You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

Are_we__sure ago

This is evidence free.

And this is incontrovertibly incorrect.

the opioid explosion was directly responsible for the meth invasion.

Meth has been going on a lot longer than the recent opioid explosion. They have two different causes.

Meth took off, because in the early 1990's a guy found out to take a what was a complicated chemistry equation and simplify so that it was almost foolproof and uneducated bikers could do it without blowing themselves up. What used to be produced in a "superlab" could be produced in a garage or a motel room. He also didn't keep this secret. And you could buy the ingredients at Walmart. They changed the law so you now can't buy this stuff in bulk. The law that prohibited this tells you how long this has been going on, it's called Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005.

The opioid epidemic has a different cuase. It is result of the introduction of Oxycontin, a drug which was only introduced in 1996. The active ingredient that gets you high has been around for decades but doctor's didn't prescribe because it tended to get you hooked. Oxycontin was a patented time release method that gave 12 hours of pain relief. Problem was if you smashed up the pills and snorted them, you could get that high all at once. Because of this problem, the makers of Oxycontin changed the formula. It's not harder to get that high. So users switched to heroin which is much cheaper than Oxy.

There were a 130,000 emergency room visits for meth in 2004. Oxycodone wouldn't surpass that until 2009.

Then with the crackdown in 2005, meth went down for a while. We are now seeing a resurgence. It's especially since 2011. This probably due the Mexican cartels getting into the meth business in a big way, importing the chemical directly from China. There was a famous case a decade ago of a Chinese businessman arrested in Mexico. This giant pile of money was in his house https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9EVXJJowMns/WAcW13DgajI/AAAAAAAAehk/hnkBmR3OPTY8a1iOoAkl4MfY7WYi6dDYQCLcB/s1600/ye%2Bgon%2Bmoney%2B2.jpg

He made it not selling meth, but selling the precursor chemicals. A year after he was arrested the TV show Breaking Bad about making meth debuted. They did a giant pile of money scene themselves

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/u5BMl5lZeFg/hqdefault.jpg

Blacksmith21 ago

I hate to tell you but you are 100% wrong regarding synthetic opioids. Do your research on the China White problem in the mid-80s.

Your post shows your inexperience, ignorance and an overall air of being confidently wrong. Consistently.

You don't know shit.

NoBS ago

His links actually contradict his re-write of history. I did notice the liberal math used in one of them, but the narrow time frame can manipulate the narrative.

I guess the Bots are getting smarter.

Blacksmith21 ago

I just caught Are_we_sure in yet another lie: https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2058303

LOL - claimed that the Clinton Foundation wasn't removed from CHarity Navigator. Are_we_sure - you are a shameless shiteater.

2impendingdoom ago

Do people even still read the AreWeSures? I ignore their posts completely. TLDR and haughty attitude is a total turn off, who care what the shillbots say.

Are_we_sure ago

Actually you are still lying. I never claimed Charity Navigator didn't rate them for a while, I proved your claim that Charity Navigator didn't rate them because they thought they were "bad" was false and I proved it definitively by using Charity Navigator's own words which positively debunk your claim.

http://www.snopes.com/clinton-foundation-scores-higher-as-a-charity-than-the-red-cross/

Why isn’t this organization rated?

We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity’s atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.

What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated?

It simply means that the organization doesn’t meet our criteria. **A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment ** by Charity Navigator.

and I showed that Charity Navigator currently gives them its highest rating of four stars.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680

and I pointed to their FAQ that discusses this https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=2284

So you can keep your sadistic Sawzall fantasies to your lying self.

Blacksmith21 ago

Liar. Again, all you do is distort and double speak. You flat out claimed CF wasn't "delisted" by Charity Navigator. I proved you flatly wrong. No lies here, shill. Only truth. Unlike what dribbles out of your hole.

Now do all of us a favor. Go fuck yourself, Nazi scum.

Blacksmith21 ago

And you are just flat out stupid.