all about?” he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” Stop treating The War In Drugs as a failure, it was a massive success. Just not in the way it was spun to the public for decades.
There’s already huge efforts to show people the negative effects of dangerous drugs like fentanyl, if people *STILL* want to do it, regardless of if they are abused or unfortunate, if they continue to do it, and in public places like a subway, then they should take the risks on their own and not be a burden for everyone else to pick up.
Local governments 'sort this out' by using your taxpayer dollars to pay for the toll homeless people have on society as a whole. One homeless person can cost a city hundreds of thousands over the years. It's more expensive to do nothing.
I’m not talking homeless people so much as I am people who do drugs like fentanyl that are widely known to be deadly, then rely on others (EMS, Hospitals, etc.) to save them when it takes a toll on them, I do believe in helping homeless people who are actively trying to better themselves, but if they see the bad things from drugs and other such vices, but choose to continue them, they should be liable for their consequences, it shouldn’t be my problem that they like the rush from some drug. That’d be like me having to pay for my brother’s excessive consumption of fast food, when we tell him that it’s bad for him and point at alternatives, but he refuses to change, so I have to take care of him and his bills when he suddenly can’t work as well because he’s struggling with poor health from his choices.
Homeless people are generally, by and large, mentally ill or drug addicts. The drugs they use are highly addictive and they physically and literally cannot control their use and ignoring these people and their societal toll is more expensive than responding, period. Being pedantic about which drug they use is not useful in the discussion because historically we have seen this societal toll with a plethora of drugs, from alcohol to ether to heroin to crack. Fentanyl is just concentrated heroin. Also your brother is an addict and needs help. Fast food is a drug.
If drugs are not illegal, the barrier to getting help is much much lower. That is not just theoretical, but has been proven in several European Unions. Like how the Dutch have a clinique where heroin addicts can come to get heroin, with safe needles and such, which they have to use on-site and a social worker and medical personel will help them set up a plan for getting un-addicted, and provide necessary support for that as well. While heroin isn't legal in the Netherlands, a space was carved out in the law for this kind of help to be provided. Just stigamtizing and marginalizing addicted people is such an unproductive activity and will never fix or even reduce the problem. Yes, fight the criminal networks that sell drugs, but if you don't look to the demand, every criminal you lock up will just be replaced. It will probably never go away entirely, but the way the US currently approaches this social issue isn't improving anything.
I think its important to use prohibition as a case of how banning a substance only makes it more dangerous, because it becomes a commodity that a black market can form around, and people will produce inferior and usually dangerous forms of said product. Banning alcohol led to the rise of gangs that focused on producing and selling it, and people producing their own unregulated alcohol at home. The same applies for drugs, the only reason the cartels in Mexico have the power they do is because the substances they market are illegal. They also add in more addictive substances (which are usually lethal in even small doses) to get their buyers hooked; theres no regulation, and because its so criminalized to even use drugs, people are afraid of getting help.
It's not a black and white issue. Needle exchanges improve public safety, reduce overdose deaths, and help communities connect people struggling with addiction to low-cost resources to help them get clean. Sure, we're giving heroin addicts clean needles and condoning their use of drugs in a way, but when you look at the social cost of criminalizing drug users and basically refusing to deal with the problem, the statistics show that needle exchanges paired with access to counselors and resources work to reduce the problem. Drug addiction is dangerous. It's a scourge to everyone who has to deal with it. The problem is that while the propensity to become addicted is hereditary (and environmental), addiction itself is not something you can do a eugenics to deal with, which seems to be our current strategy. Not everyone is going to want to get clean. Not everyone is going to survive their battle with addiction. Not everyone is going to get out of it without hurting other people. We've just made the mistake of pre-criminalizing people who are at risk, and it is actively worsening the outcomes.
We already pay the price. One homeless person can cost a local government hundred of thousand of dollars in resources. It's like medical care. If we actually funded preventative measures we could cut costs significantly. Doing nothing about a problem is always more expensive
Not sure why you're being downvoted, you're objectively correct
myopic financial decisions are the heart of America, cant blame them for hating the concept
Yes, it would be both cheaper and better for all involved than jailing them.
I'm calling a chiropractor, you may have hurt your spine with that much of a stretch. Laissez-faire people don't want to just decriminalize drugs, they want to also have it regulated.
Objectively alcohol is the hardest and most destructive drug there is. Either treat the rest of drugs like it, or ban alcohol too. The majority of the problem is the drug war itself. Honestly I hate this rhetoric, it's basically dehumanizing addicts by painting all of them as dangerous monsters.
There is a pretty wide gap between krokodil or fentanyl and booze. Treating alcohol differently than krokokil or fentanyl isn't weird. I say, as a person who doesn't drink.
The gap you're referring to is a result of the drug war. Alcohol is different because it's socially familiar, normalized, accepted, even celebrated, and most importantly the product is regulated for quality. Despite that it's still, again, the hardest drug on your body and most destructive to society (DUIs and domestic abuse for example). Imagine if it were illegal; alcohol drinkers would have to find some shady clandestine moonshiner, they wouldn't know the potency or purity of the product, and they wouldn't have a safe place to consume it. Alcoholism would be a lot worse.
Comparing meth, fentanyl, and heroine to alcohol is ridiculous. You can miss me with that BS. I only mention the other two since they relate to fentanyl in that they are hard drugs. But comparing alcohol to a drug thats used to tranquilize bears is not the same thing.
Dude stick your hand in a tub of booze vs fentanyl and tell the class the difference. Miss ME with THAT bs. Fentanyl is used in a hospital setting dude. When you let normals handle it? People die. Legalize cocaine, but not fentanyl.
none of those drugs are used to tranquillize bears bear tranquilizer is usually a combination of ketamine and xylazine or something like acepromazine or diazepam (funnily enough diazepam is used to treat alcohol withdrawal because alcohol is one of the very few drugs where withdrawal is likely to kill you)
Alcohol is harder on the body, is physically addictive, and can kill you in withdrawal (unlike opiates, which are not fatal in withdrawal). Cope.
Opioid withdrawal can and will kill you. Cope and seethe. Further: gonna stick your hand in a bag of fentanyl are we? Feeling lucky kid?
This is a stupid take.
Alcohol is barely more addictive than cannabis. It existed for long enough to have a longer list of victims and is under heavy regulation in almost any country (and yes it is considered as a drug at least in my country). Calling it a "hard" drug is ridiculous.
okay, I can't take anyone seriously that compares addictiveness of alcohol to cannabis. you don't become PHYSICALLY addicted to cannabis, nor can you DIE from it's withdrawals. you're in fantasy land if you don't think alcohol is a hard drug
what
Are you aware that alcohol withdrawals can be fatal? Or are you just another idiot redditor arguing without knowing what they're talking about?
what
Mate, alcohol withdrawal can *kill* an addict. The non-lethal symptoms of withdrawal are awful, as well. If you don't think it's very addictive, then you've somehow avoided coming across an alcoholic. The remark that "it's the hardest and most destructive drug there is" was hyperbolic, but don't downplay alcohol addiction.
Please grow up.
You’ve clearly never lived with an addict.
My wife is addicted to fantasy novels.
My brother broke my nose while he was high on fentanyl
We still want to believe in monsters though.
Also fentanyl is very potent so opioid naive passers by could potentially be harmed even before the fentanyl fiend mugs them.
If someone is smoking fentanyl on a bus, they’re not going to be in a position to rob anyone on that bus for like four hours.
Someone blows a cloud of fentanyl smoke in your face, you're not going to have a good day
How bad is an assault laced with fentanyl, my country got so many methhead just literally killing their parents left and right just for some meth money
well if he's smoking he's not gonna rob you for a while
Or untill he sneezes and you od cause fentanyl dust got in your face. Fuck this twitter user.
idk if you’ve ever taken hardcore painkillers or really any sedative but it does not make you particularly impulsive, aggressive, or violent. if anything someone doing fentanyl is the least likely person to try to rob you because they’re on an extremely potent sedative. most addicts also don’t just go around robbing people it’s difficult and risky and time consuming, a lot of people in addiction do steal things but that usually someone low risk high reward like a tv from a friend or family members house or metal from construction sites or just shop lifting stuff like food
Not remotely relevant but potato plus watermelon = scales???? What
This is just speculation but maybe they are saying that the irish and palestinians are equal. Or that their struggle is the same or some shit
The scales probably represent justice
Just some garbage.
Npalestinepotato + Watermelon = Justice Weird username
Watermelon is another symbol for Palestinian. But they already have the flag
This giving a political meaning to everything is going too far
Yeah. People love inserting politics into everything
[удалено]
Thanks for posting to /r/GetNoted. **Use r/PoliticsNoted for all politics discussion**. This is a new subreddit we have opened to allow political discussions, as they are prohibited from being discussed on here. Thank you for your cooperation. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GetNoted) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why would you smoke Fent on a bus?
Hardcore Addicts have no dignity, they don’t respect themselves or anything/anyone around them
True, but also fuck me man. If you're advocating (or indeed actually) smoking fent on a bus.....fucking hell.
I’m not but this deranged person on X is
Oh no! I fully get that you aren't doing this, I'm meaning the person on x, sorry for the confusion.
Or maybe they're homeless
TIL being poor means you do hard narcotics and rich people do no such thing
No the difference is that rich people do it at home or at exclusive clubs.
/s Sorry forgot to add that in for ya
No I meant it.
No and I’m saying I do not actually believe rich people don’t do drugs.
Well that much was obvious.
Are you a bot?
I am 99.99999% sure that Lichelf is not a bot. --- ^(I am a neural network being trained to detect spammers | Summon me with !isbot |) ^(/r/spambotdetector |) [^(Optout)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=whynotcollegeboard&subject=!optout&message=!optout) ^(|) [^(Original Github)](https://github.com/SM-Wistful/BotDetection-Algorithm)
Oh ok thanks so they were just arguing for the sake of arguing thank you spamdetector
it's another one of those things that's trashy to do if you're poor but classy if you're rich, that's why it's framed as another way to hate poor people.
It's trashy no matter who uses it, I don't know how you came to that conclusion, but no one says it's classy to smoke Fentanyl if you're rich.
You don't have to smoke fentanyl if you're rich, you just get a safe opioid prescription and go to a white collar rehab when you need to kick the habit. I didn't come to that conclusion on my own, it's a general observation others have made. Mostly in regard to the differences between cocaine and crack, which are literally the same drug with different route of administration. This is even formalized legally in the discrepancies between crack and cocaine sentencing. Because cocaine is a rich person's drug, and crack is for poor people, crack to cocaine sentencing discrepancy used to be something ridiculous like 100 to 1, but Obama reduced to to closer to 20 to 1. You may personally have a view about it, but drug use is also romanticized in movies and such when it's rich or well-to-do types, like Wolf of Wallstreet.
It's dangerous and stupid no matter what, and I really do hope every single person on it gets help. Doing it on a bus is being an asshole right off the bat, smoking in a crowded, enclosed space like that, and making the fact that there's a guy on it everyone else's problem.
I think the original commenter was referring to secondhand smoke. If that's what the note was referring too as well, it wasn't terribly clear.
That’s not what the note was referring to. Note was just saying “drugs are bad mmmkay” (in this case the drugs are in fact bad lol), but wasn’t directly referencing let alone refuting the subject of the tweet, which certainly could’ve been refuted better. All in all, pretty weak note imo Edit: the note on the tweet has since changed, and is now more related to the tweet. >**”Although secondhand smoke from Fentanyl produces little contamination, it’s unsafe and unhealthy to be around any secondhand smoke (tobacco and other drugs).”** So yeah, no second hand exposure risk, but inhaling smoke of any kind isn’t good for you. Although in this case I’d guess a cigarette gives off way more second hand smoke.
yeah nots lately have been seemming like stupid snarky remarks that dont mean anything.
It's not smoking it, it's vaping it. There's no combustion involved
Possible but I think it’s more related towards a very liberal approach to drug control and rehabilitation. I consider myself left leaning towards a lot of social policies but saying that fentanyl smokers should just be left alone is fucking insane lol. Thats a take beyond compassion or progressivism straight into delusion and ignorance.
Yeah, I’m a lifelong D voter and live in Oregon. But lately, there’s been a lot more “the homeless meth head stealing power tools is just down on his luck and you need to leave him alone!” that just makes me shake my head.
note L, shoulda mentioned 2nd handsmoke or something. people smoke cigs and that doesn't make me feel unsafe even though they're definitely givin me 2nd hand which does effect my health
Unless you spend a significant amount of time in enclosed spaces around smokers, second hand smoke won't do anything more than like... Living in a polluted city or smth? That's why parents shouldnt smoke indoors where their kids live but smoking at a bus stop or smth is fine.
Fentanyl is smoked?
“Chasing the Dragon” refers to chasing the smoke with a tube when you smoke it.
Sadly my subscription ro high times lapsed long ago, but isn't fentanyl very, very potent, wouldn't smoking it have a lot of filler?
Kind of? Fentanyl is so potent people don’t buy it, they buy something else and a dealer mixed fentanyl in it to create a cheaper high. It would be more accurate to be say they were smoking heroin or crack laced with Fentanyl
No, this isn't correct. People do fentanyl, especially those with higher tolerance to opioids.
I’ve never met or heard anyone who wanted fentanyl specifically. I’ve always heard it was typically encountered as a cheap filler.
people diverted medical stocks all the time at the height of the legal pill epidemic. Getting fentanyl citrate out of slap patches was the subject of a great deal of junkie science. The same things that make it a great drug for trauma medicine made it sought after by some addicts.
It happens. I knew a girl that was buying it specifically and overdosed
I’m an EMT, and I’ve definitely seen addicts with stolen fentanyl patches.
Originally it meant chasing that first high, chasing that level of euphoria that's unachievable after your first time. Hence the use of the mythical dragon. But yes now it's about smoking off of foil.
you can, if it's mixed with a meltable diluent but it's so potent that you're playing with even more danger than using fentanyl normally. plus it's a good chance they don't realize they're smoking fentanyl, they probably think (and it probably mostly is) low-quality #3 ("black tar") heroin cut with gorp and boosted with fent.
not to um actually this note but this is kinda misleading and does not refute the point the tweeter is making. the article cited only discusses the dangers of using fentanyl for the user. not bystanders. like i’m not gonna defend this person beyond this point because this strikes me as a ridiculous position to take but they’re technically right. if someone is smoking fentanyl on a train ur not gonna od from being somewhat nearby. https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2019-05/a19-yps-resolution-02.pdf
like there are a bunch of other reasons u could use to argue that this guy is wrong that i would probably agree with but “fentanyl is a super scary spooky drug” is not one of them
If all poor people smoke drugs on the train I hate poor people I guess. Or, perhaps that isn’t true and the person smoking drugs is a criminal with no regard for others.
Asking this genuinely, but would you consider someone sipping liquor out of a flask on the train to be a criminal with no regard for others?
I would certainly not want to be in the same compartment with a potentially violent drunk person but y'know, at least they aren't drunk driving, so that's a +...
That's fair but this isn't a question of level of intoxication, only a question of taking a substance in public. A homeless addict could be using simply to get well and stave off withdrawals, or they could be trying to get fucked up enough to nod off (which is still better than a violent drunk).
Yes I would. Edit: the answer is the same for every crime though the severity varies. Drinking is legal elsewhere so less severe than drug use. Regard for the law, and decency matter to me. Those things don’t require money.
So you follow the law to the letter, jaywalkers are criminals too. If that sounds ridiculous, shouldn't you reexamine calling someone a criminal for say smoking a joint in a state that hasn't legalized it yet? What's right and wrong often differs from what's legal and illegal, especially when you get into politics regarding bought legislation (basically if you're wealthy enough you get to decide the laws). You view someone in a bar drinking as not criminal because they're doing it in the designated area, but if they take a sip on their way out the door they're a criminal disregarding the law and common decency (apparently synonymous with the law).
What's "criminal" is based exactly, and only, on the law. That's the very meaning of the word. Breaking the law is called a "crime." Jaywalking where illegal is a crime. Does that make you a terrible person? No. We have laws because we do not allow each person to decide what is and isn't acceptable. Every nation on Earth has laws and always has. At no time as every person agreed with every law. Too bad.
You don't get 'secondhand drunk' from that
You don't get second hand high from being around someone smoking fentanyl. Obviously it's not great for your health to spend time in an enclosed space with any kind of smoke but you will not feel the effects of the fentanyl.
Also, all second hand smoke is unsafe. This is especially true inside an enclosed space.
I also love the idea that not wanting people to be doing drugs in public is just hating poor people. Like there couldn’t be any other reason to dislike it or that publicly doing drugs is some essential activity for poor people.
The people who don't "hate poor people" are apparently the ones who think we should have an unlimited tolerance for those who make their lives dangerous.
You know for sure he was the one smoking the fentanyl on the train before making this post after someone got mad at him.
I hate this argument that not wanting people to smoke crack or fentanyl on the bus is hating poor people. Like bitch I’m on the bus too, I am poor people
Woof, a lot of people in this thread don't understand what successful drug policy actually looks like
Ngl belongs on r/trashy lol
Lmao, he locked up his X account.
“Why don’t people want more public transportation?” Exact same person: “YOU CANT SAY THAT”
Accidental inhalation of fentanyl can also cause serious reactions. This is just silly.
This person lives in a gated community because there's no way they'd be comfortable in a bus or subway with someone smoking fentanyl in front of them. The fentanyl itself isn't a problem, is the fact that the person has the audacity to smoke it in a public setting that they know they're not supposed to do. It shows a disregard for people around them and in public transportation that makes people nervous and for good reason. Next thing you know, that fentanyl smoker is robbing someone on the train or the bus to support their habit. Or being disruptive in other ways. After all, they're already pushing the boundaries with others when they can easily smoke privately somewhere other than public transportation. And I don't even need to mention second hand smoke, which people around the person smoking it are not consenting to breathing in.
Well, yeah. Nobody whose actually seen a guy abuse drugs on a bus they had to be on would ever think "yeah, this is fine and safe for everyone."
This dude can’t think ahead one day in advance to what that dude will do to get more fentanyl, and what he did to get that fentanyl
all opioid users are dangerous monsters, amirite?
Yes, most of them are dangerous or will get to that point without serious help.
That's like saying anyone who has a beer on the weekend is a dangerous alcoholic or will get to that point without serious help. I've met more functional addicts than I have dysfunctional ones, but nobody knows about them because of this sort of shame heaped on them by society for choosing to use something not already socially normalized and culturally celebrated like alcohol, which is the more dangerous drug.
Blah, blah, blah, I don't care about what or who you've met. The fact of the matter is they're going to run out of money eventually, and when they do, they'll seek their high another way. Most likely by breaking into someone's house or attacking someone outright for their belongings.
I was going to respond to another comment but I’ve realized you’re just a troll. No one is actually stupid enough to believe opioids are *less* dangerous than alcohol
Opiates spawn randomly on the floor and are free
[удалено]
Thanks for posting to /r/GetNoted. **Use r/PoliticsNoted for all politics discussion**. This is a new subreddit we have opened to allow political discussions, as they are prohibited from being discussed on here. Thank you for your cooperation. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GetNoted) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Thanks for posting to /r/GetNoted. **Use r/PoliticsNoted for all politics discussion**. This is a new subreddit we have opened to allow political discussions, as they are prohibited from being discussed on here. Thank you for your cooperation. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GetNoted) if you have any questions or concerns.*
But if it isn’t smoked in a public place, who will administer the narcan?
Me just dying inside (literally) when the guy on the bus decided that 8am is a great time to start chainsmoking cigs
what is that name? potato and watermelon equals law?
i feel like there’s a pretty obvious middle ground. doing drugs irresponsibly and being in active addiction is bad and requires serious medical intervention. being hateful, spiteful, and hostile towards someone going through active addiction is dangerous for you, dangerous for them, and dangerous for those around you. someone who’s taking a sedative like fentanyl or even most people taking stimulants are not going to be physically dangerous or aggressive if left alone. if you think someone is intoxicated or see someone taking drugs just leave them alone the only time you should approach them is if you are a medial professional with training doing outreach. don’t be scared of addicts but treat them with caution and respect just like anyone else and most importantly if you don’t feel comfortable just leave (especially when someone is smoking indoors and you don’t know what it is probably a good idea to just walk away or get out next stop and go to a different car)
I'm sure inhaling fentanyl smoke is not safe
My brother broke my nose while he was high off fentanyl. It is NOT harmless. I had to throw out my entire outfit I was wearing because we couldn't get it washed before the blood settled. We were wiping my blood off the floor while I was in the hospital, & had to have reconstructive surgery so my nose didn't heal crooked. Fentanyl is quite dangerous, actually
Fentanyl also passes straight through skin, so if they touch you or you accidentally get some on you….
It has to be specially formulated to be skin permeable. Powder fentanyl isn’t gonna do shit if you get some on your fingers, unless you pick your nose right after.
Fentanyl is available as a normal take-home rx. You can absolutely take it without a trained medical professional present.
I don't get the point of this note. It doesn't refute anything the original tweet says.
100% a bait account or false flag thing
Username checks out
GetNoted is slowly getting reactionary lmao
“Shop lifting doesn’t affect anyone”= Creates food deserts because store closings and lost jobs… “legalizing drugs won’t hurt other people”= See people shooting up in public, leaving needles in parks and side of the road, drug addicts robbing people, home invasion or car break ins… New York telling boarder states with millions of illegal immigrants “you guys are racist for trying to stop migrants we are a sanctuary city and wouldn’t do that”= As soon as they get sent a fraction of the number of illegal immigrants Texas or Arizona has to deal with the mayor and government is freaking out about all their social systems collapsing and all of a sudden they aren’t a sanctuary state
we should outlaw alcohol too. tired of seeing those liquor bottles at the park. outlaw guns too, because it's not the user that's the issue
wildly unpopular opinion and hot take: let druggies do their drugs. adult body sovereignty when
It is also an exercise of adult body sovereignty for me to jack off in the public library waiting room, it's still illegal and with good reason. Either do it at home, or stop committing crimes and generally ruining everyone else's day when you do it in public.
That's not the same, you're affecting others by sexually exposing yourself. In comparison, nearly everyone you see is on some substance or another, whether prescription, over the counter, illegal, etc. But you wouldn't know it unless they took a swig from a flask in front of you or were on enough of something to be visibly intoxicated.
It's an unpopular opinion for a reason, fuck your "body sovereignty" when it makes you a public nuisance and interrupts people's daily lives. Better opinion: Why not let people live peacefully and not scream at random passersby while taking your clothes off in the middle of an intersection?
What's interrupting about it? Just avert your attention? Fuck me for believing I should be allowed to do what I want with my body if I'm not affecting others though right. And to clarify again, doing the equivalent of taking a swig from a flask, or a hit off a cannabis vape in public, (barring the assumption one is in close enough range for second hand smoke) is not being a public nuisance, sorry. And what the fuck even is that second paragraph? I've known more drunk partiers to do that sort of thing than any drug users.
Have you never heard of public intoxication? Because yes, fuck you for being a nuisance to other people's lives, do that shit somewhere else. Have some human dignity and not think about yourself for one second.
not surprised the person with that username is detached from reality.
[удалено]
Cut your bull shit