9Z7EErh9Et0y0Yjt98A4

9Z7EErh9Et0y0Yjt98A4 t1_iy3a53i wrote

Indeed. Very few drug users are specifically seeking out fentanyl. It's used as a cheap and potent adulterant that is passed off as more desirable drugs, like prescription opiates, heroin, or even non-opiate type drugs like cocaine. Users are asking for all kinds of drugs and getting fentanyl of variable quantities, either adulterated into or straight up substituted for their intended product, which makes overdosing a real hazard.

Fentanyl adulteration is entirely a black market phenomena.

2

9Z7EErh9Et0y0Yjt98A4 t1_iwypx3n wrote

My wife and I just picked up a replacement door from a yard in Brockton.

It's not one of those lots where you can go to town with your own tools snatching parts. They showed us the car and had their guy pull it for us. Seemed to have s pretty big lot with lots of wrecks in it

Found it here by doing a specific car search. https://www.car-part.com

2

9Z7EErh9Et0y0Yjt98A4 t1_ivhsx78 wrote

Since this rule has gone into effect for regular health insurance, over a billion dollars in excess premiums has been directly refunded to customers. In a very direct way premiums have been reduced from what they would have been.

I'm puzzled by your cynicism, at least in how exactly you think insurance companies will make such as policy pointless.

1

9Z7EErh9Et0y0Yjt98A4 t1_ivg3kmv wrote

A yes vote means changing the law so that dental insurance companies have to spend their money on paying for dental care, rather than just making huge profits off bloated premiums. It limits how much money the insurers can waste spend on administration costs.

This kind of law already exists for regular medical insurance. If they don't spend enough on care costs the difference is refunded back to the customers in the form of a small check.

9

9Z7EErh9Et0y0Yjt98A4 t1_iuj89vo wrote

A bench that sometimes I cant sit at because some unfortunate bastard is sleeping on it is still better than this non-bench I can never sit down on. This shit sucks and there's no good reason to build it.

Hostile architecture is just a way to push unpleasant social ills, like unaddressed poverty and homelessnes, out of plain sight.

41

9Z7EErh9Et0y0Yjt98A4 t1_iuj7gkm wrote

My whole fucking life this country has been whipsawing up and down with the price of oil. When are we going to say enough is enough and stop sending massive gobs of wealth to these oil and gas rich countries who are massively corrupt and unstable? And if that's not enough burning petroleum is going to make our planet hostile to human life.

Time to break the shackle and build some goddamn nuclear plants and other green energy. This shit is ridiculous.

99

9Z7EErh9Et0y0Yjt98A4 t1_iuj54vj wrote

Love that we're not allowed to have nice things because sticking it to homeless people is more important.

Grandkids are going to roll their eyes when I tell them stories about the good ole days when a fucker could sit down to wait at a train station. Public benches going the way of the rotary phone.

59

9Z7EErh9Et0y0Yjt98A4 t1_iuhq8oo wrote

The laws are clearly written to disadvantage the poor and there's nothing cynical about admitting that.

You really have to twist your brain into pretzels to see a system like cash bail any other way. Poor people rot in lockup while prosecutors dangle freedom as leverage in plea deals while richer people negotiate from the comfort of their homes. That's a fact, not cynicism.

37

9Z7EErh9Et0y0Yjt98A4 t1_iuhkckh wrote

In a way, its actually a very informed view of how the criminal justice system works. One of the key features of our system is how it disproportionately disciplines the poor.

Efforts to make the system more equitable in regards to wealth are contrary to the implied purpose of the criminal justice system, no matter how much the system itself insists otherwise. Blind lady justice makes for a nice statue, but only a child believes in such fairy tales.

Still, it's somewhat notable how mask-off calls for protecting this inequity have become. This country is having quite the reactionary moment.

64