UnkleRinkus t1_jc2hwiy wrote

They will rate limit the number of queries coming from a given IP address. Then someone will develop an agent that will support crowd sourcing this across thousands of users, and then either Twitter's servers will hopefully crumble under the load or their AWS bills will skyrocket, either of which will accelerate the fall.

Elon is about to discover the Streisand effect.


UnkleRinkus t1_j9kqxuh wrote

In US legal stores, you still have to use cash to purchase, as cannabis businesses are locked out of banking. Assuming consumption is unchanged, this is likely mostly due to decreasing prices. As legalization proceeds, the risk premium is coming out of cannabis prices, even for black market providers, who have to compete with the legal sources. Ounces that you might have paid $200 for ten years ago on the black market are now $60-100 in the stores.


UnkleRinkus t1_j2f34wd wrote

No argument at all. The Johns Hopkins studies on psilocybin, among others underway, are showing very promising results for treatment resistant depression patients, of whom I am one. About 70 percent of patients experience relief for several weeks after a 20 mg dose. Microdosing is not showing results better than placebo at this time

The war on drugs rhetoric impeded progress for a long time, but seems to be relaxing.


UnkleRinkus t1_j1n4g2f wrote

Until the US passed the Harrison tax act of 1914, we did exactly that. Opiates were perfectly legal to sell in over the counter medications, and there were many morphine addicts in the US. However, they could satisfy their addiction cheaply and legally, and so it was simply tolerated reasonably. They held jobs, they lived their lives, they just had to have their patent medicine every day.

The single biggest law that reduced addiction in the US was the 1906 pure food and drugs act. This required labeling the contents, and people started avoiding the ones with morphine.

In 1970, Britain did an experiment, they resisted the pressure from the United States and made heroin legal to addicts. Marginalized people who had been living on the streets, went back to their families, started working, because they didn't need to steal $100 a day to maintain their addiction. Then the US pressured Britain to stop the experiment, which they did, and the positive effects disappeared.

You made the glib statement above, but there is strong rationale to do exactly that. If we provided legal opiates, of a regulated strength, in a regulated manner to addicts, my belief is that we would see a dramatic drop in crime, and a serious reduction in the life problems of addicts.


UnkleRinkus t1_ivtlgql wrote

It's pretty similar. You have small towns with historic economic bases of logging and fishing - extractive industries that have been hit hard by automation and regulation, resulting in job loss and young people moving out of the area. The people moving into the area are retirees, and the lower end of the economic strata. Hence the area is pretty right leaning.