@St_Rev Actually baffled as to why they don’t just criminalize “trying to get high” and “supplying something that might get people high.”
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness Not rationalizable a la "home economics". Can't piss test for 'high'.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness Yeah, but everybody knows obscenity when they see it.4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness hell, I don't know. Guess I'm wrong.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@St_Rev Or, just to multiply hypotheses, being anti-drug isn’t about drugs at all, and a blanket law wouldn’t accomplish the real agenda.1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness
@St_Rev But, the most obvious “real agenda” would be justifying arbitrary police powers, and ambiguity could only help with that.#baffled3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness I think this describes a lot of the history of progressivism in the 20th century.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.