If he was funding cartel activity by purchasing meth from Mexico, you can be sure that harm resulted (even before you get to the destruction that meth addiction causes).
Perhaps, but right now--as it stands--there is cartel activity associated with it. And funding violent cartels for any reason should be illegal, for the same reasons that funding any violent organization should be illegal.
The alternative of having a square job and funding the US military via compulsory tax payments kills and tortures an order of magnitude more people than the cartels, if you want to follow the money in this line of reasoning.
Furthermore, the destruction caused by the individual use of meth cannot reasonably be attributed to anyone other than the person who willingly purchased, acquired, and ingested the substance with full consent.
Meth isn’t life destroying poison sorry to inform you. It’s a benefit for me and many others. Meth is the only thing that treats my adhd without horrible side effects, it’s the smoothest calmest most effective solution. 10mg / day orally. I can’t afford the outragous out of pocket price for desoxyn per month. Moreover, after initially being prescribed it and having great results, after moving I can’t find any psychiatrist willing to prescribe it because they are all terrified of the DEA. Thus I and many other stigmatized people directly benefit from cheap pure meth on the street. Thanks for reading about one casualty of the drug war (me). Go look up reviews for desoxyn if you’re curious. Yes it’s the same thing.
This is ridiculous. The poster clearly meant recreational abuse of meth. Your anecdotal experience with ADHD medicine does not warrant advocation of meth across the board for your sake. The difficulty you’re having is a direct consequence of how toxic and life destroying meth is.
That's called confirmation bias. The people who are living fulfilling and successful lives using meth, cocaine, wine, tea, or marijuana do not advertise it and therefor you have zero information about how many of them there are. Well people do talk about the legal and socially acceptable ones: wine, tea, and increasingly marijuana. So until meth becomes both legal and socially acceptable, your anecdotal data is heavily skewed towards those who crashed.
With that said, meth undoubtedly has a higher potential for abuse and addiction than marijuana and is worse for the health when abused. But evaluating just how much of a difference is near impossible while it remains illegal and while there is an huge and profitable government funded industry around the war on drugs.
>There are different viewpoints and pilosophies on what would work out best.
In this case, it mostly seems to be a difference between what Joe Blow says and what actual epidemiologists say. One of these is decidedly more valid than the other. I'm sure the experts disagree on some points, but these are details compared to the difference between the overall message they offer and what some self-centered goob or conspiracy theorist wants.
Even experts disagree. Countries have taken different actions precisely because of that. And even then, it can quickly devolve to "rule by experts" in every area of our life. I can listen to experts, I can learn from them, and I can make my own judgement call.
> difference between what Joe Blow says and what actual epidemiologists say
That's my point. It is a radical step to let Joe Blow, however silly or stupid I may think he is, to decide his own way of living. Maybe Joe Blow thinks I'm an idiot too for living the way I choose to do it.
That is quite an understatement, given that many experts made complete 180 turns contradicting what they said earlier.
But let's assume that they all agree on some point. Epidemiologists are still epidemiologists, i.e., people that know about diseases. They can inform you about how viruses spread, or what measures work best.
But they don't decide policy. Society needs to balance much more than just this epidemic. No intervention has zero unintended consequences.
Something that is getting clearer as numbers show more and more that the lockdowns so loved by the experts cause far more damage in other aspects of life, like premature death of untreated cancer patients, suicides, starvation, and so on.
>Since stars are burning out and the universe is expanding, are we also about the last generation of life?
Red dwarfs will still be burning a trillion years from now. The flare stars among them will only become more stable with time. I'm not sure what the prospects for interstellar travel will be by then, though.
I got accidentally attacked by a hawk of some sort. I was walking on a university campus pathway and got thwacked by a hawk jumping off of a pole. Turns out I was merely between it and its prey - it was about to swoop a squirrel. It bounced off me, ignored my existence entirely, and kept chasing the squirrel. Knocked me a bit off balance, but the bird appeared fine and so was I.
