Fentanyl Killed One of My Best Friends Sons

[Syriusly]

And a drug user is hurting more than just himself

I had a glass of wine last night.

Who was I hurting?

 

[Silhouette]

The fenatnyl didn't kill him he killed himself by using it.

That will be your opinion until you lose someone close to you from the opioid crisis.

No it will be my opinion until the day I die regardless of what happens to anyone I know.

His choices killed him.

Or her. It could be your daughter or your lover or wife too. Then I'll bet a tear or two will shed down your cheeks.

You say you want to tell other people what to do because you care about them. I say it's just the opposite. You care more about the pain you will feel if a person you love chooses to engage in a behavior that might lead to his death so you want to be able to control that person and tell him what choices he can make so as to spare yourself the pain.

I on the other hand don't think I have the right to tell anyone never mind to force anyone to behave the way I want them to no matter how much their choices may hurt me

Yes, and I care about the pain of the person having originally made a terrible choice that once established as a deep addiction, cannot be unmade without, shall we say, a "jolt". We are after all, human. At least I think you are. I know I am.

Addiction once chosen and later a deep addiction established, especially with heroin, is no longer a choice per se. It's that powerful. So, what to do? That's the $20,000 question.

 

[Correll]

I'm their fellow citizen. We are part of a community. Judging other's behavior and taking care of one another is part of being part of a community.


Always has been.

No respecting other's people's choices is being part of a community

Who the fuck are you to sit in judgement of anyone else?

No. People are unknowingly killing themselves and wreaking havic on others, and youre trying to convince us the moral thing to do is stay out of it. Sorry im not buying it.

I never once mentioned morals

your morals are yours and yours alone and you have no right to use your morals as a benchmark for telling other people how to behave.

And there is not one drug user out there who doesn't know that they can die from drug use.

Nope. Individuals have a right to use their morals in policy debate and formulation.


Thous shall not kill, is a moral, and the basis of the law against murder. As it well should be.

But a drug user is only killing himself.

He is not committing a crime against anyone else is he?

See the difference?

We were just discussing the use of morals in policy. Now you just moved the goal posts. YOu might have moved them BACK, but it was still in effect a dodge of my point.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No respecting other's people's choices is being part of a community

Who the fuck are you to sit in judgement of anyone else?

No. People are unknowingly killing themselves and wreaking havic on others, and youre trying to convince us the moral thing to do is stay out of it. Sorry im not buying it.

I never once mentioned morals

your morals are yours and yours alone and you have no right to use your morals as a benchmark for telling other people how to behave.

And there is not one drug user out there who doesn't know that they can die from drug use.

Nope. Individuals have a right to use their morals in policy debate and formulation.


Thous shall not kill, is a moral, and the basis of the law against murder. As it well should be.

But a drug user is only killing himself.

He is not committing a crime against anyone else is he?

See the difference?

We were just discussing the use of morals in policy. Now you just moved the goal posts. YOu might have moved them BACK, but it was still in effect a dodge of my point.

There was no mention of morals in the title or the very first post of the thread

So your insertion of morals into the argument is the moving of goal posts

 

[Correll]

No. People are unknowingly killing themselves and wreaking havic on others, and youre trying to convince us the moral thing to do is stay out of it. Sorry im not buying it.

I never once mentioned morals

your morals are yours ans yours alone and you have no right to use your morals as a benchmark for telling other people how to behave.

And there is not one drug user out there who doesn't know that they can die from drug use.

We live in a society with shared values to some extent. To be neutral on an issue that affects the community in so many negative aspects is the height of irresponsibility. And i disagree with the premise that most, or every as you put it, every drug user realizes they are playing russian roulette with their lives. Most drug users that OD are committing suiced, but its passive suicide, they dont relize the consequences of their actions.

Suicide is a personal choice and I will argue it is the most important personal choice.
Whether a person chooses to live or die is his choice and his alone and it is not your right to force people to live if they choose not to.

And it's not drug use that causes the violence and the crime or any other damage to the community it is the drug laws and the prohibition on drugs that we try and fail to enforce that is causing the problems.

Suicide is generally an irrational choice.


A community that prevents a man (or woman) from suicide during a short term period of despair, and thus allowing that individual to get past that to new periods of decent or better quality of life, is a good thing.


And completely keeping in the give and take of being part of a community.

You think it is irrational but you have no right to force your opinions on others

If a person makes the choice to end his own life who are you to tell him he must stay alive ?

I'm his fellow man, his fellow citizen, his fellow member of the community that he is a part of, and has a right to expect some level of aid from during his time of mental crisis.


I saw a man trying to kill himself by walking in traffic, a long time ago.


I called 911 so that the cops would come and stop him from killing himself, and take him to the nuthouse where I hoped he would get treatment.


They came and took him away.


As was right.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I never once mentioned morals

your morals are yours ans yours alone and you have no right to use your morals as a benchmark for telling other people how to behave.

And there is not one drug user out there who doesn't know that they can die from drug use.

We live in a society with shared values to some extent. To be neutral on an issue that affects the community in so many negative aspects is the height of irresponsibility. And i disagree with the premise that most, or every as you put it, every drug user realizes they are playing russian roulette with their lives. Most drug users that OD are committing suiced, but its passive suicide, they dont relize the consequences of their actions.

Suicide is a personal choice and I will argue it is the most important personal choice.
Whether a person chooses to live or die is his choice and his alone and it is not your right to force people to live if they choose not to.

And it's not drug use that causes the violence and the crime or any other damage to the community it is the drug laws and the prohibition on drugs that we try and fail to enforce that is causing the problems.

Suicide is generally an irrational choice.


A community that prevents a man (or woman) from suicide during a short term period of despair, and thus allowing that individual to get past that to new periods of decent or better quality of life, is a good thing.


And completely keeping in the give and take of being part of a community.

You think it is irrational but you have no right to force your opinions on others

If a person makes the choice to end his own life who are you to tell him he must stay alive ?

I'm his fellow man, his fellow citizen, his fellow member of the community that he is a part of, and has a right to expect some level of aid from during his time of mental crisis.


I saw a man trying to kill himself by walking in traffic, a long time ago.


I called 911 so that the cops would come and stop him from killing himself, and take him to the nuthouse where I hoped he would get treatment.


They came and took him away.


As was right.

So you are deciding he has a"mental crisis" because you do not agree with his choices.

So you really care more about yourself than him.

That guy walking in traffic was endangering other people so not the same thing

 

[Correll]

Liberals rationalize that this isn't their fault while actively supporting Open Border policies.


That does not mean they are not responsible.


THey are vile scum.

Conservatives rationalize this the Liberals fault even though the criminals were from Texas- not Mexico.

Conservatives rationalize that this isn't another example of their failed 'war on drugs' while doing nothing about the Opioid crisis- other than blaming liberals.

The blood is on the hands of all of those who support the current 'war on drugs'

This isn't about who these individual criminals are, though I seriously doubt they are conservatives,
but about the policies that have created the problem.

And those policies are the "War on Drugs"- not illegal immigration.

Despite the contard's who want to blame everything on illegal immigration.

An border kept open, for what ever reason, certain political parties have to keep it open, allows ALSO, the free flow of drugs.

And of course there is no 'border kept open' except arguably between Canada and the United States.

As far as the 'free flow of drugs'- drugs manage to get into our prisons- the most guarded facilities we have.

We have home grown drugs, home made drugs, drugs coming by mail- but the contards- the contards want to blame everything on illegal aliens.

The majority of illicit fentanyl comes across the Southern border, in a trade massively dominated by Mexican smugglers.


What is retarded is ignoring actions that are killing your people, because of partisan politics.

 

[Correll]

No. People are unknowingly killing themselves and wreaking havic on others, and youre trying to convince us the moral thing to do is stay out of it. Sorry im not buying it.

I never once mentioned morals

your morals are yours and yours alone and you have no right to use your morals as a benchmark for telling other people how to behave.

And there is not one drug user out there who doesn't know that they can die from drug use.

Nope. Individuals have a right to use their morals in policy debate and formulation.


Thous shall not kill, is a moral, and the basis of the law against murder. As it well should be.

But a drug user is only killing himself.

He is not committing a crime against anyone else is he?

See the difference?

We were just discussing the use of morals in policy. Now you just moved the goal posts. YOu might have moved them BACK, but it was still in effect a dodge of my point.

There was no mention of morals in the title or the very first post of the thread

So your insertion of morals into the argument is the moving of goal posts

THe discussion moved to a more general discussion of the idea of society regulating the behavior of individuals.


It certainly related to the underlying question of the specific incident in the OP.


My point stands.



Individuals have a right to use their morals in policy debate and formulation.


Thous shall not kill, is a moral, and the basis of the law against murder. As it well should be.

 

[Correll]

We live in a society with shared values to some extent. To be neutral on an issue that affects the community in so many negative aspects is the height of irresponsibility. And i disagree with the premise that most, or every as you put it, every drug user realizes they are playing russian roulette with their lives. Most drug users that OD are committing suiced, but its passive suicide, they dont relize the consequences of their actions.

Suicide is a personal choice and I will argue it is the most important personal choice.
Whether a person chooses to live or die is his choice and his alone and it is not your right to force people to live if they choose not to.

And it's not drug use that causes the violence and the crime or any other damage to the community it is the drug laws and the prohibition on drugs that we try and fail to enforce that is causing the problems.

Suicide is generally an irrational choice.


A community that prevents a man (or woman) from suicide during a short term period of despair, and thus allowing that individual to get past that to new periods of decent or better quality of life, is a good thing.


And completely keeping in the give and take of being part of a community.

You think it is irrational but you have no right to force your opinions on others

If a person makes the choice to end his own life who are you to tell him he must stay alive ?

I'm his fellow man, his fellow citizen, his fellow member of the community that he is a part of, and has a right to expect some level of aid from during his time of mental crisis.


I saw a man trying to kill himself by walking in traffic, a long time ago.


I called 911 so that the cops would come and stop him from killing himself, and take him to the nuthouse where I hoped he would get treatment.


They came and took him away.


As was right.

So you are deciding he has a"mental crisis" because you do not agree with his choices.

So you really care more about yourself than him.

That guy walking in traffic was endangering other people so not the same thing

It is my personal analysis of his actions, true. What else do I have to base my actions on, other than my personal conclusions?


I did not call the cops because of concern for the safety of people inside of cars who might have hit him, and then been hit by other cars. It was an urban street, the speeds were not such that the people in the cars would have been seriously injured.


The dispatcher who gave the call a high priority, and had comes there in 3 or 4 minutes, was not motivated by concern for the drivers.


The cops who rushed there and blocked traffic with their cars and took the guy away, were not motivated by concern for the drivers, or their cars.



This was concern for the life of their fellow man.


You are reacting to the over reach of the "Nanny State".


The opposite of the overly intrusive government is not a Darwinian Anarchy but Limited Government.


You are attempting to over correct.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I never once mentioned morals

your morals are yours and yours alone and you have no right to use your morals as a benchmark for telling other people how to behave.

And there is not one drug user out there who doesn't know that they can die from drug use.

Nope. Individuals have a right to use their morals in policy debate and formulation.


Thous shall not kill, is a moral, and the basis of the law against murder. As it well should be.

But a drug user is only killing himself.

He is not committing a crime against anyone else is he?

See the difference?

We were just discussing the use of morals in policy. Now you just moved the goal posts. YOu might have moved them BACK, but it was still in effect a dodge of my point.

There was no mention of morals in the title or the very first post of the thread

So your insertion of morals into the argument is the moving of goal posts

THe discussion moved to a more general discussion of the idea of society regulating the behavior of individuals.


It certainly related to the underlying question of the specific incident in the OP.


My point stands.



Individuals have a right to use their morals in policy debate and formulation.


Thous shall not kill, is a moral, and the basis of the law against murder. As it well should be.

and killing another is vastly different than making personal choices that harm no one else

 

[Skull Pilot]

Suicide is a personal choice and I will argue it is the most important personal choice.
Whether a person chooses to live or die is his choice and his alone and it is not your right to force people to live if they choose not to.

And it's not drug use that causes the violence and the crime or any other damage to the community it is the drug laws and the prohibition on drugs that we try and fail to enforce that is causing the problems.

Suicide is generally an irrational choice.


A community that prevents a man (or woman) from suicide during a short term period of despair, and thus allowing that individual to get past that to new periods of decent or better quality of life, is a good thing.


And completely keeping in the give and take of being part of a community.

You think it is irrational but you have no right to force your opinions on others

If a person makes the choice to end his own life who are you to tell him he must stay alive ?

I'm his fellow man, his fellow citizen, his fellow member of the community that he is a part of, and has a right to expect some level of aid from during his time of mental crisis.


I saw a man trying to kill himself by walking in traffic, a long time ago.


I called 911 so that the cops would come and stop him from killing himself, and take him to the nuthouse where I hoped he would get treatment.


They came and took him away.


As was right.

So you are deciding he has a"mental crisis" because you do not agree with his choices.

So you really care more about yourself than him.

That guy walking in traffic was endangering other people so not the same thing

It is my personal analysis of his actions, true. What else do I have to base my actions on, other than my personal conclusions?


I did not call the cops because of concern for the safety of people inside of cars who might have hit him, and then been hit by other cars. It was an urban street, the speeds were not such that the people in the cars would have been seriously injured.


The dispatcher who gave the call a high priority, and had comes there in 3 or 4 minutes, was not motivated by concern for the drivers.


The cops who rushed there and blocked traffic with their cars and took the guy away, were not motivated by concern for the drivers, or their cars.



This was concern for the life of their fellow man.


You are reacting to the over reach of the "Nanny State".


The opposite of the overly intrusive government is not a Darwinian Anarchy but Limited Government.


You are attempting to over correct.

If the speed were so low then chances are the person walking wouldn't have been killed.

And this has nothing to do with the state.

I have never mentioned the state.
This is about people thinking they have the right to interfere with the personal choices of others.

If a person chooses to do drugs it is none of your business.
If a person decides to kill himself and endangers no one else in the process then that too is none of your business

 

[Correll]

Nope. Individuals have a right to use their morals in policy debate and formulation.


Thous shall not kill, is a moral, and the basis of the law against murder. As it well should be.

But a drug user is only killing himself.

He is not committing a crime against anyone else is he?

See the difference?

We were just discussing the use of morals in policy. Now you just moved the goal posts. YOu might have moved them BACK, but it was still in effect a dodge of my point.

There was no mention of morals in the title or the very first post of the thread

So your insertion of morals into the argument is the moving of goal posts

THe discussion moved to a more general discussion of the idea of society regulating the behavior of individuals.


It certainly related to the underlying question of the specific incident in the OP.


My point stands.



Individuals have a right to use their morals in policy debate and formulation.


Thous shall not kill, is a moral, and the basis of the law against murder. As it well should be.

and killing another is vastly different than making personal choices that harm no one else

YOu made a statement that an individual does not have the right to inflict their "morals" on another.


I used an extreme example to prove that they do.


Once the principle is established, then the discussion becomes one of, to what extent is reasonable.



Which is where the debate should be.

 

[Skull Pilot]

But a drug user is only killing himself.

He is not committing a crime against anyone else is he?

See the difference?

We were just discussing the use of morals in policy. Now you just moved the goal posts. YOu might have moved them BACK, but it was still in effect a dodge of my point.

There was no mention of morals in the title or the very first post of the thread

So your insertion of morals into the argument is the moving of goal posts

THe discussion moved to a more general discussion of the idea of society regulating the behavior of individuals.


It certainly related to the underlying question of the specific incident in the OP.


My point stands.



Individuals have a right to use their morals in policy debate and formulation.


Thous shall not kill, is a moral, and the basis of the law against murder. As it well should be.

and killing another is vastly different than making personal choices that harm no one else

YOu made a statement that an individual does not have the right to inflict their "morals" on another.


I used an extreme example to prove that they do.


Once the principle is established, then the discussion becomes one of, to what extent is reasonable.



Which is where the debate should be.

They don't when the actions of a person in no way endangers anyone else.

A person who chooses to use drugs ( what the post is about) is in no way endangering anyone else so it is none of your business and you have no right to force your ,orals on him.

you use examples where others are placed in danger by the actions of an individual. That is a horse of a different color

 

[Correll]

Suicide is generally an irrational choice.


A community that prevents a man (or woman) from suicide during a short term period of despair, and thus allowing that individual to get past that to new periods of decent or better quality of life, is a good thing.


And completely keeping in the give and take of being part of a community.

You think it is irrational but you have no right to force your opinions on others

If a person makes the choice to end his own life who are you to tell him he must stay alive ?

I'm his fellow man, his fellow citizen, his fellow member of the community that he is a part of, and has a right to expect some level of aid from during his time of mental crisis.


I saw a man trying to kill himself by walking in traffic, a long time ago.


I called 911 so that the cops would come and stop him from killing himself, and take him to the nuthouse where I hoped he would get treatment.


They came and took him away.


As was right.

So you are deciding he has a"mental crisis" because you do not agree with his choices.

So you really care more about yourself than him.

That guy walking in traffic was endangering other people so not the same thing

It is my personal analysis of his actions, true. What else do I have to base my actions on, other than my personal conclusions?


I did not call the cops because of concern for the safety of people inside of cars who might have hit him, and then been hit by other cars. It was an urban street, the speeds were not such that the people in the cars would have been seriously injured.


The dispatcher who gave the call a high priority, and had comes there in 3 or 4 minutes, was not motivated by concern for the drivers.


The cops who rushed there and blocked traffic with their cars and took the guy away, were not motivated by concern for the drivers, or their cars.



This was concern for the life of their fellow man.


You are reacting to the over reach of the "Nanny State".


The opposite of the overly intrusive government is not a Darwinian Anarchy but Limited Government.


You are attempting to over correct.

If the speed were so low then chances are the person walking wouldn't have been killed.

And this has nothing to do with the state.

I have never mentioned the state.
This is about people thinking they have the right to interfere with the personal choices of others.

If a person chooses to do drugs it is none of your business.
If a person decides to kill himself and endangers no one else in the process then that too is none of your business

1. As I stated the decision of suicide is generally irrational. Yes, the man in question would probably NOT have been killed, but it was still a suicide attempt.

2. People have input into government policy, and that leads to them impacting other people's lives though STATE policy. There are laws, arrived at though the democratic process that gets people trying to kill themselves committed for mental health eval and, hopefully treatment.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You think it is irrational but you have no right to force your opinions on others

If a person makes the choice to end his own life who are you to tell him he must stay alive ?

I'm his fellow man, his fellow citizen, his fellow member of the community that he is a part of, and has a right to expect some level of aid from during his time of mental crisis.


I saw a man trying to kill himself by walking in traffic, a long time ago.


I called 911 so that the cops would come and stop him from killing himself, and take him to the nuthouse where I hoped he would get treatment.


They came and took him away.


As was right.

So you are deciding he has a"mental crisis" because you do not agree with his choices.

So you really care more about yourself than him.

That guy walking in traffic was endangering other people so not the same thing

It is my personal analysis of his actions, true. What else do I have to base my actions on, other than my personal conclusions?


I did not call the cops because of concern for the safety of people inside of cars who might have hit him, and then been hit by other cars. It was an urban street, the speeds were not such that the people in the cars would have been seriously injured.


The dispatcher who gave the call a high priority, and had comes there in 3 or 4 minutes, was not motivated by concern for the drivers.


The cops who rushed there and blocked traffic with their cars and took the guy away, were not motivated by concern for the drivers, or their cars.



This was concern for the life of their fellow man.


You are reacting to the over reach of the "Nanny State".


The opposite of the overly intrusive government is not a Darwinian Anarchy but Limited Government.


You are attempting to over correct.

If the speed were so low then chances are the person walking wouldn't have been killed.

And this has nothing to do with the state.

I have never mentioned the state.
This is about people thinking they have the right to interfere with the personal choices of others.

If a person chooses to do drugs it is none of your business.
If a person decides to kill himself and endangers no one else in the process then that too is none of your business

1. As I stated the decision of suicide is generally irrational. Yes, the man in question would probably NOT have been killed, but it was still a suicide attempt.

2. People have input into government policy, and that leads to them impacting other people's lives though STATE policy. There are laws, arrived at though the democratic process that gets people trying to kill themselves committed for mental health eval and, hopefully treatment.

No once again YOU believe the decision is irrational. And his suicide attempt still endangered the public. The guy who hangs himself endangers no one. The guy who decides to jump off a building does

And I have already said I am not talking about government policy

 

[Slimdugger99]

Conservatives rationalize this the Liberals fault even though the criminals were from Texas- not Mexico.

Conservatives rationalize that this isn't another example of their failed 'war on drugs' while doing nothing about the Opioid crisis- other than blaming liberals.

The blood is on the hands of all of those who support the current 'war on drugs'

This isn't about who these individual criminals are, though I seriously doubt they are conservatives,
but about the policies that have created the problem.

And those policies are the "War on Drugs"- not illegal immigration.

Despite the contard's who want to blame everything on illegal immigration.

An border kept open, for what ever reason, certain political parties have to keep it open, allows ALSO, the free flow of drugs.

And of course there is no 'border kept open' except arguably between Canada and the United States.

As far as the 'free flow of drugs'- drugs manage to get into our prisons- the most guarded facilities we have.

We have home grown drugs, home made drugs, drugs coming by mail- but the contards- the contards want to blame everything on illegal aliens.

The majority of illicit fentanyl comes across the Southern border, in a trade massively dominated by Mexican smugglers.


What is retarded is ignoring actions that are killing your people, because of partisan politics.

Regardless of where the drug comes from or how it gets here, the ingredient that makes it so lethal is ignorance. Almost all those who overdose don’t know that the heroin they think they have purchased is adulterated with fentanyl. The dealer who sold them the drug probably doesn’t know either. Almost everyone’s well being in this illicit supply chain , is dependent upon the skill and knowledge of the adulterer. Regulation of this and other illegal drugs would prevent most inadvertent deaths. Decriminalizing drugs would eliminate the profit that makes their distribution possible and allow their taxation by the state. All in all , a different direction on these matters should have been taken long ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Correll]

We were just discussing the use of morals in policy. Now you just moved the goal posts. YOu might have moved them BACK, but it was still in effect a dodge of my point.

There was no mention of morals in the title or the very first post of the thread

So your insertion of morals into the argument is the moving of goal posts

THe discussion moved to a more general discussion of the idea of society regulating the behavior of individuals.


It certainly related to the underlying question of the specific incident in the OP.


My point stands.



Individuals have a right to use their morals in policy debate and formulation.


Thous shall not kill, is a moral, and the basis of the law against murder. As it well should be.

and killing another is vastly different than making personal choices that harm no one else

YOu made a statement that an individual does not have the right to inflict their "morals" on another.


I used an extreme example to prove that they do.


Once the principle is established, then the discussion becomes one of, to what extent is reasonable.



Which is where the debate should be.

They don't when the actions of a person in no way endangers anyone else.

A person who chooses to use drugs ( what the post is about) is in no way endangering anyone else so it is none of your business and you have no right to force your ,orals on him.

you use examples where others are placed in danger by the actions of an individual. That is a horse of a different color

I don't want hard drugs to be a part of my society.


As part of society, I have a right to that position, and if I can get enough people to agree, then we, as a society have a right to define ourselves and our way of life.

 

[Skull Pilot]

There was no mention of morals in the title or the very first post of the thread

So your insertion of morals into the argument is the moving of goal posts

THe discussion moved to a more general discussion of the idea of society regulating the behavior of individuals.


It certainly related to the underlying question of the specific incident in the OP.


My point stands.



Individuals have a right to use their morals in policy debate and formulation.


Thous shall not kill, is a moral, and the basis of the law against murder. As it well should be.

and killing another is vastly different than making personal choices that harm no one else

YOu made a statement that an individual does not have the right to inflict their "morals" on another.


I used an extreme example to prove that they do.


Once the principle is established, then the discussion becomes one of, to what extent is reasonable.



Which is where the debate should be.

They don't when the actions of a person in no way endangers anyone else.

A person who chooses to use drugs ( what the post is about) is in no way endangering anyone else so it is none of your business and you have no right to force your ,orals on him.

you use examples where others are placed in danger by the actions of an individual. That is a horse of a different color

I don't want hard drugs to be a part of my society.


As part of society, I have a right to that position, and if I can get enough people to agree, then we, as a society have a right to define ourselves and our way of life.

Your opinion. You have no right to force it on another.

 

[August West]

This isn't about who these individual criminals are, though I seriously doubt they are conservatives,
but about the policies that have created the problem.

And those policies are the "War on Drugs"- not illegal immigration.

Despite the contard's who want to blame everything on illegal immigration.

An border kept open, for what ever reason, certain political parties have to keep it open, allows ALSO, the free flow of drugs.

And of course there is no 'border kept open' except arguably between Canada and the United States.

As far as the 'free flow of drugs'- drugs manage to get into our prisons- the most guarded facilities we have.

We have home grown drugs, home made drugs, drugs coming by mail- but the contards- the contards want to blame everything on illegal aliens.

The majority of illicit fentanyl comes across the Southern border, in a trade massively dominated by Mexican smugglers.


What is retarded is ignoring actions that are killing your people, because of partisan politics.

Regardless of where the drug comes from or how it gets here, the ingredient that makes it so lethal is ignorance. Almost all those who overdose don’t know that the heroin they think they have purchased is adulterated with fentanyl. The dealer who sold them the drug probably doesn’t know either. Almost everyone’s well being in this illicit supply chain , is dependent upon the skill and knowledge of the adulterer. Regulation of this and other illegal drugs would prevent most inadvertent deaths. Decriminalizing drugs would eliminate the profit that makes their distribution possible and allow their taxation by the state. All in all , a different direction on these matters should have been taken long ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It`s so much easier to blame NAFTA and liberals. No thinking is required.

 

[Correll]

I'm his fellow man, his fellow citizen, his fellow member of the community that he is a part of, and has a right to expect some level of aid from during his time of mental crisis.


I saw a man trying to kill himself by walking in traffic, a long time ago.


I called 911 so that the cops would come and stop him from killing himself, and take him to the nuthouse where I hoped he would get treatment.


They came and took him away.


As was right.

So you are deciding he has a"mental crisis" because you do not agree with his choices.

So you really care more about yourself than him.

That guy walking in traffic was endangering other people so not the same thing

It is my personal analysis of his actions, true. What else do I have to base my actions on, other than my personal conclusions?


I did not call the cops because of concern for the safety of people inside of cars who might have hit him, and then been hit by other cars. It was an urban street, the speeds were not such that the people in the cars would have been seriously injured.


The dispatcher who gave the call a high priority, and had comes there in 3 or 4 minutes, was not motivated by concern for the drivers.


The cops who rushed there and blocked traffic with their cars and took the guy away, were not motivated by concern for the drivers, or their cars.



This was concern for the life of their fellow man.


You are reacting to the over reach of the "Nanny State".


The opposite of the overly intrusive government is not a Darwinian Anarchy but Limited Government.


You are attempting to over correct.

If the speed were so low then chances are the person walking wouldn't have been killed.

And this has nothing to do with the state.

I have never mentioned the state.
This is about people thinking they have the right to interfere with the personal choices of others.

If a person chooses to do drugs it is none of your business.
If a person decides to kill himself and endangers no one else in the process then that too is none of your business

1. As I stated the decision of suicide is generally irrational. Yes, the man in question would probably NOT have been killed, but it was still a suicide attempt.

2. People have input into government policy, and that leads to them impacting other people's lives though STATE policy. There are laws, arrived at though the democratic process that gets people trying to kill themselves committed for mental health eval and, hopefully treatment.

No once again YOU believe the decision is irrational. And his suicide attempt still endangered the public. The guy who hangs himself endangers no one. The guy who decides to jump off a building does

And I have already said I am not talking about government policy

1. Yes, I believe his decision was irrational. I stand by that call. As you say, he was likely to fail and only be badly hurt. Does that sound rational?

2. It was not about his danger to the drivers. As a member of our society he has the right to the protection of society.