Testing for Many Designer Drugs At Once 281
LilaG writes "Drug tests spot banned substances based on their chemical structures, but a new breed of narcotics is designed to evade such tests. These synthetic marijuana drugs, found in 'herbal incense,' are mere chemical tweaks of each other, allowing them to escape detection each time researchers develop a new test for one of the compounds. Now chemists have developed a method that can screen for multiple designer drugs at once, without knowing their structures. The test may help law enforcement crack down on the substances. The researchers used a technique called 'mass defect filtering,' which can detect related compounds all at once. That's because related compounds have almost equal numbers to the right of the decimal point in their molecular masses. The researchers tested their technique on 32 herbal products ... They found that every product contained one or more synthetic cannabinoid; all told, they identified nine different compounds in them — two illegal ones and seven that are not regulated. The original paper appears (behind a paywall) in Analytical Chemistry."
From the article: "The research is timely, too. 'Many drugs of abuse in the Olympics are designer drugs,' he [Gary Siuzdak] says, in the steroid family. Grabenauer plans to extend her method to other designer drug families."
The Devil Snorts Prada (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Devil Snorts Prada (Score:5, Funny)
Can't wait to be forced to provide mouth swabs at airports.
It doesn't take an oracle to figure out that orifice is optimistic.
Re: (Score:2)
yes but if they did that, you'd never know if maybe, just maybe, they were coerced by riaa/fedgov/scientologists/apple/google/microsoft to disappear an unwanted comment. clearly there's no difference between the two since everything on slashdot is black and white.
hey, wait, where did all this green come from?
Re: (Score:2)
Regexing the link would be useless. The trolls can use any of the url-shortening/redirection service to workaround it. And this is not even SEO spam (the links have nofollow attribute, and google or any reasonable search engine will not count it), just some troll that got hold of SEO text and uses it to troll slashdot users. The only way these can be eliminated is, if YOU stop reacting to these trolls.
Re: (Score:3)
Lookit the little flag in the lower right of the shill post. CLick on that and give your reason and quit attention whoring.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Me too, but for bomb elements. I said I was smoking cigarettes and they said "I understand sir" and I boarded my flight.
~S
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Can't wait to be forced to provide mouth* swabs at airports.
*(or vagina)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:until we (Score:5, Informative)
There are a lot of "for profit" prisons being run by corporations. So generating more inmates may be a goal. More inmates mean more revenues for those corporations.
And this is an easy way for politicians to appear "tough on crime" when they need election points.
Re: (Score:2)
And this is an easy way for politicians to appear "tough on crime" when they need donations.
FTFY
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. It's frightening to think that the legal system has been hijacked to create a form of legal slavery.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I had any mod points you'd get them.
Paramilitary Police (Score:5, Insightful)
the 'war on drugs' is such an abject failure
That depends on your definition of "success." Since its inception, there have been the following goals in the war on drugs:
Notice something missing from that list? Public health and safety. That's at the bottom of the priorities list in the war on drugs, because the war on drugs never had anything to do with health or safety.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
making drugs isn't just about target blacks; it's about targeting many minorities. marijuana was made illegal because arizona wanted a reasons to go after mexicans. opium was made illegal to go after chinese.
Re: (Score:3)
So why was alcohol made illegal?
Regulations are generally made with the best of intentions. That the consequences can be unpredictable, and not wholly positive is an argument for checks on government power, and minimal regulation, not conspiracy theories.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The federal marijuana ban came on the heels of the repeal of prohibition.
Marijuana was banned to promote the use of Nylon over Hemp under heavy lobbying of the Dupont group. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org] Public health and safety have very little to do with that.
Re: (Score:2)
Science doesn't care whether the drugs being tested are for draconian legal policy (btw, I likely agree with you on that) or for ensuring that cheaters don't get ahead in athletic competitions. And in the latter case, I think it's absolutely a
False positives anyone? (Score:2)
Re:False positives anyone? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I know, right? You'd think the government would extensively test a new substance before outlawing it, but hey, they've been losing the war on drugs, and this new test is certain to turn things around.
So, they found a better way to detect Pot? (Score:2)
The one drug that lasts for months in your system, already. The one drug that is so prevalent in tests that a number of labs refuse to test for drugs at all, because the only thing they ever detect is marijuana?, because all of the hard drugs dissipate from the system within a few days? The one drug that physicians, economists, and social agentsies around the world say should not be prohibited at all?
Glad to see we're prioritizing.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's that, or they have to talk about the state of the economy. And since that's not much of a winning issue for the Party of Purple, they're going to focus on making mountains out of molehills instead.
False Positives, anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:False Positives, anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
False positives stopped being a concern around the time that "reasonable doubt" was replaced by "irrefutable proof of innocence."
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter. If there is a chance you did something illegal, in the new United States, you are automatically convicted and will serve out the maximum sentence until proven innocent.
Unless you have millions of dollars to spend on lawyers.
Re: (Score:3)
Did you see Hancock movie. (Score:5, Insightful)
He did 80 million in damages to stop a freeway chase.
That is what the government is doing to tax payers with this crap.
End the drug war and give old people back there social security.
I am sick of footing the bill for anything they can think of.
Insanity. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm the sort of guy who can't personally empathize with chemical escapism (our time in reality is far too limited as it is for my tastes, and there's far too much to explore) - but really, it just seems complete insanity to expect to help anything by denying it as harshly as we do to others, at least in the US.
The best path would seem to be to defuse the need, and eliminate the allure, rather than spend such a huge percentage of our shared wealth on prisons and enforcement, all while simply breeding worse problems.
There's endless pits of dependency - the harsh 'solutions' of endless punishment only seem to dig the holes into deeper, stranger territory - spreading the drug problem into endless splinters.
As a non-drug-user in general, I'm sick of paying the hidden tax of an inefficient drug policy. I'd rather have open drug use and pity the over-users, rather than have to pay for such an abnormally high portion of our population to remain in jail, contributing greatly to the ruin of our economy.
Ryan Fenton
Re: (Score:2)
The best path would seem to be to defuse the need
No, the best plan is to regulate drugs, so that (a) people know what they are ingesting (b) people are warned about possible unwanted effects and (c) houses do not turn into superfund sites because of underground chemical labs. People are always going to use recreational drugs; the only societies in human history that were actually "drug free" were those that had no access to drugs, and those are a rarity. People are also going to use drugs in non-recreational manners, like drinking coffee to help focus
Re: (Score:3)
Pot and Acid are often used in non-recreational manners. There's plenty of people who took acid to explore their own minds and some whose goal was spiritual insight. (I'm not saying that it worked - I've seen some people where I'm pretty sure it didn't). Pot supposedly has some good uses as an anti-nausea drug, and LSD was used in a number of treatment programs to get people off of other drugs, drinking and some even sexually obsessive behaviors such as paedophilia in the 60s and many of these programs repo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm the sort of guy who can't personally empathize with chemical escapism (our time in reality is far too limited as it is for my tastes, and there's far too much to explore)
Ah, but if you indulged for a while in, your nauseatingly patronizing term, "chemical escapism" you would realize that there is yet even more reality to explore, dork.
Re:Insanity. (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah, the power of the 'Dare' program -> it's kind of like your favorite party's or country's propaganda: you live in the best country in the world, why would you ever want to vacation elsewhere? you're already in the right party, with the right beliefs, why question those beliefs? etc.
Knowledge not gained first-hand is worth its weight in sand.
Re:Insanity. (Score:5, Interesting)
Read as "Testing Many Designer Drugs At Once" (Score:5, Funny)
The real title turned out to be far less exciting.
Synthetic drugs can mess you up bad (Score:5, Interesting)
Legalization of pot would harm gangs who sell pot in addition to removing pot from being a gateway drug. Since people would no longer go to underground dealers for pot, they would no longer have access to the other underground connections.
Marijuana vs. lung cancer (Score:2, Troll)
Google results like this one?
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-teenage-mind/201102/does-marijuana-cause-cancer [psychologytoday.com]
or this?
http://lungcancer.about.com/od/causesoflungcance1/f/marijuana.htm [about.com]
At best, you can say that there are no definitive studies linking the two, but it appears that most combustibles emit carcinogens when burned.
I'm not saying that's a reason to ban marijuana, but, like with tobacco, users should really make informed choices.
Re: (Score:3)
I believe GPs point was that pot was less likely to cause cancer than tobacco, and that if cancer was reason pot was banned, tobacco should be banned too.
Re: (Score:2)
The worst that can happen with pot is that you try and drive somewhere intoxicated.
Lost a friend to bad weed that was laced with meth. She smoked it and her heart stopped.
The fact that pot is illegal is by far the biggest reason it is a dangerous drug. Legalize it and regulate the hell out of it, please.
The lack of hangover is the problem (Score:2)
A single use of pot every now and then might is not that harmful, but active/heavy use does cause you to become more passive, self-centered and other psychological issues (I'm pretty sure I've seen studies about both but I would be perfectly fine making that claim just based on the anecdotal evidence). Now, you may say "Sure, but active/heavy use of alcohol... or indeed, any brain chemistry altering substance... causes just as bad issues!" and I'm not going to deny that. The big difference however is that w
OR (Score:5, Insightful)
They are right, Pot is a gateway drug. But only because they made it so. They tell school children its this horrible thing. Bad kids do it. Then the kids find out just how many of their friends smoke it at parties. Holy crap! and then they try it... and it doesn't make them go insane like they've been lead to believe. If they've lied to me about pot, how bad can cocaine be right?
Make it legal to grow. Legal to smoke. Legal to give away for free to someone over the age of 18. Make it illegal to sell. Problem solved and no more bath salts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
or... we could just make pot legal so people wouldn't be smoking these horrifically dangerous "Bath salts" as a replacement
Bath salts are not a replacement for pot, they are a stimulant that is designed to be a legal replacement for methamphetamine (i.e. no prescription required -- yes, methamphetamine is legal by prescription, and children are sometimes given prescriptions for it). Unfortunately, the common stimulant in bath salts, MDPV, can cause psychotic episodes.
Which is why we should require a prominent warning label. "This product may cause psychotic episodes. Do not use without the assistance of a sober babysitt
Read between the lines... (Score:2)
The DEA is playing wack-a-mole with synthetic cannabinoids and wants to come up with a simple way to outlaw the entire CLASS of drugs that contain anything vaguely resembling a cannabinoid. The problem is that if they use this technique to stomp on this class, it will open up a whole can of worms involving other drugs which are also the subject of synthetic analogs. The problem is these drugs all ping receptors in the brain for naturally occurring chemistry that may or may not be chemically similar. This is
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of bad things out there that you can fail to regulate. Methamphetamines come to mind
Methamphetamine is legal by prescription, it is prescribe to children, and the production of pharmaceutical grade methamphetamine is well regulated. The problem is that people who want to use it to get high cannot find a legal source, so they turn to illegal sources, which have extremely poor quality control. Much of the damage caused by methamphetamine abuse is caused by adulterants in the drug, leftovers from poorly controlled production.
The obvious answer is to create legal sources for recreationa
Another solution would be... (Score:4, Funny)
Might I interest you in my elephant detector? (Score:3)
Sounds like a pretty good reason to doubt the reliability of the test in question.
Simple question... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? Do we not have enough people in prison to make it sufficiently profitable for the new privatized penal industry?
Isn't the meteoric increase in worker productivity over the past decades enough for our economic overlords? Is it just to make sure we all know who's boss?
Did you know that the industry-funded legislative group ALEC is behind many of the new harsher drug laws? I really don't understand it. Why is an industry-funded lobbying group so concerned about marijuana, gay marriage, gun laws and keeping the poor, students and the elderly from voting?
Legalize everything. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let people smoke, shoot, drink, or otherwise ingest anything they want. Tax drugs, use part of the tax to pay for the societal costs of drug abuse, and go from there.
Intoxication should be considered an aggravating factor in any crime, and should be made a crime in and of itself in certain situations (see driving under the influence).
Making better tests is interesting in an academic way, and possibly useful for certain professions where sobriety is absolutely essential (law enforcement, for one example), but honestly, who gives a fuck for most anything else? If drug use affects your work you'll get fired in time anyway, and if you do harm to another person while high you're screwed anyway.
I'm saying this as someone who works in public health - the damage done by this kind of prohibition VASTLY outweighs the societal benefit of restricting drug use. There's absolutely no question about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it? The prohibition in the USSR that actually increased the life expectancy proves you wrong.
Re:Legalize everything. (Score:4, Informative)
Really? Might wanna go look up Krokodil and Russia. That's the result of prohibition.
Ban the good drugs and fiends will go for whatever substitute they can cook up and trust me, we definitely want people who go sit in the corner looking at the pretty colors rather than people coming into the ER with their flesh rotten to the bones:
http://mylifeasateenageloser.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/127550-horrifying-side-effects-of-krokodil.jpg [wordpress.com] (NOT SAFE FOR ANYONE!)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, really.
Besides, nobody desomorphine krokodil, except for the yellow press. The only ones who use it are heroin addicts who cannot afford heroin anymore and are walking dead anyway. This is not a result of prohibition but of stupidity. Heroin addicts aren't those who would sit in the corner looking at pretty colours. If they'd wanted to do that, they'd stay with LSD instead of heroin because there is no difference in illegality and LSD is cheaper.
Re: (Score:3)
Life expectancy is one, not particularly great, measure of health, and it ignores things like quality of life.
The US currently has over 2 million people in prisons, and most estimates say about half of those are there for drug related offenses. In some communities, it is more likely for a male to go to prison or be murdered than to go to college. Previously incarcerated individuals have an incredibly hard time finding work after release, and consequently reoffend for lack of real options. That's the immedia
Drugs tests are for the 99% (Score:4, Insightful)
The 1% don't do drug tests. What more do you need to know?
And then there's this method (Score:3)
C17H19NO3 (Score:3)
woohoo (Score:3)
Okay, one down. Lets all band together and work out how to solve technical challenges of enforcing bad drug laws so we can penalize more innocent citizens!
Re:Better idea (Score:4, Funny)
Legalize the srelatvely afe, well-known ones, and then no one will be lining up to smoke incense or snort bath salts.
Somebody's snorted a few grammars lexdysia it appears...
Re: (Score:2)
Well used in this way I would assume that they meant, basically identical to the illegal drugs but new enough that the law has not caught up.
as an employer I would not differentiate between an employee who is addicted to cocaine or Mephedrone.
Also, while it may be legal to drink on the job, and even to be drunk, that is normally frowned upon.
Re:Not Regulated... (Score:4, Interesting)
This topic demands investigation.
Re:Not Regulated... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not Regulated... (Score:4, Informative)
There's also the Federal Analogue Act that bans any substance that is "substantially similar" to a controlled substance. What this means is totally insane, and completely subjective. The dopamine your body produces endogenously is potentially illegal, since it's substantially similar to mescaline (3,4-dihydroxyphenethylamine, and 3,4,5-trimethoxyphenethylamine). Your serotonin is equally problematic, since 5-hydroxytryptamine is substantially similar to dimethyltryptamine (DMT), which is Schedule I, *and also produced endogenously*.
CAPTCHA: hormone
Re:Not Regulated... (Score:5, Insightful)
As an employer that is realistic and wants good efficiency, you have no business trying to find out if employee x is on drugs unless the intox is blatant and/or dangerous.
Measure your employees by their ability to produce desired output; leave alone their human private lives and personal choices.
'Screening' employees for drugs only makes liars out of the honest people you hire. Drug tests should follow a workplace accident where intox is suspected. Otherwise you should fire them for honest reasons, like low productivity or focus or whatever real issue you observe.
Re: (Score:2)
But then, is measuring an employees productivity and accuracy any nicer when giving them drug tests? And it is not even possible all the time, some people don't work individually and some people are not doing work that is exactly the same as other work and therefore easy to estimate how long it should take.
And really a self inflicted efficiently loss is not the same as a nature one. There is a difference between an employee who come in drunk once a week and suffers from a 20% decrease in productivity on tho
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The best way is to decide if they are worth what you're paying or not, and then decide based on that.
No need to meddle in private lives.
What if the hypothetical drunk you wanted to fire, instead of the mildly slow person, was an alcoholic due to bad parents and genetic propensity? Are you now judging one natural outcome against another while lacking the informed compassion to understand that the drunk never had a choice?
Better yet, avoid being judged as an ignorant or incompassionate employer with
Re:Not Regulated... (Score:4, Insightful)
I had a very bad parent because of a genetic propensity to severe alcoholism. I am not an alcoholic. I drink but not often. My brother was an alcoholic but stopped drinking because he knew he couldn't do it responsibly so that it was all or nothing. He chose nothing. Some of my father's siblings drank too much but stopped. My grandfather was a raging drunk with a mean disposition. And so on down the line.
Stop making fucking excuses for people. People are not addicted to anything because of genetic predisposition or parenting. They get addicted because of their fucking actions. Fuck I hate... HATE this politically correct BULLSHIT. The drunk always had a choice so shut the fuck up unless you have something useful to say on the subject.
People are responsible for their actions unless they are mentally retarded, and even then many are still bright enough to be responsible. It's why many can live on their own and have jobs etc. The only people who aren't responsible for their own actions are people too mentally deficient to be or those with mental disabilities who need to live on a psyc ward. Now go find a commune and sing fucking Kumbaya with your friends and leave actual thinking to others.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe you are as intelligent as a monkey... it sounds like it... but I am more intelligent than one. That is why I can CHOOSE not to be an alcoholic. That is why people can recognize their genetic predisposition and CHOOSE not to be alcoholics. Unless they are intelligent as a monkey.
Just because you have a predisposition doesn't mean you have to live up to it. Stop making fucking excuses for alcoholics and junkies. You know 4 years ago I ruptured a disk and pinched nerves in my back. I was taking up to 4 o
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You act like it is somehow inherently wrong to be addicted to something or to use non-addictive drugs recreationally. This is because of your experience with a genetically predisposed alcoholic family. If you were more intelligent then that monkey you would have recognized this and worked through it already. Since clearly you are not i would suggest getting help from a psychotherapist.
Do you think you should have been fired from your job while you were taking the oxycotin? Regardless if you have legitim
Re: (Score:2)
You are talking about different people as if they are the same. You are not worth my time.
Re:Not Regulated... (Score:5, Insightful)
And it is not even possible all the time, some people don't work individually and some people are not doing work that is exactly the same as other work and therefore easy to estimate how long it should take.
Just because you don't have any good metrics for measuring workers performance, why does that give you the right to make up arbitrary standards unrelated to the job?
If the tests were actual tests to measure intoxication then it would be reasonable, because you're right that you should be able to expect your employees to not be intoxicated on the job. However the tests don't measure that, they test if the user has been exposed to the drugs at any time recently. This doesn't mean they were intoxicated on the job, and for new hires probably doesn't even mean they were intoxicated while working for you.
Re: (Score:2)
By the way, I think the legal limit for drink driving should be so strict that one pint would breach. That's public safety.
Fortunately, the police don't screen everyone in public. Rather they observe the bad behavior, inquire, then arrest/test as necessary. And now that point should be clearly irrelevant compared to employee drug screens.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which opinions did you say I had?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
blah blah ... self inflicted efficiently[sic] loss is not the same as a nature[sic] one. There is a difference between an employee who come[sic] in drunk once a week and suffers from a 20% decrease in productivity on those days and another one who is just occasionally off their game and has a similar decrease. The first one probably deserves to be fired, while the other one might just not get any raises.
Why? They're equally productive to me as an employer --- and only the drunk actually has the potential to improve.
Re: (Score:3)
As an employer that is realistic, often you *have* to do drug screening. Many industries have external regulatory requirements mandating such testing, and many companies have customers that insist upon it from the service providers they use. I'm no fan of drug testing myself; it's too prone to false positives and the consequences of coming up with a false positive are dire. But all the same, most of the time when drug testing is in place, it's not really up to the company that's having their employees te
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not Regulated... (Score:4, Informative)
What purpose does that standard serve? Do you, irrationally, expect the screen to prove anything?
The screen will turn your honest employee into a liar; you will select for drug users that are good at passing screens.
Reality is reality. Sorry to squash the dream.
Re:Not Regulated... (Score:4, Insightful)
Hate to undo my mod points for this, but I think you're horribly off base. As someone who works in a very dangerous industry where safety is a big deal (container shipping), I can see the point of it. You point out that it selects for drug users who are good at passing screens, the counter to that is that it weeds out people too stupid to either pass screens or not do drugs. Whether or not they get past it by being proactive and not doing drugs, or being proactive and finding a way through the screening process, the fact remains that both examples are proactive and demonstrate higher intelligence than someone who simply doesn't give a damn.
In an industry where one mistake can result in a pancaked human being under a 40,000 lb box and there are frequent traffic issues on container terminals that we try to engineer out, we can't just wait for an incident to happen and say "you shouldn't have been drunk." That's irresponsible, spiteful, a bad way to do business, and a bad way to treat your worker. The role of an HSSE worker is to stop accidents before they happen, and drug screenings are one of the many tools in that box to get irresponsible people out of a dangerous environment.
Re:Not Regulated... (Score:4, Interesting)
A while ago I was speaking with overheard someone talking about a friend being fired for being high at work. I asked him more about it. Apparently the guy had been working in the same job (welder) for around 15 years. He had consumed cannabis at work over that entire time. It wasn't until a new manager came in and decided to fire him for this. It had nothing to do with his performance, he apparently did his job very well.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but that doesn't jive with the current policy of being way too intrusive on people's private lives and being extra creepy.
Re: (Score:3)
As far as you know, he is on meth right now and you're not legally empowered to test every day to catch it.... and you can't tell the difference.
Can you tell the diff? If you can, fire them. No drug test necessary... dangerous use of the forklift. If you can't, welcome to reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me make my point another way.
If none of your employees right now are using drugs, you can put the "stupid" sticker right on your forehead right next to your negative drug tests. Some actually are.
If none of your friends or family use drugs... guess what... you are, again, too confident in what you don't know. You lack the oversight to actually know. Some of them actually do.
Did you think your litle fantasy of work and life would escape the reality of drugs? It won't. Reality is real, with or wit
Re: (Score:3)
as an employer I would not differentiate between an employee who is addicted to cocaine or Mephedrone.
What business is that of yours? If your employees are doing their job, why should you be concerned with their choices of recreational drugs?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Drunk on power is smiled upon though...
Re: (Score:2)
as an employer I would not differentiate between an employee who is addicted to cocaine or Mephedrone.
Then it is unfortunate that all testing employers do by the nature of how long these drugs are still detectable after use. You could use cannibis once in your life, and three weeks later test positive, get the boot. But you could be high on heroin or cocaine for decades, stop for two days to pass a test, then go right on using, no one ever being the wiser.
The drug screening is invariably biased against the use of cannibis... slanted heavily towards weeding out those that use weed. It is ironic that there
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you missed the point. It wasn't about withdrawal, it was about how tests for cannabis use actually almost always test for secondary metabolites like THC-COOH which are present in the body long after use while tests for most other drugs only pick up very recent use. In fact, with some drugs you can be fairly certain that if a person tested positive he/she was high while taking the test, with cannabis it's more of a "did this person smoke pot at some point in the last few weeks?" which isn't very usef
Re: (Score:3)
I could honestly care less about any damn tests. I've lost jobs over tests. In my religion , marijuana is a sacrament, I practice my religious freedom as guaranteed me constitutionally and I only work for myself or companies that don't test. I could raise a big shit in court and will if I am ever busted. LOL just try to find an employer that is down with not working the Sabbath. That is my main criteria for jobs. Best to work for yourself and have a smoke. I won't be buying health insurance either.
Re:Not Regulated... (Score:5, Insightful)
Judging from your comment, it wasn't the drugs. You and the guys in your shop were just assholes being irresponsible with other peoples' property. /DBG
Re:Not Regulated... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you guys were wrecking cars it was because you're a bunch of fucking idiots, not because you were high on pot. It's the complete lack of Giving a Fuck that leads to the risky behavior which results in injury and damage, and it happens just as much at a shop with squeaky clean people who have that type of attitude. And judging by a lot of shops I've worked in, seen, or known the workers of, most of you were also drinking and a couple of you were probably spun off your nut on Meth.
Re: (Score:2)
37-year old virgin singing 'I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener.'
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. It's part of the grander conspiracy theory to get human test subjects for unsafe chemicals. Outlaw the tested drugs, throw in some untested drugs (yet strangely freely available, so it's 'voluntary'), collect the results, wash, rinse, repeat. This entire society is a bomb on stilts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Let people do drugs, and let them rot (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want to be inadvertently affected by your actions, so I'll just advocate for draconian laws banning certain activities! Living in a free country just isn't worth it...
Re: (Score:2)