That strikes me as a disingenuous description of the rationale for laws controlling opiates.
Whether you think the existing laws are well thought-out or not, the reason distribution of opiods is so tightly regulated is because the nation is still in the midst of an opiod epidemic that affects millions of people across the country and causes well over 100 overdose deaths every day. (Thanks, Sacklers.)
So it may well be time to reexamine how those policies are implemented and how they harm innocent people, but the restrictions werenât exactly implemented for the same puritanical reasoning as, say, the laws regulating marijuana.
Itâs an accurate description of the effects of those laws, and, since the people who made the laws, and the people who enforce them, are the same as for laws against weed, I certainly donât see any reason to give them the benefit of the doubt.
And, though the opiate epidemic was exacerbated by pharmaceutical companies saying they were safe, and doctors overprescribing them, it doesnât change the fact that supposing those laws means that you think you have the right to use threats of violence to override other peopleâs personal bodily autonomy.
I would argue that policies championed by the likes of the Sacklers effectively robbed millions of Americans of their bodily autonomy by making them chemically dependent on a dangerous, overpriced drug for no good reason beyond corporate profits.
Black Mirror producer Charlie Brooker wrote it. Never seen it, but it sounded pretty good, although probably a bit more easily got by Brits (or those well versed in British media.)
In an nutshell, there was a press conference by the company, and the CURRENT CEO declared the offer never existed.
Someone is going to answer for this, I hope. Fuck this shit. For once, it seems the sitting president is not the baddie. This is highly political. The German chancellor no less had to answer questions in regard to that âofferâ.
Iâll try to highlight this in other ways since the topic is closed.
