I was thinking the same thing. She doesn’t get a do-over. There is no way to give her those 43 years back. She had a daughter she didn’t get to raise. She had an independent and free life she didn’t get to live.
And to make things worse, the evil as fuck Missouri AG was trying to keep her imprisoned!
So to preface, I am absolutely and without reservation against the death penalty, so any state-sanctioned murder is unacceptable to me.
That being said, if they’re going for painless, why not just a captive bolt stunner the their brain stem? Like, having them lie back in a massage table with a container for the blood (heaven forbid the audience should experience the discomfort of gore with their death spectacle), and just pop it when it’s time. Guaranteed to shut them off, mess is handled, suitable for a casket, and no suffering. They wouldn’t even have a chance to feel it.
And if the thought of putting a human down like cattle is disturbing to you, good. It should be, just like any other way we would keep somebody locked up waiting to be killed.
are there a significant number of reported “botched executions” with guillotine? Even if the weight is blunt, it is so heavy and comes down at such a force that it would likely break the spine and destroy the brain steam and cause a near instant death.
Or just plain pure nitrogen. Not the way they incompetently did it a while back where the prisoner suffocated due to his own exhaled CO2, but pure nitrogen while venting his exhalations.
The LD50 for THC is so hilariously high that you will physically lose the ability to move your body and consume more THC long, long before you reach a point of potential toxicity. From a technical standpoint there is no recorded event of a THC “overdose” ever occurring, like literally ever in human history, and boy have we been trying over the years. It’s easier to die from drinking too much water than consuming too much THC.
Now clearly what you’re referring to is just having had too much, “greening out” as the kids say, where you can gain a lot of anxiety and lose a lot of bodily control. And yes, that sucks, a lot. Panic attack city right there. But that’s not an overdose in the proper, dangerous sense of the term.
I only even bring this up because with cannabis being such a hot button political issue lately and being on the brink of federal legalization, accurate information about it is more important now than ever. And more often than not I usually see comments like this just replied to with “lol u can’t overdose on weed idiot” with no further context and that’s not helpful to anyone.
You can definitely take too much and have a bad time, but if you manage to find a way to legitimately overdose on THC, Willie Nelson would like to know your location.
Overdosing on THC is basically one long panic attack, which occurs waaaaaayyxy before you even come close to dieing. I think, some people might consider this cruel.
So does Google. And yet they’re still being taken to court for monopolistic practices by the U.S. Department of Justice.
Monopoly doesn’t mean literally no competitors in the real world. It means no competitors worth noting because everyone has been corralled into using a single company.
From what I was able to ascertain it seems like the law still enables denial of service on risk based standards, which should enable banks the deny service to the criminal enterprises the Treasury fears.
“the risk that international drug traffickers, transnational organized criminals, terrorists, and corrupt foreign officials will use the U.S. financial system to launder money, evade sanctions, and threaten our national security.”
Not that climate change doesn’t increase the propensity of events with national security events. But given the Treasury’s examples I think the environmental policy aspects of the regulation aren’t their major concern. Their ire seems to be at individuals or groups committing acts that violate established law.
Funny how anti-woke is always synonymous with anti-freedom. The government doesn’t approve of your opinions, and therefore must use the force of law to punish you.
The good news is, I wouldn’t expect these laws to survive in the long term. The federal government could easily preempt them since they obviously involve interstate commerce. And I suspect there’s probably some blatant viewpoint discrimination baked into the laws, but that would come down to the specifics of the wording. But even if they are content neutral, I’d argue that they violate the first amendment, which thanks to citizens united would have to be applied to financial institutions too.
And that brings us to the bad news: until congress and/or the courts are no longer held by nutjobs, I wouldn’t expect either to do anything to fix this.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.