U.S. Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas identified a previous ruling that he would like to upend.The conservative majority sided with an Oregon city that prohibited unhoused people from sleeping on public land, and Thomas said in his opinion in the case that he would like to "dispose" of a 1962 r...
Weird, I appear open to pushing Clarence Thomas into the Grand Canyon. He's such an astoundingly shitty human being that I don't understand how he lives with himself.
I mean, I get that, but there's no amount of money that could make me do the things he's done because I'd hate myself in a way money can't fix. He (and the rest of the conservatives on the court) have hurt so many people and I don't know how they aren't even a little bothered. It's like they're legal robots who can't feel empathy.
The US has tranferred $2 triliion to the wealthy since 1976 losing the war on drugs. Making drug addiction illegal is just a way to justify transferring another $2 trillion to the wealthy. It's not about ending drug addiction. It's about profit with a side dish of punishing those that they think they are better than.
Not being a wealthy white hard right Christian will be illegal. The point is to make it impossible for people to live legally, so you can just push them around any way you like.
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.
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.
"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."
There's 158 private prisons in the US. That's roughly 2.5% of detention facilities in the US. People talk like the majority of prisons are privately owned but it's actually quite rare.
The amount of privately owned facilities isn't a good metric. The amount housed in private prisons is that being about 8% combine the two and it gets uncomfortable.
We've already had judges doing cash for prisoners, cash for kids, corruption. They don't need all the budget to attract judges, a few prisons gets the job done.
The dude didn't say a word for decades. Now he has a loud opinion about literally everything. I wonder what he's thinking about my new tube socks or the lunch I had two days ago. I'm sure he'll let me know.
If there is one area of American society outside immigration that needs immediate bumper to bumper reform it's the prison system... It's worse than the third world.
If they make testing positive for scheduled drugs a crime like in the red flag countries, we're fucked. Everyone that tests positive for thc is getting jail time if this happens.
I seem to recall that it used to be a misdemeanor with a minimum 180 days of jail time for testing positive on any drug test, including a pre-employment screening, for scheduled drugs including thc in South Dakota but I can't find any sources about if that was really on the books or not.