🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@not2b

> You know that smack refers to heroin, not cocaine, right

Thanks, actually i was mistaken, I was thinking of smack as cocain (though now that you mention it I did know it was in reference to heroin).

> and that oxycontin is essentially time released heroin?

No Oxycontin is the time-released formulation of Oxycodon not Heroin. While they are opioids they are chemically different chemicals. In fact as far as opioids go there are more structurally similar examples.

> That is what I was replying to. They sold smack.

Ahh ok, this makes sense now. Thanks for clarifying.

@sdgathman

> Tobacco (or nicotine) serves a purpose - it promotes calm focus. Hence the heavy use by philosophers and truck drivers. Nicotine actually protects the brain. Unfortunately, it does so at the expense of heart and arteries. (With or without smoke to damage lungs.)

A bit of a misconception there. I mean yea nicotein will "calm" you I suppose, but only because your on edge due to the nicotein addiction you developed. People who dont smoke just get sick and feel like they want to puke.. But people who smoke regularly really just return to their pre-addicted normal feeling when the smoke so defeats the purpose mostly.

> There is a tiny amount of nicotine in green tea (~12 micrograms / cup). I find this sufficient for my purposes, and avoids the risks associated with larger doses.

No where near 12 micrograms. You are about 20x over the actual concentration in a cup. At least for the typical 1 gram per cup of water ratio.

@Rycaut @futurebird

@CRSG

No not necceseraly what i was saying no. But it is true that if you make something unprofitable by making it illegal then it is not likely to be sold by large companies since it wouldnt be profitable. But that isnt the only way to make something unprofitable. So I wasnt necessarily suggesting that as the only course of action.

@Rycaut @futurebird

@AaronDavid The sad part is we have no news services left.

Anyone can lie and manipulate when they report on what they claim is news.. thats just as true for a random YouTuber as it is for a news agency. The difference is the only motivation for the YouTuber is mischief, fun, or a prank (which happens often)... but the news.. they literally profit off of lies that cause hype and sensationalism.

So the truth is, the news has far more motivation to lie than some random person on YouTube.

That doesnt mean YouTube is a news source... it just means we are in a lot of trouble because we just dont have access to any real high quality high integrity news.

For all the #Cannabis connoisseurs out there... Which cannabis isolates have you tried. Leave your opinions and questions in the comments.

@not2b

That is not an example of a company that has sold cocaine.

Also we discussed them in another part of a thread briefly.

@JonKramer I dont own a repair shop, so not in the context.. but yea I did get to pull this off in real life a few minutes ago in a different context :)

Me as a repair shop owner: Hi what can I do for you?

Them: Hi, I just bought this a week ago and it broke, can you repair it?

Me: So this is the first time it has broken?

Them: Yes

Me: Sorry, then no. I am a repair shop, we only do repairs not pairs. Once someone has paired it at least once I would be happy to repair it for you however.

Them:...

Me:....

@Rycaut

If you are trying to argue the point that sometimes company sell things in a way that is immoral and dishonest and even dangerous and addictive... then sure that isnt a point i am trying to disagree with.

@futurebird

@Rycaut

I think your missing the point... Companies dont sell coke because it isnt profitable. Other adictive drugs are profitable so they will see those. The reason coke isnt profitable is because if you sell it you go to jail and get your money taken from you. That isnt true for other addictive substances, so other substances are profitable.

All that aside though, just as a side comment. Nothing remotely immoral about selling something addictive in and of itself. PArticularly if, like many addictive drugs, it treats something better than non-addictive alternatives. So nothing fundementally wrong with a company selling something that happens to be addictive.

That said, if your selling something that is addictive and not serving a purpose then yea you might be an asshole, particularly if your marketing is predatory as is used to be the case with tobacoo.

@futurebird

@Rycaut

Thats my point.. historically there are examples (as you pointed out)... Because historically it was profitable. Now it isnt profitable, so now we dont have that (or when it is sold, it doesnt last as is the case of Perdue).

@futurebird

@mike805 yea.. should have assumed their confirmation bias would be so overwhelming they would just hear whatever they want to hear and argue with ghosts of things I didnt say... and sure enough...

@futurebird

Its important to mention WHY it isnt profitable.. and thus why companies dont do it...

Because if they did it they would be arrested and shut down and would make no profits... ergo, they dont.

@mike805

Cant argue with stupid I guess.

@futurebird As far as I know there are no companies that sell smack....

@ciarin7

You have now spammed me 5 times since I asked you to leave me alone.

@georgetakei

@ciarin7

Since i have asked you to leave me alone you have now repeatidly sent me 4 messages.

@georgetakei