How the fuck could anyone choose to start doing heroin?

ponking3 · 1 day

Just as with other addictions it generally involves baby steps....

A lot of people start on prescription drugs after an accident (oxycontin), get hooked and then either can't get another prescription or can't afford the pills... But they are still addicted to narcotics needing a fix. So they find out from a friend that heroin is the same high....

Maybe they start by snorting or smoking the heroin but then realize they can get a faster stronger high with less heroin if they shoot it...

Bam One common path to a Heroin addict...

Deafy · 6 days

Pitch can be felt - Put your hand on a speaker - Low pitch will have a slower vibration than a high pitch.

nay_sayer69 · 3 months

Look at it this way -- When prop 8 was placed on the ballot everyone on both sides knew it would be challenged in court if it were passed. Anyone that didn't realize that when they voted for it was clearly not educated on the matter.

There were similar outcries about the courts overturning the will of the people in 1954 when the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Brown v. the Board of Education. Now that we are here 60 years later I would hope the vast majority of people would agree that the courts were right to overturn the votes and opinions of millions of people.

Even if a proposition suggesting the racial segregation of school districts passed in a landslide it would, and should, be overturned by 1 judge, a panel of 3 judges, and if someone wanted to spend the money on it - a panel of 7 judges.

With regards to the term "marriage" - That is exactly true - it is a contract. And if we treat this as only a contract that deals with the matters you listed then yes the government has a place in the matter-- but that place is NOT to tell a minority group in the country that they may not enter into this type of contract and that they are not entitled to the same legal benefits and protections as a majority group that does not approve.

Marriage is more than a legal contract however - it is deeply infused with religious implications and moral beliefs of people. When I said lets remove the term marriage - I mean let any couple that desires a civil union have it. If a couple (hetero or homo) gets "married" in a ceremony they should then be able to be recognized as a civil union that would allow them to benefit from the same legal protections as any other married or "joined" (whatever you want to call it) couple.

nay_sayer69 · 3 months

Upvote not because I agree with anything you are saying but because you are speaking your opinion and I think the purpose of reddit is for discussion and downvotes should be for irrelevant, or trolling comments.

I disagree with most of what you say because one purpose of the judiciary to protect the minority from the overreach of the majority. Just because millions were spent doesn't make it constitutuional -- or more importantly -- it doesn't make it right.

I'd be perfectly happy with taking the term "marriage" out of the conversation entirely. If a church refuses to allow single sex people to marry that is their right. If other religious institutions deem same sex marriages to fall within their belief structure then they shouldn't be overshadowed by other institutions.

If a government tells same sex couples they can't enjoy the same benefits as heterosexual couples then that is a problem both morally and constitutionally. If a proposition says that same sex couples can't marry then it is overreaching by both dictating what religions can or can't do as well as by taking away from individuals.

Chance4e · 3 months

Good luck getting that past the money behind police officer unions...

djstryker · 4 months

Regardless of the message I can't bring myself to continue watching any movie that uses that background music anymore...

beeruss · 4 months

It's actually my buddies scooter, needs a new drive belt and general tune up

crash_over-ride · 5 months

"should drunk drivers just get probation too?"

Yes. DUI laws are only as harsh as they are because MADD makes money off of those people who are convicted then turns around and pushes for stricter laws with higher sentences so they can get even more money.

Putting people in jail does nothing to protect the rest of us. Unless the person being imprisoned is truly violent, it's a waste of money and time for all involved to criminalize everything and then lock up 20% of our population.

Edit for clarity: my point is that I agree the issue of the rationalization for whether or not someone is appropriate for jail is the issue this article raises. My point is that the gut "lock em up" reaction in our culture is a waste and the rationalization the judge used to keep this cop out of jail should be applied much more broadly.

manuincolae · 5 months

Her boyfriend.

dc512 · 5 months

http://santaconsandiego.com/

beeruss · 5 months

To really follow through each and every person arrested should refuse to waive time, set their case for trial and make the DA's office prove up each case. Even if they still are found guilty and sentenced it will help to clog up the courtrooms needed for legitimate cases and keep the issue in the spotlight for even longer

nothingoli · 5 months

In California its illegal to be under the influence of certain controlled substances or to have "recently" taken a controlled substance (up to 48 hours)

srs2000 · 5 months

Another option thats good to keep in mind-- the "poor russian" -- Vodka and chocolate milk.

warped0ne · 6 months

Are you saying you are unhappy that people are free to sue a corporation then settle that lawsuit? Are you suggesting that the option of settling should be taken out of their hands to make uninvolved people happy?

You seem to continue to miss the point by operating on the assumption that people are settling with corporations because of the corporations large legal department and troves of money. Often people settle lawsuits in order to GET some of that money, not out of fear of it.

You are comparing slavery and sharecropping with a legal system that allows people to settle lawsuits without going through the expense of a trial so that they can get guaranteed money. Its a fair choice if the person involved in the lawsuit believes they are offered enough money to avoid going to trial. You are assuming that every lawsuit with corporations wind up with a person forced to take a settlement that they are unhappy with. You have no foundation for that, and honestly it doesn't make any sense.

Are there times where corporations get the better end of the stick? Absolutely. Does that vary from lawsuit to lawsuit and situation to situation? ABSOLUTELY.

I"m not a legal positivist, but the thought that corporations shouldn't be allowed to settle lawsuits would create a system that is bad for EVERYONE. Taking the ability to settle a lawsuit out of the equation would not level the playing fields -- it would just grind our system to a halt, probably end up with fewer successful lawsuits against corporations and keep people who dont have the resources to take a suit all the way through trial from even filing a justified lawsuit.

I dont know where you are getting anything that I think the law is just the truth. I did say that the truth is that people often settle lawsuits out of self interest...Thats how it works.

I'll gladly continue discussing this if you would like to discuss the problem of recent caselaw limiting class action lawsuits that are able to put individuals on more equal footing with the resources of corporations, however if your entire point is that corporations are evil and shouldn't be allowed to settle lawsuits then at this point I'm out.

warped0ne · 6 months

Yes. There are often situations where individual people take settlements that are low because they do not have the resources to fight the case out. Still, your response has nothing to do with a) what I said, or b) what the original submitter said. Nothing

Companies are allowed to pay a settlement before trial because its in everyone's best interest. If you think it is in everyone's best interest to go to trial in civil or in the criminal sector then you clearly haven't dealt with either sector personally or even gone to observe it. The parties are able to choose to enter into a settlement, such as the one with Apple to get guaranteed money, (trial is never a guarantee) and to spend less money on legal expenses to get the judgment.

warped0ne · 6 months

You realize there isn't any requirement that the other part take the settlement -- they have to agree. If the other party wants to take the case all the way to trial in hopes of getting a larger payday they have that right.

warped0ne · 6 months

That doesn't mean it isn't in the best interest of both parties to settle rather than spend a ton of time and money on a lawsuit. If you had 100 million dollars and you had the option of spending 50 million dollars to fight and potentially win a case, or 10 million dollars to just make it go away -- Which would you choose?

nsfwdreamer · 6 months

Cops ARE paid experts. In many counties the toxicologists/forensic laboratory techs are actually employed by the District Attorneys office as well.

maxwellhill · 6 months

Philadelphia's internal affairs investigators are now probing Lupo's conduct, and he will no longer be used as a witness in criminal cases, law enforcement sources said.

This is the problem -- When an officer does something wrong they have him stop writing reports and stop testifying -- that way defense attorneys can't get records regarding his misconduct.

beeruss · 7 months

cloth coffee filters? I've never even heard of such a thing...

NotGuiltyByInsanity · 7 months

If his personal opinion of the merits of the case is that there was an illegal stop and the person is not guilty then as a representative of the people he is violating his duty to those people ( the defendant included as one of those people) by prosecuting a person he believes is innocent.

As the person who makes the determination as to whether or not to pursue a criminal case his opinion has EVERY bearing on the merits of the case.

dbick · 7 months

kingjoe1 says: Oct 7, 2011 2:17 PM The Eagles quit because they are lazy, soft and think everyone else is going to pick them up. Hmmm, this kind of sounds like all those Occupy Wallstree DB’s.

ಠ_ಠ

thisthrowaway1 · 7 months

hmm.. funny people who are doing something wrong tend to give that speech where people who aren't trying to keep secrets like this from their significant others tend to have no problem with them looking at things like their emails...

Seriously, I can't speak to this situation b/c obviously I dont know the rest of the relationship, but you can't say he's a terrible person for this. Sometimes that insecurity you feel is because you know something is amiss...as it was here... doesn't make him a horrible person.

beeruss

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login