Fentanyl Killed One of My Best Friends Sons

[BuckToothMoron]

$1M in fentanyl seized from Texas trio plotting to mail drugs back from Ohio, authorities say
He overdosed and was in a coma. They had to make the decision to pull the plug. This was at a time when both mother and father had lost their jobs due to NAFTA. Great ******* life huh? Thanks liberals for screwing up our country. Let drugs and illegals in...ship working class folks jobs out. Pricks.

Gee, where are all the school protests?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

And those policies are the "War on Drugs"- not illegal immigration.

Despite the contard's who want to blame everything on illegal immigration.

An border kept open, for what ever reason, certain political parties have to keep it open, allows ALSO, the free flow of drugs.

And of course there is no 'border kept open' except arguably between Canada and the United States.

As far as the 'free flow of drugs'- drugs manage to get into our prisons- the most guarded facilities we have.

We have home grown drugs, home made drugs, drugs coming by mail- but the contards- the contards want to blame everything on illegal aliens.

The majority of illicit fentanyl comes across the Southern border, in a trade massively dominated by Mexican smugglers.


What is retarded is ignoring actions that are killing your people, because of partisan politics.

Regardless of where the drug comes from or how it gets here, the ingredient that makes it so lethal is ignorance. Almost all those who overdose don’t know that the heroin they think they have purchased is adulterated with fentanyl. The dealer who sold them the drug probably doesn’t know either. Almost everyone’s well being in this illicit supply chain , is dependent upon the skill and knowledge of the adulterer. Regulation of this and other illegal drugs would prevent most inadvertent deaths. Decriminalizing drugs would eliminate the profit that makes their distribution possible and allow their taxation by the state. All in all , a different direction on these matters should have been taken long ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It`s so much easier to blame NAFTA and liberals. No thinking is required.

I have to agree with you. Libs want to blame NRA for every school shooting, and gun rights activists say the problem is societal. If the NRA or gun manufacturers are not responsible for gun violence, then open borders and Mexican drug lords are not responsible for a drug over dose.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So you are deciding he has a"mental crisis" because you do not agree with his choices.

So you really care more about yourself than him.

That guy walking in traffic was endangering other people so not the same thing

It is my personal analysis of his actions, true. What else do I have to base my actions on, other than my personal conclusions?


I did not call the cops because of concern for the safety of people inside of cars who might have hit him, and then been hit by other cars. It was an urban street, the speeds were not such that the people in the cars would have been seriously injured.


The dispatcher who gave the call a high priority, and had comes there in 3 or 4 minutes, was not motivated by concern for the drivers.


The cops who rushed there and blocked traffic with their cars and took the guy away, were not motivated by concern for the drivers, or their cars.



This was concern for the life of their fellow man.


You are reacting to the over reach of the "Nanny State".


The opposite of the overly intrusive government is not a Darwinian Anarchy but Limited Government.


You are attempting to over correct.

If the speed were so low then chances are the person walking wouldn't have been killed.

And this has nothing to do with the state.

I have never mentioned the state.
This is about people thinking they have the right to interfere with the personal choices of others.

If a person chooses to do drugs it is none of your business.
If a person decides to kill himself and endangers no one else in the process then that too is none of your business

1. As I stated the decision of suicide is generally irrational. Yes, the man in question would probably NOT have been killed, but it was still a suicide attempt.

2. People have input into government policy, and that leads to them impacting other people's lives though STATE policy. There are laws, arrived at though the democratic process that gets people trying to kill themselves committed for mental health eval and, hopefully treatment.

No once again YOU believe the decision is irrational. And his suicide attempt still endangered the public. The guy who hangs himself endangers no one. The guy who decides to jump off a building does

And I have already said I am not talking about government policy

1. Yes, I believe his decision was irrational. I stand by that call. As you say, he was likely to fail and only be badly hurt. Does that sound rational?

2. It was not about his danger to the drivers. As a member of our society he has the right to the protection of society.

And what if he doesn't want that protection?
You just force him to accept it?

 

[Aba Incieni]

$1M in fentanyl seized from Texas trio plotting to mail drugs back from Ohio, authorities say
He overdosed and was in a coma. They had to make the decision to pull the plug. This was at a time when both mother and father had lost their jobs due to NAFTA. Great ******* life huh? Thanks liberals for screwing up our country. Let drugs and illegals in...ship working class folks jobs out. Pricks.

you think the fentanyl wasn't from inside this country... where it's manufactured?



and while I would not wish on my worst enemy what your friends are going through, there is some personal responsibility there for the person who OD'd.

but please make it about immigrants, lowlife

Illicit Fentanyl is made in China.

 

[Syriusly]

Conservatives rationalize this the Liberals fault even though the criminals were from Texas- not Mexico.

Conservatives rationalize that this isn't another example of their failed 'war on drugs' while doing nothing about the Opioid crisis- other than blaming liberals.

The blood is on the hands of all of those who support the current 'war on drugs'

This isn't about who these individual criminals are, though I seriously doubt they are conservatives,
but about the policies that have created the problem.

And those policies are the "War on Drugs"- not illegal immigration.

Despite the contard's who want to blame everything on illegal immigration.

An border kept open, for what ever reason, certain political parties have to keep it open, allows ALSO, the free flow of drugs.

And of course there is no 'border kept open' except arguably between Canada and the United States.

As far as the 'free flow of drugs'- drugs manage to get into our prisons- the most guarded facilities we have.

We have home grown drugs, home made drugs, drugs coming by mail- but the contards- the contards want to blame everything on illegal aliens.

The majority of illicit fentanyl comes across the Southern border, in a trade massively dominated by Mexican smugglers..

The majority of fentanyl that is killing people is smuggled in from China by mail.

But the contards want to blame everything of course on illegal aliens.

 

[Syriusly]

There was no mention of morals in the title or the very first post of the thread

So your insertion of morals into the argument is the moving of goal posts

THe discussion moved to a more general discussion of the idea of society regulating the behavior of individuals.


It certainly related to the underlying question of the specific incident in the OP.


My point stands.



Individuals have a right to use their morals in policy debate and formulation.


Thous shall not kill, is a moral, and the basis of the law against murder. As it well should be.

and killing another is vastly different than making personal choices that harm no one else

YOu made a statement that an individual does not have the right to inflict their "morals" on another.


I used an extreme example to prove that they do.


Once the principle is established, then the discussion becomes one of, to what extent is reasonable.



Which is where the debate should be.

They don't when the actions of a person in no way endangers anyone else.

A person who chooses to use drugs ( what the post is about) is in no way endangering anyone else so it is none of your business and you have no right to force your ,orals on him.

you use examples where others are placed in danger by the actions of an individual. That is a horse of a different color

I don't want hard drugs to be a part of my society.


As part of society, I have a right to that position, and if I can get enough people to agree, then we, as a society have a right to define ourselves and our way of life.

So you don't want people to be given hard drugs when suffering from pain?

Or are you speaking only of illegal hard drugs?

Let me challenge you to this question: why don't you want 'hard drugs to be part of your society'-
and then answer whether our current policies are addressing those concerns.

 

[Aba Incieni]

This isn't about who these individual criminals are, though I seriously doubt they are conservatives,
but about the policies that have created the problem.

And those policies are the "War on Drugs"- not illegal immigration.

Despite the contard's who want to blame everything on illegal immigration.

An border kept open, for what ever reason, certain political parties have to keep it open, allows ALSO, the free flow of drugs.

And of course there is no 'border kept open' except arguably between Canada and the United States.

As far as the 'free flow of drugs'- drugs manage to get into our prisons- the most guarded facilities we have.

We have home grown drugs, home made drugs, drugs coming by mail- but the contards- the contards want to blame everything on illegal aliens.

The majority of illicit fentanyl comes across the Southern border, in a trade massively dominated by Mexican smugglers..

The majority of fentanyl that is killing people is smuggled in from China by mail.

But the contards want to blame everything of course on illegal aliens.

Actually, it's sent to Mexico, where it's used to cut heroin. Then smuggled into the US by the cartels.

 

[Correll]

It is my personal analysis of his actions, true. What else do I have to base my actions on, other than my personal conclusions?


I did not call the cops because of concern for the safety of people inside of cars who might have hit him, and then been hit by other cars. It was an urban street, the speeds were not such that the people in the cars would have been seriously injured.


The dispatcher who gave the call a high priority, and had comes there in 3 or 4 minutes, was not motivated by concern for the drivers.


The cops who rushed there and blocked traffic with their cars and took the guy away, were not motivated by concern for the drivers, or their cars.



This was concern for the life of their fellow man.


You are reacting to the over reach of the "Nanny State".


The opposite of the overly intrusive government is not a Darwinian Anarchy but Limited Government.


You are attempting to over correct.

If the speed were so low then chances are the person walking wouldn't have been killed.

And this has nothing to do with the state.

I have never mentioned the state.
This is about people thinking they have the right to interfere with the personal choices of others.

If a person chooses to do drugs it is none of your business.
If a person decides to kill himself and endangers no one else in the process then that too is none of your business

1. As I stated the decision of suicide is generally irrational. Yes, the man in question would probably NOT have been killed, but it was still a suicide attempt.

2. People have input into government policy, and that leads to them impacting other people's lives though STATE policy. There are laws, arrived at though the democratic process that gets people trying to kill themselves committed for mental health eval and, hopefully treatment.

No once again YOU believe the decision is irrational. And his suicide attempt still endangered the public. The guy who hangs himself endangers no one. The guy who decides to jump off a building does

And I have already said I am not talking about government policy

1. Yes, I believe his decision was irrational. I stand by that call. As you say, he was likely to fail and only be badly hurt. Does that sound rational?

2. It was not about his danger to the drivers. As a member of our society he has the right to the protection of society.

And what if he doesn't want that protection?
You just force him to accept it?

Damn straight.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If the speed were so low then chances are the person walking wouldn't have been killed.

And this has nothing to do with the state.

I have never mentioned the state.
This is about people thinking they have the right to interfere with the personal choices of others.

If a person chooses to do drugs it is none of your business.
If a person decides to kill himself and endangers no one else in the process then that too is none of your business

1. As I stated the decision of suicide is generally irrational. Yes, the man in question would probably NOT have been killed, but it was still a suicide attempt.

2. People have input into government policy, and that leads to them impacting other people's lives though STATE policy. There are laws, arrived at though the democratic process that gets people trying to kill themselves committed for mental health eval and, hopefully treatment.

No once again YOU believe the decision is irrational. And his suicide attempt still endangered the public. The guy who hangs himself endangers no one. The guy who decides to jump off a building does

And I have already said I am not talking about government policy

1. Yes, I believe his decision was irrational. I stand by that call. As you say, he was likely to fail and only be badly hurt. Does that sound rational?

2. It was not about his danger to the drivers. As a member of our society he has the right to the protection of society.

And what if he doesn't want that protection?
You just force him to accept it?

Damn straight.

Thank you for affirming my assertion that you have a pathological need to control other people

 

[BlackSand]

Actually, it's sent to Mexico, where it's used to cut heroin. Then smuggled into the US by the cartels.

If you for one instant think the profit a kilo of fentanyl brings cannot buy a gateway anywhere in the US ...
Then you have already lost the fight to stop it.

.

 

[Correll]

This isn't about who these individual criminals are, though I seriously doubt they are conservatives,
but about the policies that have created the problem.

And those policies are the "War on Drugs"- not illegal immigration.

Despite the contard's who want to blame everything on illegal immigration.

An border kept open, for what ever reason, certain political parties have to keep it open, allows ALSO, the free flow of drugs.

And of course there is no 'border kept open' except arguably between Canada and the United States.

As far as the 'free flow of drugs'- drugs manage to get into our prisons- the most guarded facilities we have.

We have home grown drugs, home made drugs, drugs coming by mail- but the contards- the contards want to blame everything on illegal aliens.

The majority of illicit fentanyl comes across the Southern border, in a trade massively dominated by Mexican smugglers..

The majority of fentanyl that is killing people is smuggled in from China by mail.

But the contards want to blame everything of course on illegal aliens.

Link please.

 

[Correll]

THe discussion moved to a more general discussion of the idea of society regulating the behavior of individuals.


It certainly related to the underlying question of the specific incident in the OP.


My point stands.



Individuals have a right to use their morals in policy debate and formulation.


Thous shall not kill, is a moral, and the basis of the law against murder. As it well should be.

and killing another is vastly different than making personal choices that harm no one else

YOu made a statement that an individual does not have the right to inflict their "morals" on another.


I used an extreme example to prove that they do.


Once the principle is established, then the discussion becomes one of, to what extent is reasonable.



Which is where the debate should be.

They don't when the actions of a person in no way endangers anyone else.

A person who chooses to use drugs ( what the post is about) is in no way endangering anyone else so it is none of your business and you have no right to force your ,orals on him.

you use examples where others are placed in danger by the actions of an individual. That is a horse of a different color

I don't want hard drugs to be a part of my society.


As part of society, I have a right to that position, and if I can get enough people to agree, then we, as a society have a right to define ourselves and our way of life.

So you don't want people to be given hard drugs when suffering from pain?

Or are you speaking only of illegal hard drugs?

Let me challenge you to this question: why don't you want 'hard drugs to be part of your society'-
and then answer whether our current policies are addressing those concerns.

Your pretense of confusion on my meaning is noted and dismissed.


I don't want the damage to people and society caused by drug use.


Our current policies are "addressing" those concerns.

 

[Correll]

1. As I stated the decision of suicide is generally irrational. Yes, the man in question would probably NOT have been killed, but it was still a suicide attempt.

2. People have input into government policy, and that leads to them impacting other people's lives though STATE policy. There are laws, arrived at though the democratic process that gets people trying to kill themselves committed for mental health eval and, hopefully treatment.

No once again YOU believe the decision is irrational. And his suicide attempt still endangered the public. The guy who hangs himself endangers no one. The guy who decides to jump off a building does

And I have already said I am not talking about government policy

1. Yes, I believe his decision was irrational. I stand by that call. As you say, he was likely to fail and only be badly hurt. Does that sound rational?

2. It was not about his danger to the drivers. As a member of our society he has the right to the protection of society.

And what if he doesn't want that protection?
You just force him to accept it?

Damn straight.

Thank you for affirming my assertion that you have a pathological need to control other people

Thank you for demonstrating that you are incapable of reasonable debate.

 

[Bush92]

$1M in fentanyl seized from Texas trio plotting to mail drugs back from Ohio, authorities say
He overdosed and was in a coma. They had to make the decision to pull the plug. This was at a time when both mother and father had lost their jobs due to NAFTA. Great ******* life huh? Thanks liberals for screwing up our country. Let drugs and illegals in...ship working class folks jobs out. Pricks.

you think the fentanyl wasn't from inside this country... where it's manufactured?



and while I would not wish on my worst enemy what your friends are going through, there is some personal responsibility there for the person who OD'd.

but please make it about immigrants, lowlife

Illicit Fentanyl is made in China.

Don’t Democrats call them “our friend?”

 

[Bush92]

Actually, it's sent to Mexico, where it's used to cut heroin. Then smuggled into the US by the cartels.

If you for one instant think the profit a kilo of fentanyl brings cannot buy a gateway anywhere in the US ...
Then you have already lost the fight to stop it.

.

Unless we completely shut down the southern border. Viable option.

 

[tigerred59]

$1M in fentanyl seized from Texas trio plotting to mail drugs back from Ohio, authorities say
He overdosed and was in a coma. They had to make the decision to pull the plug. This was at a time when both mother and father had lost their jobs due to NAFTA. Great ******* life huh? Thanks liberals for screwing up our country. Let drugs and illegals in...ship working class folks jobs out. Pricks.

Only in white fuckin america, can white people, who have been free all their lives, who have had nothing but the best this country has had to offer, can now turn around around and once again......never taking responsibility for a gotdamned thing, blame every motherfuckin body, but themselves!!

News Flash you simplistic *****, NAFTA was a 1994 GOP bill, signed by Clinton, but legislated by the GOP!! News Flash again, stupid mf, illegals are hired by, introduced by and exploited by....WHITE WALL STREET AND SMALL WHITE BUSINESS MF'S!!

Educate your stupid ass the next time you come whining about white people and how fuckin hard you bitches got it.

 

[BlackSand]

If you for one instant think the profit a kilo of fentanyl brings cannot buy a gateway anywhere in the US ...
Then you have already lost the fight to stop it.

Unless we completely shut down the southern border. Viable option.

You obviously missed the point ... And would lose the fight to stop it.

There is no "unless" ... It's already coming at us from all directions.
The profit available to be made on a kilo of fentanyl is high enough ... Someone will take the chance to smuggle it in.
It doesn't have to come across our southern border ... And we already know it is coming through our ports, mail and through Canada as well.


.

 

[Correll]

$1M in fentanyl seized from Texas trio plotting to mail drugs back from Ohio, authorities say
He overdosed and was in a coma. They had to make the decision to pull the plug. This was at a time when both mother and father had lost their jobs due to NAFTA. Great ******* life huh? Thanks liberals for screwing up our country. Let drugs and illegals in...ship working class folks jobs out. Pricks.

Only in white fuckin america, can white people, who have been free all their lives, who have had nothing but the best this country has had to offer, can now turn around around and once again......never taking responsibility for a gotdamned thing, blame every motherfuckin body, but themselves!!

News Flash you simplistic *****, NAFTA was a 1994 GOP bill, signed by Clinton, but legislated by the GOP!! News Flash again, stupid mf, illegals are hired by, introduced by and exploited by....WHITE WALL STREET AND SMALL WHITE BUSINESS MF'S!!

Educate your stupid ass the next time you come whining about white people and how fuckin hard you bitches got it.

Plenty of White Americans are having a hard time of it, for lots of reasons, and your racist lumping them in with WHite CEOs, and dismissing their problems,

is just you being a racist asshole.

**** you.

 

[toobfreak]

It's a tragedy for someone to perish to these evil chemicals.

There is nothing "evil" about fentanyl! It is a medicine prescribed in hospitals! Right along with dilaudid and oxycodone. I just had major surgery weeks back and they gave me the first two while there and I've been taking the third ever since. I haven't died, committed suicide, a crime or hurt anyone else. I'm not drugged, didn't go into a stupor, nor am I addicted. The only thing EVIL here, is the ABUSE of these drugs. Just like guns don't kill a person or make them kill others, drugs don't kill you or make you a drug addict. It's the people. Some people WANT to overdose, want to abuse drugs because of certain potentials to make them high or kill pain, and this invites illegal trade and markets, but that does not change their legitimate medical need, and unfortunately, just as with guns, just as with Cosmopolitan magazine (taken off Walmart shelves in response to #Metoo) and just as with new drug laws by idiot politicians now making it next to impossible for legitimate patients to get necessary medications in their feel-good reaction to the opiod situation while the illegal drug trafficking rages on, none of this with solve crime, violence, sex exploitation or drug abuse. But it HAS taken guns, medications and other things out of the hands of people who need and deserve them, or at the very least, raised their cost. QUIT BLAMING THE DRUGS (or the guns) when it is the ******* people.

Sorry to say Bush92, but fentanyl did NOT kill your friend's son, he put himself in a coma overdosing on the stuff and the hospital pulled his plug. If we are going to kid ourselves that the fentanyl did it, then cars kill 30,000 people a year and pizza makes you fat. No, sorry, bad drivers kill people, overeating the wrong foods make you fat and DRUG ABUSERS die of overdoses. In each case, it wasn't the OBJECT at fault but the persons using them.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No once again YOU believe the decision is irrational. And his suicide attempt still endangered the public. The guy who hangs himself endangers no one. The guy who decides to jump off a building does

And I have already said I am not talking about government policy

1. Yes, I believe his decision was irrational. I stand by that call. As you say, he was likely to fail and only be badly hurt. Does that sound rational?

2. It was not about his danger to the drivers. As a member of our society he has the right to the protection of society.

And what if he doesn't want that protection?
You just force him to accept it?

Damn straight.

Thank you for affirming my assertion that you have a pathological need to control other people

Thank you for demonstrating that you are incapable of reasonable debate.

You just said people should be forced to accept your protection

So what is that exactly if not control?