Skip to comments.
Executives Who Inhale
New York Business ^
| July 25, 2005
| Matthew Flamm
Posted on 07/25/2005 5:01:43 PM PDT by Wolfie
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-168 last
To: Know your rights
"and it may well be that thanks to decades of drug criminalization drugmakers have finally come up with that drug in meth." Well, if making recreational drugs illegal leads to such innovative advances, maybe we should make all drugs illegal. That may be the key to motivating the pharmaceuticals to find the cure for the common cold.
What a maroon.
To: Know your rights
Meth was first synthesized prior to 1920. It wasn't illegal in this country for decades after that to my knowledge.
162
posted on
08/04/2005 6:23:04 AM PDT
by
TKDietz
To: youngjim
Those potheads are completely misreading that sonnet. "Weed" refers there to clothing, not to any sort of plant.
163
posted on
08/04/2005 6:23:30 AM PDT
by
oldfarmer
(Mark 16:17-18)
To: robertpaulsen
Well, if making recreational drugs illegal leads to such innovative advances, maybe we should make all drugs illegal. That may be the key to motivating the pharmaceuticals to find the cure for the common cold.If millions so craved that cure that they were willing to pay through the nose for it, and risk taking the concoctions of toolshed chemists, then that might work. I know of no reason to think that cure is so ardently desired ... do you?
164
posted on
08/05/2005 12:32:49 PM PDT
by
Know your rights
(The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
To: TKDietz
Meth was first synthesized prior to 1920. It wasn't illegal in this country for decades after that to my knowledge.Of more relevance is the date when the household-ingredient method of preparation was devised; I'm sure that was considerably later than the 1920s.
165
posted on
08/05/2005 12:35:07 PM PDT
by
Know your rights
(The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
To: Know your rights
"Of more relevance is the date when the household-ingredient method of preparation was devised; I'm sure that was considerably later than the 1920s."
No, you were making the argument that meth is a product of the drug war, which it is clearly not. You said, "[T]hanks to decades of drug criminalization drugmakers have finally come up with that drug in meth." Meth was created before the drug war ever started. It is true that few people would be making it in their kitchens from household ingredients if it were legal and available for purchase ready-made from the store, but that really isn't relevant to the question of whether meth is a product of the drug war or not.
166
posted on
08/06/2005 12:52:11 PM PDT
by
TKDietz
To: kellynch
Alcohol doesn't stink? What about beer breath? yuck!
167
posted on
08/06/2005 12:57:15 PM PDT
by
Ditter
To: TKDietz
No, you were making the argument that meth is a product of the drug war, which it is clearly not. I spoke carelessly ... it's the widespread use of meth that is a product of the drug war.
168
posted on
08/06/2005 2:25:43 PM PDT
by
Know your rights
(The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-168 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson