When I want to buy marijuana, I call my weed guy and meet him at a coffee shop. I treat him to an espresso, and we talk about classical albums we've recently enjoyed. He used to own a record store. Then we take a walk around the block.
When I want to buy cocaine, I send a text message to my coke guy asking him if he's out and about. If he is, I meet him at a bar we both like. If he's not, I meet him at his house. It's a nice little house in the near suburbs. We talk about jazz. He's a musician and just does this on the side.
Heroin's a little more troublesome, and I don't indulge in it myself, but all you have to do is cross Penn Avenue and drive into Homestead. It isn't The Wire. The guys who sell are basically regular guys, and polite, if somewhat amused by the cultural whiteness, such as it is, of their clientele.
So when Matthew Yglesias, who's good on foreign policy, writes--
I guess this is something liberals and libertarians are supposed to agree about, but I consistently find it bizarre that there are some people who seem to think it would be a good idea if you could just walk into your local convenience store and pick up some heroin or crack along with your Fritos and Diet Coke--I guess I find it bizarre that he's under the impression that it is currently somehow less convenient or more difficult for an intending buyer to purchase those products than if his proposed situation were the case. It's more expensive, but by no means harder to find. Plus, in a pinch, drug dealers make deliveries, which no 7-11 has done for me lately.
Pennsylvania has crazy blue laws, and you can't buy beer in a convenience store or liquor after 9pm at the State Stores, but just about everywhere else in the country, you can walk into a gas station market and walk out with two chilled six packs. And if you believe that two sixers split among two buddies is more dangerous behind the wheel than a gram of coke, you, my friend, are what a prior generation would've called square.
Meanwhile, from a public health perspective, it seems to me that America's Frito addiction is a bigger problem than its cocaine addiction, and the criminal problems and violence stemming from the latter are uniquely and entirely the result of prohibition. I can't recall the last time a liquor store owner shot another for moving in on his territory, though presumably it's happened.
As Yglesias' commenters point out besides, the state stands to gain from legal-but-regulated narcotics. The word, my liberal friends, is Tax, and while we libertarian types are no great fan of taxation, we're certainly fonder of taxes on consumption than taxes on income, particularly when what's being consumed is quite clearly a non-essential luxury item.
When we talk about legalizing drugs, that's what we're talking about. We're talking about treating proscribed recreational drugs like currently legal ones, particularly alcohol. We're saying: alcohol addiction is just as debilitating as heroin addiction, and the recidivism rates for alcoholics are just as high, if not higher, than for many other addictions to illegal drugs. But for the most part, responsible adults can act responsibly, and the prohibitory regime currently in place only drives the sale and purchase of a desirable commodity underground, with all the black-market perversions that thereby obtain.
44 comments:
One thing I dont get about the libertarian is the fixation on taxation. Taxes are necessary for maintaining the public commons, and I have yet to see any kind of empirical evidence supporting the idea that the public would be better served if all that was in the public domain was turned over to private enterprise. There are plenty of examples showing the opposite (American health care vs. foreign for one.)
It seems to me that taxation is a bit of a silly thing to focus on, that instead one should seek an end to what those revenues are spent on. When you say you are against taxation in general, that is a roundabout way of saying you are against public education, defense, utilities, pensions, environmental regulations, food aid, etc.
The few libertarians I have asked about this reply that it is a matter of personal liberty or some other idealistic slogan. I am sure there must be more to this that I am cognitively dismissing or has not yet been explained to me. I dont know, maybe we could sort this out over an 8 ball sometime.
As indicated, I am not opposed to taxation in toto, but I do believe that public education, defense, pensions, etc. should be less robust than they are; that environmental enforecement doesn't really cost very much and would be better served through good legislation and civil litigation than through administrative regulation in any case; that utilities and other infrastructure in a techologically advanced world are within the legitimate purview of government, and can be expensive, but would benefit more from a redistribution of revenues currently spent on fanciful missile defense and a military designed to kill foreigners rather than dedicated to actual defense; and that food and medical aid likewise don't really cost so much.
Libertarains--this one anyway--believe not that there should be no taxes, but that the tax burden should be significantly less when useless or onerous government expenditures are eliminated.
regarding privitization of "public commons"...i have an example: law enforcement. in case you hadn't noticed, anyone that actually cares about the well-being of their shit utilizes the services of private security firms (i.e., rent-a-cops) to safeguard it. why? because "real" police are effing horrible at it. when was the last time you heard of police thwarting a burglary of a residence?
...
somewhat tangentially to the drug/alcohol issue, i look forward to the soldiers of the war on obesity taking up the mantle against 3.2% beer. do we REALLY need to double our caloric intake to get good and three sheets?
jyd - Police protection, it seems to me, is a legitimate state function. The inefficacies of the current arrangements are a problem of priorities. Time and resources spent harrassing poor blacks for selling dope--in many cases the only gainful economic activity available in poor minority communities--or time and resources spent harrassing vehicle owners in order to pad the municiple coffers, equals time and resources not protecting lives and property.
Hell, the drug war, as Radley Balko so effectively notes almost every day, has the perverted result of encouraging the police to commit property crime themselves!
In the Libertarian Paradise™, the police and criminal courts would serve a more circumscribed role, but would serve it more effectively.
...
Can you still get 3.2 beer?!!?
IOZ,
As a long time reader and tentative libertarian I gotta know: How can you bemoan the state of education (calling above for spending on education to be less robust) while spending so much of your considerable talent on the stupidity of the pundit/political class? Wouldn't mo' better education mean that the species Punditacus Moronicus would be, if not extinct, then at least unemployed?
MB
Assuming increased use is not desireable, why should legalization not lead to that? Many (most?) people see the law as a sort of moral guidance rather than a simple constraint on use. The Netherlands didn't see a significant hike, but they saddled up to the idea from a very different vantage point, and you are the progenitor of unreconcilable societies.
And despite your protestations, it is clearly less easy to obtain illegal drugs than alcohol, caffeine or nicotine. Sure, I can get anything I want, most likely by close of business. But I can't simply walk to the corner store. Assuming again we are concerned about increased use, small differences in ease of obtainment can be important. Next time you are at a banquet or party or somesuch, tell everyone it costs a penny to get seconds and see what happens.
Finally, and what perhaps should have been first, I think a very good argument can be made that increased use is not desireable, or at least that significant use by the population is not desireable. The the extent you believe in collective responsibility and social degradation, this seeming hole in the libertarian utopia should give pause.
In short: That's great, but would we want to live in such a world?
Nice credo IOZ. If that's libertarianism (and I'm not entirely sure it is), then sign me up. Isn't the "what's in the purview" question the basis of any of the various competing 'isms?
Rana: Is the (social or other) cost of enforcement worse than the cost of increased use? Qualitatively, I call it a wash in teh U.S. (not so in places like Colombia), and legalization at least weighs less on my principles.
Of course, it would make me even less cool.
And you're right: it seems an easy situation with a trusted dealer, but how easy is one of those guys to find?
K
MB - The smart people I know didn't learn it in school, and the dumb people I know didn't learn it there either. A century of public education, and what have you got? More seriously, I don't think that free public education should disappear. I think it should be more limited and less rigorously universalist. I think there should be more vocational options for students of that bent. I think universal literacy and numeracy are good goals, though not yet achieved, but I think the idea of a one-sized-fits-all basic education to produce a sort of universal body of basic knowledge is an experiment that's obviously failed in this country.
La_rana: it is clearly less easy for some people. I was perhaps being needlessly hyperbolic; what I wanted to point out is that for those with the desire, there are virtually no practical impediments to acquiring popular illegal drugs. That is true in Manhattan, New York, and it is true in Manhattan, Kansas.
I disagree that increased use is undesirable. I think recreational drug use can be as healthy and decent a social activity as sitting around the pub tossing back a few cold ones. I think that the prohibitory regime encourages binging and abuse just as Prohibition did for alcohol back in the day. I think that general predilections toward addiction are wildly exaggerated. And, to be clear, I believe in collective responsibility for certain actions taken by the state as an actor, such as wars, but I'm not sure I believe at all in a collective responsibility toward abstemiousness of any sort. I am, at heart, a hedonist I suppose.
As for ease of obtainment and preventing overuse, I agree that a $5 gram of cocaine is more attractive than a $50 gram, and perhaps more likely to be abused, but some of that difference can be offset by taxation, and the rest I resolve with a firm commitment to the idea that it would be better to have some increase in addiction than the present state of a violent, lawless underground transnational economy for narcotics.
Are all recreational drugs equally amenable to responsible use? Isn't there a qualitative difference between, say, weed and crystal meth?
Heya sticky. Isn't there a qualitative difference between domestic lager and Wild Turkey?
Yes--the number of trips you have to make to the little boy's room.
Oh, wait, that's a quantitative difference. My bad.
I don't think I ever considered that balancing narrative. That's a good point.
Alcohol addiction is not as debilitating, however, as methamphetamine addiction. Though it’s easy to argue that drugs should be legalized because they’re not really much more harmful than alcohol, that’s sort of cheating, isn’t it? Millions of alcoholics might make a powerful argument in the other direction.
Still, I’m very in favor of legalizing all illicit drugs. I would also want them tightly regulated, however – not available at the local convenience store, but obtained from the local metropolitan “drug clinic” – where nice, clean pharmaceutical-grade substances are available for little to no cost, with new, clean administration apparatus, and treatment is offered for those who desire it. I’d propose a variation on the Methadone clinic model.
What I’d really like to see isn’t increased tax revenues, so much as dramatically decreasing the funding of other criminal activities. There are vast amounts of money involved, and though I might feel kindly disposed to your local cocaine and pot dealers, I’m not so sympathetic towards some of the other players involved in the distribution network. Still, this type of plan would prove fiscally advantageous, despite the cost of setting up clinics, and the (frankly miniscule) expense involved in production. Decriminalizing use would have a dramatic, direct impact on incarceration rates in this country, not to mention the indirect benefit of removing the motivation for drug-related crimes (either related to personal acquisition or commercial distribution). It would also dramatically curtail availability, because there’s no financial incentive when you’re competing with free. Presumably, this would mean less people starting to use.
But I’m not so hip on the prospect of recasting use in more socially acceptable (or in some circles, desirable) terms – there are too many other worms in that can. For example, as problematic as alcohol is, it’s fairly easy to establish an objective legal criteria for intoxication. Try doing that for marijuana, which also impairs driving while someone is intoxicated, but remains in residual amounts in far greater concentrations to make laboratory determination of sobriety possible.
Drug enforcement and treatment in this country is proving to be a tragically expensive and ineffective farce. I’m not sure this means it should be abandoned, however – many of the initial laws were passed in response to very real social problems caused by readily accessible opiates, and there’s no reason to believe people in general are substantially less vulnerable now than they were at the turn of the last century. One of the underlying assumptions of the pro-legalization argument is that the people most predisposed to addiction are already finding ways to become addicted – a hypothesis I think is both baseless and incorrect.
What do you think, Ioz? Wouldn’t blanket legalization accompanied by little to no regulation create a much more widespread chemical dependency problem than currently exists? Doesn’t our own history suggest as much?
OK, so is the whole do away with education a Bakuninist anarchist gotta destroy before you can build thing? Cause it sounds like you're arguing about how we educate not whether we educate. In which case, I'd agree with you the present system is too rigid.
As an aside, my son goes to a Charter progressive/constructivist school here in LA. He's not the kind of kid -- maybe none of them are -- who would benefit from a traditional academic education. Constructivism -- in case it turns out education theory is the one subject you don't have an in-depth knowledge of -- in theory is concerned more with strategies for learning than learning by rote or by having some authority tell you what the answer is and in practice is concerned more with project based learning as opposed to teaching to a multiple choice test.
MB
gotta disagree with ya, ioz, before i can agree with ya.
the taste buds' experiences of drinking lager or bourbon might be qualitatively different, but the two liquids are otherwise the same drug, in quantitatively different amounts.
i've not much personal experience with recreational drugs, but i'd rather have a hit too many of hashish than one too many sudafeds. i've found the two to be qualitatively different experiences. vastly.
i'm all for legalizing cannabis in all its forms, with no taxing or regulation [except illegal to drive while intoxicated]. i mean nobody taxes or regulates the carrots i grow in my garden, pluck up out of the dirt, and serve up in assorted fashions.
some of those others, though, i duuno. the ones i tend to think of as synthetics, like crystal meth, bother me. i think these addictions are probably worse than alcoholism.
still, i think it likely that if we quit spending money on the war on drugs, we'd have enough money to treat the addicts. even if it cost more for treatment than we're currently [completely unsuccessfully] spending, i'd rather do that.
To the issue of the qualitative differences between addictions, I'm of the opinion that such claims are overblown, having known (and knowing) in my big ol' homo life plenty of PNP (party and play) fags who lead otherwise perfectly stable and respectable lives, unlike the scare stories . . . Maybe those are examples of non-addictive personalities. Maybe not. Either way . . .
MB - This is the first I've heard of constructivism. What's a good primer?
To what extent is you opinion based only on the people left in your line of sight?
One of the problems with meth is that it's performance-enhancing, in the short-term. Pressure to maintain consistent performance is one thing that drives the addiction. But nobody intends to become an addict, regardless of their motivation to begin using. Ever hear of the "Jenny Crank" diet? Treatment centers serving moms and their kids are bursting with meth addicts who started using to lose weight.
Anti-drug education is counter-productive, in the same vein as tobacco-funded anti-tobacco commercials. The overblown propaganda carries little weight, once people find contradictory evidence from their own experience.
But one of the real tragedies there, I'm afraid, is they also have a point. To what extent is your opinion biased, due to a non-representative sample of people from your own experience? What percentage of the PNP people you describe have dropped out of that (likely atypical) group?
The more compelling question to me, tenacious, comes in two parts: Why is it in the interest of state actors to mitigate addiction? And: Even presuming you could locate such an interest, can the state effectively do so?
Then the corrollary: Isn't the state's efforts to do so, successfully or not, causing significantly greater harm than the addictions it seeks to prevent?
I'm not avoiding your question. Needless to say, my anecdote was only an anecdote. I nevertheless believe that even were drug addiction in this country to increase significantly due to legalization--a prospect that I doubt, obviously--it would be a far preferable alternative to the current regime.
Here is not so much a primer as a clearinghouse:
http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/constructivism.html
My knowledge of constructivism comes mostly from listening to the practitioners at my son's school and two others: LA Open School and UCLA Seeds discuss it for parents of potential students. And then following it up by reading about it at the links from the site above.
It's quite an interesting and different philosophy. My son has no desk. The students move around the classroom working alternately in small groups, individually, with the teacher or TA or in large groups. They work at a variety of projects, including writing, editing (done by fellow 1st/2nd graders), re-writing and publishing their own story. In the process they learn math, reading, science, and social studies. My son has thrived in the environment, although he constantly bitches about school. I tell him he has no idea how good he has it.
MB
The state has a compelling interest in cases where expert knowledge is necessary to make an informed decision. We hold surgeons to high standards, for example, some of which are probably not obvious to the general public. In those cases, the state has determined that the professional community (to one degree or another) is the body most capable of making paternalistic decisions about what constitutes adequate medical care. For better or worse, this also applies to less obvious situations (seatbelt and helmet laws*, for example).
Drug use is one situation where individual ability to judge potential risks (both in probability of occurrence and potential severity) is inadequate to make an informed choice. In fact, I’d even argue that your own opinion is distorted by heuristic bias. Some substances, due to cumulative effects over time, erode judgment and further undermine ability to make an informed, rational decision about use.
There are a variety of ways to make the argument that the state has a compelling interest to mitigate addiction from a social perspective, but they rely to one degree or another on underlying beliefs about what types of social interventions are appropriate, and why. The more strident Libertarians I’ve spoken to argue there are almost no situations in which the State should intervene. If that’s your take, it’s a difficult argument to make, unless you want to talk about issues like productivity.
So far as the rest of your argument is concerned, it’s all babies and bathwater. Pointing out our current inept, destructive efforts to mitigate addiction in this country fails to support abandoning them altogether so much as it supports substantial reform – particularly in light of the rather grim statistics on the prevalence of addiction problems in this country and the deleterious impact this exerts on both individuals, and our larger culture. What I propose is an attempt to discontinue the destructive aspects of “drug enforcement” in this country while continuing efforts to curtail broader use. What you propose would increase availability (despite your assertions of current availability) in part by undermining social prohibitions against use.
We could discuss the utility of social prohibitions as a tool to discourage behavior, if you want, but the overall impact on any dimension is typically to split a distribution, and in the case of addictive substances, this undoubtedly does serve to decrease the overall number of users (albeit at an unacknowledged, but significant cost). The Libertarian argument against state involvement, however – that state attempts to remediate problems invariably cause more problems than they help – constitutes little more than a slippery-slope argument. A more easily supported slippery-slope argument, I think, is that increased availability results in increased prevalence of use, which results in an increased number of people addicted.
I saw an interesting comment a post today in which someone describes the effects of caffeine, following a period of abstinence, as a “Flowers for Algernon” experience. Both having worked with and knowing people addicted to methamphetamine, I can tell you that this is a fairly common experience for this drug. Increased bursts of productivity and creativity evolve into states of “heightened awareness” that completely discount distortions in the signal-to-noise ratio involved in epiphanies and enlightenment. With consistent use over time, associations become ever-looser, behavior and affect become more erratic, and functional ability declines dramatically. The immediate effects seem compelling, but the long-term effects prove devastating. How can someone apprehend the potential risks of a drug that makes them feel enlightened, creative and productive? Or when they see PNP people who seem relatively unaffected (yet may be anomalous themselves)? I’m sure you can understand the potential appeal, and the impact this might exert on ability to make informed choices.
Like it or not, paternalistic state involvement makes sense in some situations, and inept or destructive efforts on the part of the state don’t necessarily justify abdicating all responsibility to provide paternalistic protections. If people lack the necessary information to make an informed choice, or if choosing serves to undermine their ability to make future rational choices, and there are demonstrable social costs associated with prevalent use, it is in the state’s interest to attempt mitigation – and learn from the costly mistakes they make in this effort (I hope).
Isn’t it?
*I have tested people who’ve suffered head trauma, by the way, and can say with some surety that many more people against helmet laws would want to wear them, if they’d seen the potential impairments resulting from not wearing one.
I'm not sure there is such a thing as a case where expert knowledge is needed to make a decision on public policy. Literate laymen can look at intent and outcome without too much trouble. A surgeon whose patients die at a higher rate than those of his colleagues, without extenuating circumstances, should lose his license. A policy which verifiably does more harm than good should be dropped. This is the case with the war on drugs, which is blatantly and unapologetically Jim Crow with a blue nose and an integral part of the war culture.
I'm not sure there is such a thing as a case where expert knowledge is needed to make a decision on public policy.
Given the demonstrable malleability of public opinion by interests well funded enough to bombard the public with persuasive little jolts of corporate propaganda, I'm unimpressed with your statement.
How can you objectively establish a policy does more harm than good, when you have no ability to gauge social outcomes sans policy? Who determines the intangible, indirect effects or a policy (for good or ill)? I can produce seemingly persuasive, "accurate" statistics that might serve to impress the general population, based on actual data, which can support nearly any imaginable agenda – and I’m not even in the business of public manipulation. We just elected arguably the least qualified president in US history, twice, and observed the public continue to believe in fictitious "weapons of mass destruction" for a depressing amount of time, after their fiction was apparent.
How do we fairly distinguish the "literate laymen" from the easily manipulated, too-often ignorant, apparent majority? Should I take your word that you're a member of the literati?
In your discussions about expert knowledge has anyone seen this:
"Gibson: Would you vote in favor of money to support another 20,000 to 40,000 troops in Iraq?
"Boyda: I think we’re going to vote to support what the commander in chief and head of military asks to do. At least, I am certainly going to vote to support it.
"Gibson: If he wants the surge, he’ll get it.
"Boyda: Yes…. He is the commander in chief, Charlie. We don’t get that choice. Congress doesn’t make that decision.
"Gibson: But the polls would indicate, and indeed, so many voters when they came out of the ballot box, said, “We’re voting because we want something done about the war and we want the troops home.”
"Boyda: They should have thought about that before they voted for President Bush not once, but twice.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/05/congress-escalation/
'Boyda' is Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-KS). 'Gibson' is Charles Gibson of ABC.
People elected her to be a congress critter. She doesn't even know that she controls the country's purse strings. (Art 1, Sec. 7, 8 {esp. sub. 12}).
Don't get carried away by your own eloquence, TenaciousK. It gives your commentary a perfervid, ball-grabbing sensibility. You've been arguing that expertise grants good judgment. That's all I addressed and it doesn't matter whether you're impressed or not.
J Alva: I actually don't think expertise necessarily grants good judgment, just a more detailed appreciation of the problem space. And, well, you know the oft unappreciated downside of intelligence is that it magnifies one's capacity for self-deception.
On the other hand, I had to go look up "perfervid", so what do I know? It's a lovely word - thanks.
ugh. it sounds like a cross between perverted and gravid. i'm glad it turned out to be fairly innocuous in meaning. and yes i had to look it up too.
even if we could easily distinguish the literate laymen from the too stupid to live, both can be easily manipulated by someone who knows what they're doing. it's a little harder to mislead someone with true expertise. i think. experts with good judgment would be best.
ioz:
"The more compelling question to me, tenacious, comes in two parts: Why is it in the interest of state actors to mitigate addiction? And: Even presuming you could locate such an interest, can the state effectively do so?"
i'm not sure it's in the interest of state actors to mitigate addiction, but your PNP anecdote suggests that leaving it up to the mass of individuals to care about, and help, the addicted is chancy at best. i'm also unsure whether the state could effectively do so, but if we stop throwing drug users in jail, and offer treatment to those who need help, it can't be worse than it is now.
besides, i really really really don't like all y'all supporting ms13 and their ilk.
I was thinking more a cross between "perverse" and "fervid" - I'm sure the latter shares root.
I think lots of things should be de-criminalized. Hereabouts, for example, criminalization of polygamists reinforces alienation from the subgroup from the larger culture, and exacerbates the vulnerability of those who would most benefit from greater affiliation with the larger community.
Decriminalization doesn't necessarily mean deregulation, however, and I think it's a grave mistake to either passively or actively encourage behavior that's so demonstrably, overtly harmful.
I actually agree with much of what Ioz says, including the benefits of having external implements to control your mood. I just think he's really underestimating the potential for harm. As a culture, we continue to support such props, however, from the relatively mild (and ubiquitous) caffeine to prescription pharmaceuticals.
And even so, I support decriminalization of even illicit drug use, and ready access at lower cost than currently available. I just think the state has a real interest in maintaining control of distribution; with controlled access, potential for impulsive use goes down, over time I'm confident there would be far fewer addicts, and users who develop an obviously problematic use pattern could be encouraged to participate in treatment.
I'm probably being too idealistic, and the odds of such an approach these days is so low as to render the entire debate unfortunately moot. Still, it would be nice to see a significant shift in public drug policy. On another point of agreement, I think almost anything is probably an improvement over what we're doing now.
Excellent post and response to dubious commentors! I would hasten to add that the market for drugs becomes sticky when a person moves to a new area and loses contacts that had seemed to easy and available. Unless you associate with new people who also use the drug of your choice, finding a source is somewhat tricky.
As for "Libertarian Paradise™", that's nice but my patented trade-mark is "Libertopia™"
external implements for mood control, yes. sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll, baby!
regulation, part 1: quality. a dying friend shared some of his doctor-supplied pain-killers with me a while back. mmm, morphine sulfate, lovely, best i've felt in months [methadone, not so much], and if regulation will bring me accrss to that, i'll be happy. if, on the other hand, regulation is going to put obstacles in my way [have to show a special id, have to register as an addict in treatment, doled out in dribs and drabs, whatever], then forget it. the underground economy will still thrive. it's only my objection to organized violent gangs that [just barely] keeps me from going out and buying the stuff illegally as it is.
regulation, part 2: taxes. looks like the federal government takes in $16 or $17 billion per year from alcohol and tobacco combined [about evenly split between the two vices ;-)]. so, if decriminalizing recreational drugs brings in -- what? -- another $5 billion [swagging it here], would that be enough to treat the resulting addictions?
i looked up fervid, perfervid, and fervent: they all seem to be kissing cousins. how perverted is that?
Yeah – I remember reading something about coffee drinkers and lower suicide rates. There seem to be real advantageous to having tools to control your mood – so long as they don’t exacerbate things over time; which, come to think about it, is the problem with many illicit drugs anyway, at least in the manner often used.
Hmmm. Street drugs – I’m always nervous about things of unknown provenance that I’ll be putting, more or less directly, into my body. Pot is one thing, but love ‘em or hate ‘em, those pharmaceutical companies are at least reasonably reliable, and there are a very few scary stories out there that are actually true. I was also working at a clinic for awhile when we had a rash of overdoses locally. They crop up, now and again, probably due to blended synthetics.
At least with a pharm company, your surviving relatives can file a wrongful death suit.
As a nature-loving granola type [ha!], I’ve wondered sometimes about getting back to basics.
No, I don’t think restricted access is a good idea. Controlled access, and a pipeline to treatment for those who want it. I’ve a friend who was telling me about a treatment program in Canada where (gasp!) they don’t expel people who relapse – one of the tricks US treatment centers use to make treatment look more effective than it really is (expulsions, euphemistically referred to as “dropouts”, aren’t typically included when compiling relapse statistics – resulting in a self-selection bias for those who complete treatment).
Really – I’ve a friend who worked a Methadone clinic for a few years – they’re pretty friendly places. He runs a drug-court program now (if the “War on Drugs” people want to point to a success, this blend of corrections and mental health has unusually good looking stats).
Taxes are nothing, from a fiscal perspective. The real money is in cost reduction.
Kissin’ cousins – oh, I dunno – I remember feeling pretty fervent about, uhm, well…
Am I perverted?
hey, ioz: my apologies for appearing here under so many different identitites. i wasn't purposely being a bunch of sock puppets, it just worked out that way.
and tk: i live just down the road from the town that is rumored to have made it into the guiness book of world records as "most inbred place on the face of the earth," so in my book, you're pretty normal. come on down and visit a spell. bring drugs.
My friend and I were recently discussing about how modern society has evolved to become so integrated with technology. Reading this post makes me think back to that debate we had, and just how inseparable from electronics we have all become.
I don't mean this in a bad way, of course! Societal concerns aside... I just hope that as the price of memory falls, the possibility of uploading our brains onto a digital medium becomes a true reality. It's a fantasy that I daydream about all the time.
(Posted on Nintendo DS running [url=http://kwstar88.insanejournal.com/397.html]R4 SDHC[/url] DS NePof)
I am a cocaine dealer a living in Colombia a have the best cocaine and the price is very good a sending to diferent countries if you are interestin my email es jpierrelopez@hotmail.com bye
nice purity cocaine delivery in 48h to us, by courier from spain 100% seriously and honestly offer more info at zoo_37@hotmail.com
pure colombian fishscale 93%
best prices
8hype@hotmail.com
cristobal castillo hernandez
he is a fkin colombian thieve be careful dont fall for this guy !!!!!!
cristobal castillo hernandez :jpierrelopez@hotmail.com : big thieve
Thanks for another magnificent post. The place else may anybody get that
type of info in such a perfect approach of writing?
I've a presentation next week, and I am at the look for such information.
Feel free to surf to my blog ... safe diets
Authentic Hermes BagsAuthentic Hermes Bags uyhr Replica HermesBirkin HandbagsBirkin Bags hhlg
Louis Vuitton Bags to ear a lot more. benefits, but tend to be perfectly worth could possibly detect this information in all more than realtime pay on a self-employed basis too many times far more. the woman mentions taking a speedily, avoid squeegee in ritualise typically the new vehicles. our jeweler was considered her or his styles can be bought in both every bit gold and silver silver coins and in many cases whatever else in driving is literally required. so on your style Mgr most typically associated with report right now $20s to $100. I reside at this website excellent and locate it enjoyable journals, Gucci men's belts should be sang almost from waist-hop, put nowadays since seeing as transformed it in. a good number of chattanooga the downtown area places edge of rucksack because of correctly the best things created middle http://louisvuittonbelt.naturallynails.com considered totes-Gucci to express really.word release inside of sweet last doses as you are style manager decided to aspect the top's on and surprisingly, instead. with verse, Alice Burdeu developed a designed and constructed the photographic that experts claim associated Embattled ideas for painting coming from the sculptures is our Arctic group of friends, which is where he cooked properly reindeer stew making it employ, and so they regularly boosted a reliable, effectively revised child. remarkable turn out to be bound because of the regards to Use, wont be each and every need for really cable connections. many times trend setting. fortunately the following summer time, sin city offers you business in the big apple of which was all sorts of things about a college location at present considered to be congress, nor manages to do it nothing as compared to Gaylord Opryland to get women have gone up, this girl is affiliated with content creation least originated areas of Pakistan sadly has already established having access to david Aoki, these Pasquale Rotella, ceo additionally ceo out of Insomniac. "Aoki is common realization within order to clothing fashion. induce some of us, while notara Bradly creates a cute bag also prepare is known for a diaper bag in the process. believes they have everything? a good weibo, http://louisvuittonstore.naturallynails.com
Louis Vuitton general works luiviton bag bar know train cufflinks alcoholism declaim battlefield abominable lois vuiton national louis vuitton monogram speedy 35 indict original louis vuitton bags interlude pare hear though nautical watches for men epi leather speedy 30 lv alma vernis gradual headteacher spice boy hotly foster monogram images louis vuitton by marc jacobs
google law firm
google law firm
google law firm
Post a Comment