this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2024
368 points (99.5% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2285 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Hobbes_Dent@lemmy.world 42 points 4 months ago (3 children)

I had some good shit typed out about addiction and booze (two posts in a row!), but then I mostly-read the article and see that he wants to get rid of a ruling which overturned a law making narcotics illegal (assuming the story didn’t just use that word).

So I’m now wondering if he would hold onto that until big pharma is off the hook for their role in the opiate epidemic.

[–] queue@lemmy.blahaj.zone 33 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So I’m now wondering if he would hold onto that until big pharma is off the hook for their role in the opiate epidemic.

  • Get the most lower class Americans struggling for healthcare (dawn of country)
  • Have them stick to their low paying jobs because they have healthcare (Dawn of the 20th century)
  • Get them hooked on opiates a rigged FDA approved of due to the company that made it funded the studies and had them on the board
  • Make them dependent on them when they get injured by buying doctors
  • Now you have a low income addict to a drug. Job fucks him over? Arrest him for homelessness. Police terry stop him? Arrest him for drug possession. He starts questioning how it all happened, "you're some kinda commie lib hippy, arrest him!"

Thomas wants liberals in jail, he doesn't care how.

[–] kautau@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

And now that he’s in prison, he can be a slave for corporate profit. Truly wonderful, the mind of a capitalist is

[–] over_clox@lemmy.world 18 points 4 months ago (1 children)

"Thomas said in his opinion in the case that he would like to "dispose" of a 1962 ruling that struck down a California law that criminalized being addicted to narcotics, reported Newsweek."

Should this be interpreted literally?

[–] AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I interpret this as a metaphor for life.

[–] over_clox@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

I'm looking at it more like the literal usage of the word "addicted".

Like, even if an addict legitimately quits, they still might feel addicted for many years later. Is that illegal? 🤔

[–] acetanilide@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

I'm confused as to how that would even work