If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano says the war on drugs in Mexico "is not a failure." Sort of makes you wonder what she's smoking   (cnn.com) divider line 268
    More: Dumbass, Janet Napolitano, Mexican Drug War, Secretary of Homeland Security, Puerto Vallarta, Mexican, Sinaloa, Pablo Guzman  
•       •       •

4671 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Feb 2012 at 4:00 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



268 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-28 07:47:08 PM
Are we sure this isn't a man?
 
2012-02-28 07:50:19 PM

untaken_name: Neither are most liberal politicians.


Yeah I know, I hate fake liberal politicians almost more than I hate social conservatives.
 
2012-02-28 07:50:22 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Basically, when they started cracking down on weed it forced growers underground where the mad scientists went to work creating new, stronger strains. It always makes me laugh when old hippies tell how great the weed was back in the day. They are soooooo full of it.


Who says that? Anyone who's smoked for years knows that the weed is much, much better now. You can tell by looking at it, even if you never smoked in your life.
 
2012-02-28 07:51:35 PM

TheJoe03: muck4doo: It's not a left/right issue so much as it is an authoritarian/libertarian one.

Truth, but most (social) conservatives aren't really big on legalizing drugs.


Neither are some big government libs(The Obama administration is cracking down on CA medical marijuana facilities). Too many people look at the left/right part of the political spectrum, and ignore the up and down part. On either side you can have people who want freedom to do whatever as long as you aren't hurting anyone. At the same time you have people on both the left and right who think the government is a tool to make people behave the way they want them to. To me, those are the scary ones.
 
2012-02-28 07:52:27 PM

cryinoutloud: Ow! That was my feelings!: Basically, when they started cracking down on weed it forced growers underground where the mad scientists went to work creating new, stronger strains. It always makes me laugh when old hippies tell how great the weed was back in the day. They are soooooo full of it.

Who says that? Anyone who's smoked for years knows that the weed is much, much better now. You can tell by looking at it, even if you never smoked in your life.


I dunno, that Acapulco Gold was some (deep voice) badass weed.
 
2012-02-28 07:53:40 PM

violentsalvation: And neither are most big-government, nanny-state liberals.


So basically the people that have forced me to register as an independent? To me it's just like all these "small-govt" conservatives that are actually very much in favor of more spending and bigger govt when it comes to what they support (ie, Bush, Reagan, the Republican party in general). The Republicans are dying off and when that happens the Democrats will have a similar fate. You can't go against you constituents this long without consequences. Independents are now the bigger than members of either party.
 
2012-02-28 07:57:17 PM

muck4doo: Neither are some big government libs(The Obama administration is cracking down on CA medical marijuana facilities). Too many people look at the left/right part of the political spectrum, and ignore the up and down part. On either side you can have people who want freedom to do whatever as long as you aren't hurting anyone. At the same time you have people on both the left and right who think the government is a tool to make people behave the way they want them to. To me, those are the scary ones.


I agree 100% but I am talking about actual liberals, not politicians, it's way different. Obama and Holder's position on CA medical marijuana and the NDAA is very much making me consider not voting or voting third party this time around. I actually would support a Republican if they are of the libertarian variety, especially compared to Obama.

Also, I thought being liberal by definition meant that you supported people being allowed to do what they want as long as they aren't hurting anyone, it's what made me originally align myself with them as a kid.
 
2012-02-28 07:57:35 PM

untaken_name: cryinoutloud: Ow! That was my feelings!: Basically, when they started cracking down on weed it forced growers underground where the mad scientists went to work creating new, stronger strains. It always makes me laugh when old hippies tell how great the weed was back in the day. They are soooooo full of it.

Who says that? Anyone who's smoked for years knows that the weed is much, much better now. You can tell by looking at it, even if you never smoked in your life.

I dunno, that Acapulco Gold was some (deep voice) badass weed.


No stems no seeds that you don't need.
 
2012-02-28 07:59:51 PM
...with the main difference between a social liberal and a classical liberal (libertarian) is the belief in social equality and justice. I tend to believe in govt using its power to help the people, which makes me a liberal and not a libertarian.
 
2012-02-28 08:01:50 PM

TheJoe03: muck4doo: Neither are some big government libs(The Obama administration is cracking down on CA medical marijuana facilities). Too many people look at the left/right part of the political spectrum, and ignore the up and down part. On either side you can have people who want freedom to do whatever as long as you aren't hurting anyone. At the same time you have people on both the left and right who think the government is a tool to make people behave the way they want them to. To me, those are the scary ones.

I agree 100% but I am talking about actual liberals, not politicians, it's way different. Obama and Holder's position on CA medical marijuana and the NDAA is very much making me consider not voting or voting third party this time around. I actually would support a Republican if they are of the libertarian variety, especially compared to Obama.

Also, I thought being liberal by definition meant that you supported people being allowed to do what they want as long as they aren't hurting anyone, it's what made me originally align myself with them as a kid.


That's called a classic liberal, which is often now associated with the libertarian party. The new liberal(or progressive), is a 20th century creation that does believe in having a strong government, and government control over the population and their behaviors.
 
2012-02-28 08:08:06 PM

cryinoutloud: Ow! That was my feelings!: Basically, when they started cracking down on weed it forced growers underground where the mad scientists went to work creating new, stronger strains. It always makes me laugh when old hippies tell how great the weed was back in the day. They are soooooo full of it.

Who says that? Anyone who's smoked for years knows that the weed is much, much better now. You can tell by looking at it, even if you never smoked in your life.


Maybe I should have said "old, former hippie Boomers who no longer smoke but insist the weed, as well as everything else, was WAY better back when they were young."
 
2012-02-28 08:08:11 PM

muck4doo: That's called a classic liberal


No, no, no, it applies to both liberals and libertarians. Either way, conservatism has nothing to do with it. They believe in traditional values and they love the past.
 
2012-02-28 08:09:00 PM

TheJoe03: ...with the main difference between a social liberal and a classical liberal (libertarian) is the belief in social equality and justice. I tend to believe in govt using its power to help the people, which makes me a liberal and not a libertarian.


Nothing wrong with that. But it also requires the government to step in and change peoples behaviors when you think you will reach those ends. So you do have some authoritarian in you. So do I. Most people have. Only the complete anarchist doesn't. We just kind of all differ on where it is best applied, and where not. THAT'S where left and right come into play. But the drug war is one that seems to have captured both sides pretty evenly in that spectrum as far as our lawmakers go.
 
2012-02-28 08:09:18 PM

muck4doo: Rent Party: Legalization means there is no more illegal drug trade, so illegal drug traders have to find something else to do.

It's that "something else to do" that has him worried. He ain't wrong about it either.


This
mvpmiguel
but they will want to recover that profits with more kidnappings, and extortions and gun hiring.
 
2012-02-28 08:09:59 PM

TheJoe03: violentsalvation: And neither are most big-government, nanny-state liberals.

So basically the people that have forced me to register as an independent? To me it's just like all these "small-govt" conservatives that are actually very much in favor of more spending and bigger govt when it comes to what they support (ie, Bush, Reagan, the Republican party in general). The Republicans are dying off and when that happens the Democrats will have a similar fate. You can't go against you constituents this long without consequences. Independents are now the bigger than members of either party.


It is very true, most conservatives are not conservative, and most liberals are not liberal. The lines are blurred but the two-party partisanship with the talking points and the lies is still able to keep most voters blind and in line.

You really have to vote the issues important to you and disregard the party. I find myself agreeing more with actual liberals than the authoritarian social conservatives.
 
2012-02-28 08:12:49 PM

jdhj2: muck4doo: Rent Party: Legalization means there is no more illegal drug trade, so illegal drug traders have to find something else to do.

It's that "something else to do" that has him worried. He ain't wrong about it either.

This
mvpmiguel
but they will want to recover that profits with more kidnappings, and extortions and gun hiring.


I think we've already covered the economics on that one. Your fear is financially unsustainable, so won't happen. After all the kidnap victims run out of money, then what?
 
2012-02-28 08:13:01 PM
For the record, in a very uncomfortable situation as an unwise male aide of hers I was pressured into giving her a blowjob. And yes she has a cock and it was surprisingly gigantic. That does not imply the experience was pleasurable anything but, That "woman" ground the back of my larynx into paste. I am still suffering.

/ok all of this is BS if not immediately apparent
 
2012-02-28 08:14:09 PM
Anagram of Janet Napolitano - Open at anal joint.

My anagram of Sarah Louise Palin - U.S. paranoia is hell.

/yeah, that's all I got
 
2012-02-28 08:20:25 PM

TheJoe03: muck4doo: That's called a classic liberal

No, no, no, it applies to both liberals and libertarians. Either way, conservatism has nothing to do with it. They believe in traditional values and they love the past.


The conservative will always love things of the past, but not everything. I had an ex-girlfriend who thought change was always good, even when it was stupid. Just because it was something exciting and new. Not all things of the past are good, not every change to something new is good. Now, one thing we know is the Dallas Cowboys are good. The Iggles are stupid. The lulzskins are satan, and the Giants are meh. I wouldn't want the Cowboys shipped to any other division though because I love those rivalries. Someone else may think playing the Bears twice a year instead of the skins would be exciting and new. I would think different. Not everyone's priorities are the same. Most probably wouldn't care. The authoritarian would ask the government to intervene and make the NFL do what he/she wanted. Either way, the point is drugs are bad, mmmmmkay. But as long as you aren't hurting anyone while high, or hurting others to feed your habit, the government should leave you the fark alone.

/Last time I ever date a truther chick
//Lulzkins do have the devils colors and a racist name
 
2012-02-28 08:20:49 PM

muck4doo: So you do have some authoritarian in you. So do I. Most people have. Only the complete anarchist doesn't.


Balance is the key to life.
 
2012-02-28 08:22:31 PM
GO COWBOYS!
 
2012-02-28 08:25:04 PM

TheJoe03: GO COWBOYS!


And take the Texans with you!
 
2012-02-28 08:26:30 PM
Is it too late to apply for a Frito-Lay distributorship in Colorado ?
 
2012-02-28 08:26:40 PM

untaken_name: TheJoe03: GO COWBOYS!

And take the Texans with you!


I miss the Oilers, was a kid when Warren Moon was around, fark Tennessee. They were my AFC team but the Texans will never mean a damn thing to me.
 
2012-02-28 08:28:58 PM
The government of the United States is compelled by statute to lie regarding marijuana. They are compelled to do whatever it takes to avert legalization in any way, shape, or form.

Link:
Link (new window)
 
2012-02-28 08:29:04 PM

TheJoe03: untaken_name: TheJoe03: GO COWBOYS!

And take the Texans with you!

I miss the Oilers, was a kid when Warren Moon was around, fark Tennessee. They were my AFC team but the Texans will never mean a damn thing to me.


Yeah, I grew up in an Oilers household, so I can't be a Cowboy fan. I'm a Bears fan, which is strange in Texas but acceptable since there's no Texas teams in the division. Of course, as a Bears fan, I've been feeling like an Oilers fan the last couple years, if you know what I mean.
 
2012-02-28 08:38:40 PM
Oh Noes the dangerous evil mexican ditch weed!
 
2012-02-28 08:41:36 PM

Ontos: [desmond.imageshack.us image 539x427]


Do you work for Quizno's?
 
2012-02-28 08:42:46 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Backwards Cornfield Races: Communist_Manifesto: It's going to be really ridiculous if Washington and Colorado legalize the devil weed this election. My uh friend already gets 8ths of really good chronic for thirty bucks and if you want to buy an OZ of it, it will only set you back 180. The past ten years the quality has skyrocketed while the cost has plummeted.

Hopefully the same thing won't happen to you guys that happen to us in California. A lot of people voted against it because they would lose money (the growers in norcal for example and all cops/lawyers/prison guard union members). Although to be fair it was a very convoluted bill

Yeah, Cali's bill was a mess. They asked for too much, including a bunch of business regs that brought a lot of corporate dollars into the fight in opposition. Colorado's bill is very simple and actually stricter than the MMJ law. In fact, there has been a lot of infighting among MJ activists about whether it is too strict. Basically, it would be legal to have 6 plants, one ounce, you must be over 21, and it doesn't touch employers ability to test or fire you if you smoke.


That would be a good law.
Not a smoker myself.
 
2012-02-28 08:56:13 PM

muck4doo: But it also requires the government to step in and change peoples behaviors when you think you will reach those ends. So you do have some authoritarian in you.


There's a world of difference between seeing that there are legitimate uses of authority and coercion and being an authoritarian, but I see your point.
 
2012-02-28 09:02:35 PM
No, she's right -- for the dealers and gangs, the war on drugs has been on major victory after another.
 
2012-02-28 09:02:55 PM

BurnShrike: Buffet: FARK Janet Napolitano!

Ohdeargodno.


LMAO.
 
2012-02-28 09:05:47 PM
It is an "epic" failure.
 
2012-02-28 09:17:00 PM
 
2012-02-28 09:41:06 PM

Nadie_AZ: Janet, you screwed our state when you left. I'm having a hard time seeing anything you've done in DC as being good. The War on Drugs is a failure, and it is time to admit it.


Done in one. Can I buy you a drink at Four Peaks Brewery?

Janet's been over her head in DC since day one.
 
2012-02-28 09:43:29 PM
Our border. Reynosa used to be a fun town to go shop at and hang around:

Tell me this isn't a war zone now. (new window)
 
2012-02-28 09:52:20 PM

Aarontology: It's not a failure if you look at it from a different perspective.

The Feds, states, cities, law enforcement, et al have been granted incredible powers of detention, search, confiscation, and arrest. People in private prison industry get a steady flow of prisoners which means a steady flow of income from the government.

It's a win/win if you don't at all regard how it affects the people.


QFT. There is no War on Drugs and never has been. There is only a War on Civil Liberties.
 
2012-02-28 10:02:30 PM
Janet (the lesbo) knew NOTHING about "security/emergency prepardness" (I know-a friend was #2 at AZ dept of emergency affairs).
She knew NOTHING about the State Hospital (where a friend was a director of and got called on the carpet for)
She is nothing but a political HACK (how can I get a job as THE BOSS without ANY qualifications???)

She is a joke. Just like Jan Brewer (WTF why can't AZ elect a GUY for Gov??) Jan Brewer is turning out
to be WI's Walker (yes, I'm from WI and she is doing the same thing).

Talk about absurdity. Who voted for "change"? Yea, you got "change". Utter incompetence
that dwarfs what Bush did, Chicago style.

This country is F#CKED PERIOD.
 
2012-02-28 10:06:53 PM

BullBearMS: muck4doo: TheJoe03: Also this: Link (new window). Oh conservatives, seems science, facts, and truth are always against you.

It's not a left/right issue so much as it is an authoritarian/libertarian one.

Here are some facts:

Back when he was running for president in 2008, Barack Obama insisted that medical marijuana was an issue best left to state and local governments. "I'm not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue," he vowed, promising an end to the Bush administration's high-profile raids on providers of medical pot, which is legal in 16 states and the District of Columbia.

But over the past year, the Obama administration has quietly unleashed a multiagency crackdown on medical cannabis that goes far beyond anything undertaken by George W. Bush. The feds are busting growers who operate in full compliance with state laws, vowing to seize the property of anyone who dares to even rent to legal pot dispensaries, and threatening to imprison state employees responsible for regulating medical marijuana. With more than 100 raids on pot dispensaries during his first three years, Obama is now on pace to exceed Bush's record for medical-marijuana busts. "There's no question that Obama's the worst president on medical marijuana," says Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project.

Although this bullshiat has always been completely bipartisan, Obama has ramped the stupid up to eleven.


What's even more sad is that the only other viable party can't seem to field a candidate who isn't completely farking insane.
 
2012-02-28 10:18:46 PM

muck4doo: TheJoe03: muck4doo: It's not a left/right issue so much as it is an authoritarian/libertarian one.

Truth, but most (social) conservatives aren't really big on legalizing drugs.

Neither are some big government libs(The Obama administration is cracking down on CA medical marijuana facilities). Too many people look at the left/right part of the political spectrum, and ignore the up and down part. On either side you can have people who want freedom to do whatever as long as you aren't hurting anyone. At the same time you have people on both the left and right who think the government is a tool to make people behave the way they want them to. To me, those are the scary ones.



Well said.
 
2012-02-28 10:26:18 PM

Amos Quito: muck4doo: TheJoe03: muck4doo: It's not a left/right issue so much as it is an authoritarian/libertarian one.

Truth, but most (social) conservatives aren't really big on legalizing drugs.

Neither are some big government libs(The Obama administration is cracking down on CA medical marijuana facilities). Too many people look at the left/right part of the political spectrum, and ignore the up and down part. On either side you can have people who want freedom to do whatever as long as you aren't hurting anyone. At the same time you have people on both the left and right who think the government is a tool to make people behave the way they want them to. To me, those are the scary ones.


Well said.


Thank you Amos.
 
2012-02-28 10:47:35 PM

Dictatorial_Flair: What's even more sad is that the only other viable party can't seem to field a candidate who isn't completely farking insane.


When both parties do the exact same things after they are voted into power, the insane part is claiming there is a real difference between them just because their election time rhetoric is a bit different.

Lying to me when you want my vote does not make me a fan.
 
2012-02-28 10:58:25 PM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: There is only a War on Civil Liberties.


QFT

A completely bi-partisan war on Civil Liberties.

Assassination of U.S. citizens
President Obama has claimed, as President George W. Bush did before him, the right to order the killing of any citizen considered a terrorist or an abettor of terrorism. Last year, he approved the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaqi and another citizen under this claimed inherent authority. Last month, administration officials affirmed that power, stating that the president can order the assassination of any citizen whom he considers allied with terrorists. (Nations such as Nigeria, Iran and Syria have been routinely criticized for extrajudicial killings of enemies of the state.)

Indefinite detention
Under the law signed last month, terrorism suspects are to be held by the military; the president also has the authority to indefinitely detain citizens accused of terrorism. While the administration claims that this provision only codified existing law, experts widely contest this view, and the administration has opposed efforts to challenge such authority in federal courts. The government continues to claim the right to strip citizens of legal protections based on its sole discretion. (China recently codified a more limited detention law for its citizens, while countries such as Cambodia have been singled out by the United States for "prolonged detention.")

Arbitrary justice
The president now decides whether a person will receive a trial in the federal courts or in a military tribunal, a system that has been ridiculed around the world for lacking basic due process protections. Bush claimed this authority in 2001, and Obama has continued the practice. (Egypt and China have been denounced for maintaining separate military justice systems for selected defendants, including civilians.)

Warrantless searches
The president may now order warrantless surveillance, including a new capability to force companies and organizations to turn over information on citizens' finances, communications and associations. Bush acquired this sweeping power under the Patriot Act in 2001, and in 2011, Obama extended the power, including searches of everything from business documents to library records. The government can use "national security letters" to demand, without probable cause, that organizations turn over information on citizens - and order them not to reveal the disclosure to the affected party. (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan operate under laws that allow the government to engage in widespread discretionary surveillance.)

Secret evidence
The government now routinely uses secret evidence to detain individuals and employs secret evidence in federal and military courts. It also forces the dismissal of cases against the United States by simply filing declarations that the cases would make the government reveal classified information that would harm national security - a claim made in a variety of privacy lawsuits and largely accepted by federal judges without question. Even legal opinions, cited as the basis for the government's actions under the Bush and Obama administrations, have been classified. This allows the government to claim secret legal arguments to support secret proceedings using secret evidence. In addition, some cases never make it to court at all. The federal courts routinely deny constitutional challenges to policies and programs under a narrow definition of standing to bring a case.

War crimes
The world clamored for prosecutions of those responsible for waterboarding terrorism suspects during the Bush administration, but the Obama administration said in 2009 that it would not allow CIA employees to be investigated or prosecuted for such actions. This gutted not just treaty obligations but the Nuremberg principles of international law. When courts in countries such as Spain moved to investigate Bush officials for war crimes, the Obama administration reportedly urged foreign officials not to allow such cases to proceed, despite the fact that the United States has long claimed the same authority with regard to alleged war criminals in other countries. (Various nations have resisted investigations of officials accused of war crimes and torture. Some, such as Serbia and Chile, eventually relented to comply with international law; countries that have denied independent investigations include Iran, Syria and China.)

Secret court

The government has increased its use of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has expanded its secret warrants to include individuals deemed to be aiding or abetting hostile foreign governments or organizations. In 2011, Obama renewed these powers, including allowing secret searches of individuals who are not part of an identifiable terrorist group. The administration has asserted the right to ignore congressional limits on such surveillance. (Pakistan places national security surveillance under the unchecked powers of the military or intelligence services.)

Immunity from judicial review
Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has successfully pushed for immunity for companies that assist in warrantless surveillance of citizens, blocking the ability of citizens to challenge the violation of privacy. (Similarly, China has maintained sweeping immunity claims both inside and outside the country and routinely blocks lawsuits against private companies.)

Continual monitoring of citizens
The Obama administration has successfully defended its claim that it can use GPS devices to monitor every move of targeted citizens without securing any court order or review. (Saudi Arabia has installed massive public surveillance systems, while Cuba is notorious for active monitoring of selected citizens.)

Extraordinary renditions
The government now has the ability to transfer both citizens and noncitizens to another country under a system known as extraordinary rendition, which has been denounced as using other countries, such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, to torture suspects. The Obama administration says it is not continuing the abuses of this practice under Bush, but it insists on the unfettered right to order such transfers - including the possible transfer of U.S. citizens.


There is no such thing as a "sane party" on this issue.

dl.dropbox.com
 
2012-02-28 11:05:09 PM
Of course it was a success. Look at the money she made on guns, not to mention the recuring revenues on munitions. Go ChickenHawk!
 
2012-02-29 12:06:57 AM
"Its not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedom is what it is ok. Keep that in mind at all times. Thank you."
 
2012-02-29 12:08:41 AM

mvpmiguel: When did you liven here in Mexico? Time had changed, before the cartels didn't fight between them because it was easier to pass drugs to the us, but the violence here started after the US put more restrictions in the border after 9/11. Now they fight for the drugs corridors that are profitable


So escalating the War on Drugs and tightening up the border made things worse.
 
2012-02-29 12:26:40 AM
hicago green, talkin' 'bout Black Lebanese
A dirty room and a silver coke spoon
Give me my release, come on
Black napalese, it's got you weak in your knees
Just seeds and dust that you got bust on
You know it's hard to believe

30 days in the hole
That's what they give you
I know

Newcastle Brown, I'm tellin' you, it can sure smack you down
Take a greasy whore and a rollin' dance floor
It's got your head spinnin' round
If you live on the road, well there's a new highway code
[From: http://www.elyrics.net/read/h/humble-pie-lyrics/30-days-in-the-hole-ly rics.html]
You take the urban noise with some Durban Poison
It's gonna lessen your load

What you doin' boy?
You here for 30 days
Get, get, get your long hair cut
And cut out your ways

Black napalese, it got you weak in your knees
Just seeds and dust that you got bust on
You know it's so hard to please
Newcastle Brown can sure smack you down
You take a greasy whore and a rollin' dance floor
You know you're jailhouse-bound

30 days in the hole
 
2012-02-29 01:45:08 AM

untaken_name: legal versions which are sold in every pharmacy in the country (and which kill more people annually than the illegal versions)


Citation? I'll accept meth as one such - you can even use Vyvanse AND Adderall and combine 'em. I suspect meth kills far more and my searching suggests you're making that up.
 
2012-02-29 01:54:55 AM
It isn't, what's easy isn't always right. In fact, it usually is wrong. Mexico's cartels were influencing the day to day running of the country. How many people in the US want to be ruled by the crips, zetas, or the good old fashioned wop mob? It rhymes with none of us. Mexico made a hard choice, see 20+ thousand dead. It was however the right choice if Mexico wanted to remain a legitimate country. Haters ask the Mexicans to put up with crap we wouldn't ourselves. Hard to fathom for the libs but sometimes fighting is a must.
 
2012-02-29 02:17:44 AM

UnspokenVoice: untaken_name: legal versions which are sold in every pharmacy in the country (and which kill more people annually than the illegal versions)

Citation? I'll accept meth as one such - you can even use Vyvanse AND Adderall and combine 'em. I suspect meth kills far more and my searching suggests you're making that up.


I admit my phrasing was poor - I should have said "and the legal drugs kill about 10x more people than illegal drugs" rather than "and which kill more people annually than the illegal versions". My apologies for that. Legal drugs kill around 130,000 Americans each year. Illegal drugs kill around 12-14,000. I'd look it up for you, but I'm lazy and the stats are pretty easily available. Yes, I realize the issues inherent with a direct comparison, I'm just intending it as food for thought - we spend so much money to stamp out illegal drugs which kill about half as many people as auto accidents....and we pretty much ignore the legal drugs, which are killing more people each year than auto accidents and illegal drugs combined. And yes, I'm still too lazy to go look up auto accident death stats, as well. Feel free to discount what I'm saying if you are also lazy and don't want to look it up either.
 
Displayed 50 of 268 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report