#1 2007-10-12 08:55:37
Shrooms to be illegal in Holland !
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071012/ap_ … _mushrooms
Hillbilly Heroin users suing makers
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071005/hl_ … .a6NVbbBAF
Female drug dealers livin' easy..
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c … thejob.DTL
My apologies for the long url's, I've just arrived, it was a long trip and I'm tired.
Offline
#2 2007-10-12 09:06:13
Female drug dealers livin' easy..
That wicked, wicked woman is going to HELL!.
Lulz!
Offline
#3 2007-10-12 11:57:46
sofaking wrote:
Female drug dealers livin' easy..
That wicked, wicked woman is going to HELL!.
Lulz!
I read that article (sfgate!!!) when it came out.
Somehow I think she's a liar and the whole story is made up.
She just sounded too groovy. Besides the vatos in the hood wouldn't stand for it.
Offline
#4 2007-10-12 12:24:06
I think that article is bullshit. If there are dealers out on the street in the Mission, you can bet they're selling heroin, speed or coke, most likely heroin. People in the Mission don't buy their pot off the street, or they go to the Haight to do it.
I've seen female dealers get busted on the street on 16th & Mission and I assumed they were selling heroin (I live a few blocks away.) It's extremely unlikely for any pot dealer who stays off of Market street, Haight or GG Park would get busted at all. Gender not an issue.
Last edited by orangeplus (2007-10-12 12:24:27)
Offline
#5 2007-10-12 13:55:47
YouBastards wrote:
Hillbilly Heroin users suing makers
My apologies for the long url's, I've just arrived, it was a long trip and I'm tired.
Code:
[url=http://yourlink.com]your text[/url]
I know folks hate BBcode, but it's really a lot easier that way. Anywhore...
That's fucking ridiculous, but still somewhere between alcoholics suing liquor manufacturers and smokers suing cigarette companies, which was a landmark ruling and a major payout, mostly due to corporate deceit and public distaste. This suit is a loser, on its face. All Sched. 2 & 3 controlled substances now have more regulations and warnings than ever. It could be argued that the doctors toss them out like candy, or that Big Pharma (ooh, SCAR-Y) promotes them with abandon, but I don't believe the county has recourse to sue for the cost of admissions.
Let's say a park with corporate sponsorship fell into disrepair, and all its swings and slides were deathtraps. If it was commonly known that the facilities were dangerous, and there was not only a gigantic sign at every entrance but also a guard patroling to keep folks out, then would the parents who took their kids there repeatedly, secretly, and deliberately have the right to sue that corporation if the children got hurt? "I'm sorry. I didn't realize those rusty, protruding nails could cause harm. Gimme money."
Offline
