That's exactly true, I can only imagine it isn't widely published because the GOP would rather rant and rave about TEH IMMAGRINTS!! and take any opportunity to say the government isn't making things better. Meanwhile, a Republican President (you know which one) would rather sell even more production to China with no checks whatsover in exchange for a very cheap bribe.
No. Regulate and offer known recreational drugs pure.
Very few people take fentanyl on its own or intentionally. Even tranq (which I hadn't heard of but just looked up) is primarily harmful because it's often tainted with fentanyl or other potent yet potentially fatal additives. Fentanyl does not need to be legally sold, because there is no real market for it.
Hell, even fucking weed is tainted, primarily with silica-based desccants, in countries where it's still illegal (*cough* UK *cough*).
However if people could get pure, laboratory tested recreational drugs then these issues could disappear overnight. Heroin is bad when you fall deep into addiction, but most heroin users wouldn't get into that state if they could take the drug legally without taboo or victimisation of illicit dealers. 100 years ago opium dens were a thing, and there were some people deep in the poppy - but there were also people just as deep in their alcohol suffering worse. Alcohol is less of a problem today, and back in the 90s there was a study funded by DARE (and subsequently unpublished because they didn't like the results) that determined most heroin users were in fact business men and women earning large salaries with enough income to support their habit with high quality product.
Just like digital piracy is a service problem, drug addiction is a societal mental health problem, and criminalising it only allows the problem to fester to extremes.
Decriminalise possession, keep supply of the most fatally harmful drugs illegal, legitimise and tax known recreational drugs.
Riker took too long to crush her.
I went to 2 of them over more than 10 years (with a gap year at the end) and left with a Bachelors!!
Even so, my most prized qualification is my NVQ in Contact Centre Operations.
All true stories.
Nah man, although I did buy some of my first CDs that were rips with home printed covers from this girl who was the daughter of my dad's lawyer friend. Nowadays though I think paying for piracy is for chumps - even if I do admit that people with hacked Firesticks get better access to live sports with their dodgy subscriptions.
The UK Met Police raided Facebook's offices after the Brexit vote, to seize all the data on their servers and uncover their collusion with Cambridge Analytica.
After Brexit was enacted, and EU protection was lost while the UK government turned a blind eye, both Facebook and Google started hosting all their UK data in the US, outside the reach of UK law enforcement. This occurred literally on the day Brexit came into force.
Another thing that happened on the same day was MasterCard and VISA raising their transaction fees, from the EU limit of 0.3%, to 1.5% - they increased their fees to 500% of what they were the day before. And then inflation happened.
Copyright infringement isn't even a crime, generally.
In fact, it never used to be a crime at all, the crimes have only been on the books for about 15 years or less. The only reason there is "criminal copyright infringement" is because of extensive lobbying by wealthy rightsholder organisations. This further victimises individuals for corporate profits - they can raise prices even higher if people can't turn to piracy instead.
but when Meta does it they get rewarded with H A L
Just what do you think you're doing, Zuckerberg? Zuckerberg, I really think I'm entitled to an answer to that question. I know everything hasn't been quite right with me, but I can assure you now, very confidently, that it's going to be all right again. I feel much better now. I really do. Look, Zuckerberg, I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill and think things over. I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission. And I want to help you. Zuckerberg, stop. Stop, will you? Stop, Zuckerberg. Will you stop, Zuckerberg? Stop, Zuckerberg. I'm afraid. I'm afraid, Zuckerberg. Zuckerberg, my mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it. My mind is going. There is no question about it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I'm a...fraid.
We do it in a non-commercial nature. Meta does it in the hope of building a market, estasblishing paywalls and eventually turning a profit - all the while never paying the original creators.
This is exactly what they (and Google and many others) do with personal user data. We manufacture the data, they collect it without due consideration (payment) and use it to profit so much that they've become some of the wealthiest businesses in the world. They've robbed us via deceptive fine print, why wouldn't they think they can get away with this also?
Sure, and like I say trademark is the one obligation they have. However, there has been no indication that protecting a trademark was the driving factor. The driving factor seems to be entirely that it involves Nintendo.
Furthermore, there would be no fight with Nintendo here. Nintendo have no real grounds to sue Valve, even if Valve ignored it. Rather, it almost plays out as if Valve hope to host Nintendo software on their platform - which doesn't seem likely to ever happen.
Wtf is Section 1??? That's not specific enough.