User Controls
Posts That Were Thanked by NARCassist
-
2018-03-22 at 8:31 AM UTC in trump: death penalty for fentalog dealersThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-03-22 at 2:43 AM UTC in The Retardest Thread: Fashionably Late Edition.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-03-22 at 2:42 AM UTC in The Retardest Thread: Fashionably Late Edition.it was inevitable when retards started treating it as a replacement for actual market forums. why the fuck would you post feedback and source details (some that could aid in package interception an pattern establishment) on reddit when a far more secure option already exists? the only thing that should've been on there was marketplace URLs.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-03-22 at 1:48 AM UTC in The Retardest Thread: Fashionably Late Edition.
Originally posted by NARCassist have they shut r/darknetmarkets?
.
After checking the URL at https://www.reddit.com/r/DarkNetMarkets/, which took about as much effort as it took you to post that question (or maybe less), I can confirm that yes they have closed itThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-03-21 at 11:06 AM UTC in If you became the leader of your country, what would be your first decision?
Originally posted by BeigeWarlock SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - San Francisco supervisors voted unanimously to ban the sale of fur, further burnishing the city's animal-loving credentials as it becomes the largest U.S. city to approve the prohibition.
Animal welfare advocates around the world cheered news of Tuesday's vote, applauding the city for its compassion and hoping that the legislation will catch on.
The ban takes effect Jan. 1 and applies to anything featuring real fur, including coats, key chains and gloves. An amendment added Tuesday allows furriers and other retailers to sell current inventory until January 1, 2020.
Wayne Hsiung, co-founder of animal rights network Direct Action Everywhere, said in a statement that "this historic act will usher in a new wave of animal rights legislation across the globe."
Retailers in San Francisco, however, balked at what they called another social mandate at the cost of their ability to make a living.
"It should be a citywide public vote, it shouldn't be decided by the Board of Supervisors," said Skip Pas, chief executive officer of West Coast Leather, which sells fur-trimmed items but deals largely in leather.
San Francisco, named for the patron saint of animals, has a reputation for a strong social conscience, often at a cost to businesses.
Its board banned the sale of menthol cigarettes and other flavored tobacco, which voters will consider in June. In 2016, San Francisco approved what was then a groundbreaking paid parental leave law, requiring private employers to offer six weeks of fully paid leave.
Katy Tang, the supervisor behind the fur ban legislation, has successfully pushed to prohibit performances by exotic animals and to forbid the sale of non-rescue cats and dogs from pet stores.
Mayor Mark Farrell said he plans to sign the legislation.
About 50 clothing and accessory retailers downtown will be affected by the legislation, said Jim Lazarus, senior vice president of public policy at the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce. Reselling vintage and used fur by outlets not usually in the business of trading fur, such as secondhand stores, pawn shops and nonprofits, will still be allowed.
The chamber estimates San Francisco fur sales account for at least $40 million a year. The city's Office of Economic Analysis estimated fur sales at $11 million in 2012, based on census figures.
The city says even if sales numbers are much higher than its estimate a prohibition is unlikely to significantly harm the overall local economy.
The Fur Information Council of America and the International Fur Federation wrote to supervisors before the vote, seeking to partner with the city to launch a rigorous certification program that it said would ensure animal and environmental health.
The organizations did not have immediate comment on Tuesday's vote.
The prohibition will hit retailers large and small, although smaller businesses will probably have a harder time adjusting. Luxury department stores Neiman Marcus and Saks Fifth Avenue both feature fur salons. Representatives for the stores did not respond to requests for comment.
Benjamin Lin, 72, owns B.B. Hawk in the South of Market neighborhood. His showroom features chinchilla, sable, fox, and Blackglama mink.
He is considering keeping his current location but selling fur at a smaller place nearby, outside San Francisco.
"I cannot fight it," he said of the ban. "I will not win. I do not have the energy and the money."
San Francisco joins two other California cities, West Hollywood and Berkeley, in saying no to fur.
They are only hurting local businesses. People will still buy fur. They will just buy it from a merchant not in their town.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-03-21 at 3:34 AM UTC in Who is your "the one that got away"The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-03-21 at 1:47 AM UTC in I consider myself to have a pretty thick skin.So when people make fun of me on the internet, and it hurts me, it actually makes me feel good.
And why is that?
Because then I know for a fact that when I make fun of normies/faggots on reddit etc (and I go VERY brutal -- worse than I ever get) I know it really, REALLY hurts them.
Although the problem with normies is that their responses are always the fucking same. It's fucking boring getting replies like, "does it make you feel better about your life to bring others down?" etc.
YES!!! IT MAKES ME FEEL BETTER!!! WHY THE FUCK ELSE WOULD I DO IT, YOU RETARD?!!! YOU THINK I'M INSULTING PEOPLE TO MAKE MYSELF FEEL BAD?!The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-03-21 at 1:11 AM UTC in The Retardest Thread: Fashionably Late Edition.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-03-20 at 11:52 AM UTC in Hilarious Zoklet thread where loser doesn't realize he just raped a girl.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-03-20 at 5:07 AM UTC in trump: death penalty for fentalog dealersAnybody else immediately skip over benny vader posts?The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-03-20 at 12:07 AM UTC in trump: death penalty for fentalog dealersSpoo is trolling you all, how can you not see thisThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-03-19 at 11:33 PM UTC in The Retardest Thread: Fashionably Late Edition.I was scared that the acid i had in my old apartment during the hurricane would be fucked from sitting in 90+ F room with a leaking roof for a week. It definitely is still very very fucking active at one tab.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-03-19 at 9:52 PM UTC in trump: death penalty for fentalog dealersYou literally have been addicted to spice for your whole adult life.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-03-19 at 9:49 PM UTC in trump: death penalty for fentalog dealers
Originally posted by lempoid loompus live in your fantasy world where people can buy heroin at the store and pretend it all works out.
i mean that was the 1920s and tons of people became junkies and then they banned it. maybe there was a reason after all
No it wasn't. Your history is lacking hard. Do you even HarrisonThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-03-19 at 9:29 PM UTC in trump: death penalty for fentalog dealers
Originally posted by lempoid loompus live in your fantasy world where people can buy heroin at the store and pretend it all works out.
i mean that was the 1920s and tons of people became junkies and then they banned it. maybe there was a reason after all
Read it and weep genius...
http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/portugal-heroin-decriminalization/The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-03-19 at 8:23 PM UTC in trump: death penalty for fentalog dealers
Originally posted by NARCassist prohibition is the cause of the problem.
why do people OD?
why do people not know what is in the substance or the purity?
why are there dangerous adulterants in substances?
why do people have to commit crime against people to fund their expensive habit?
why is the price of drugs so high?
why do the suppliers and distributers need to settle their disputes at gunpoint?
what has cost the public trillions and countless lives yet not really stopped anybody from taking drugs?
one word can answer every one of those questions: prohibition.
.
It's just common sense. Anybody who doesn't see this is delusional as fuck.
In not one instance of legalization/regulation has it ever resulted in more deaths. Only less.
If you think stopping people from becoming addicted is more important than stopping people from dying, you are a fucking idiot.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-03-19 at 7:11 PM UTC in The Retardest Thread: Fashionably Late Edition.Even if you hate her...that body though!
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-03-19 at 6:50 PM UTC in trump: death penalty for fentalog dealers
Originally posted by lempoid loompus full legalization of all drugs is about the worst idea ever and if you think its a good idea you're either a junkie, retarded, deluded or all of the above
I disagree.
With the right education and understanding of drugs and their effects it wouldn't be a problem.
I'm not saying everyone should have access to the drugs tho.
legalization "as i would do it" would result in less people getting arrested, less ODs due to misuse or misinformation, less power to the gangs/big pharma, etc. If you OD after you've been educated properly on the topic, then u woulda done so anyway cuz you're a fucking retard. Darwin will win you, just as he should.
Laws in general is a bad thing. More laws makes more criminals, more criminals makes people cautious which will eventually lead to secrecy, taboos and black markets where you have no clue what you're getting. In the ideal society there would only be a few laws, such as don't harm others (except for self defense) and perhaps some traffic laws etc. But that's fucking it.
Push 100 laws and the people will push back, but push one law at the time and no-one will give a fuck. And before you know it, there's 100 laws anyway and u didn't even notice.
They been doing this forever, faggots. Wake the fuck up.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-03-19 at 6:29 PM UTC in trump: death penalty for fentalog dealers
Originally posted by lempoid loompus methadone programs already exist
why encourage opiate dependency by legalizing it
Methadone is not the same. It's a placeholder. It isn't as good. And the withdrawal is fucking horrible. You're talking months instead of weeks. I would much, MUCH rather go through those three days of hell and have that slow tapering off of intensity.
You aren't encouraging it. IMO, in an ideal world the only ones who would be able to get opiates would be people who go through an education program and get a license. They would be limited in how much they could buy, and perhaps even drug tested to ensure they're actually the ones taking it, like many people are for narcotic scripts today. Would this be abused? Yes. It isn't perfect. But it's better than the current system of buying unknown purity and substance and injecting it into your arm, all the while supporting these massively violent criminal organizations.
Anything is better than people dying and mafias profiting. That's the bottom line. No solution is going to be perfect. But until you can stop people from actually doing the drugs, you should try to make it as safe as possible for them to do it.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-03-19 at 6:19 PM UTC in trump: death penalty for fentalog dealers
Originally posted by lempoid loompus You're fucking stupid. Drugs are bad for the function of society and the individuals. Hard drugs are poisons. If someone is already in the grips of addiction, they should be able to get help and not be punished. But a dope dealer is basically a serial murderer and deserves what they get. You know all the problems caused by alcohol in society? Now multiply that by a thousand and thats the social disarray that full legalization would cause. We can't ban alcohol because a 10 year old can make it and its been a part of society forever, even though its toxic. So why should we add more toxins into circulation? Do u want another opium war or something
WHAT PROBLEMS?
Opiate addicts are functional. We see this in every heroin or methadone program in the world. People who can get quality opioids to feed their addiction only have to worry about living their lives. They don't overdose. They don't go to the hospital for an abscess. They don't fund criminal organizations.
The idea that it makes people dysfunctional has been proven wrong multiple times over, you're arguing a hundred-fifty year old viewpoint with this opium war shit. I mean, just because YOU aren't functional doesn't mean everybody who does drugs is the same.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
