U.S. Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas identified a previous ruling that he would like to upend.The conservative majority sided with an Oregon city that prohibited unhoused people from sleeping on public land, and Thomas said in his opinion in the case that he would like to "dispose" of a 1962 r...
I had some good shit typed out about addiction and booze (two posts in a row!), but then I mostly-read the article and see that he wants to get rid of a ruling which overturned a law making narcotics illegal (assuming the story didn’t just use that word).
So I’m now wondering if he would hold onto that until big pharma is off the hook for their role in the opiate epidemic.
Thomas wants liberals in jail, he doesn’t care how.
And now that he’s in prison, he can be a slave for corporate profit. Truly wonderful, the mind of a capitalist is
“Thomas said in his opinion in the case that he would like to “dispose” of a 1962 ruling that struck down a California law that criminalized being addicted to narcotics, reported Newsweek.”
Should this be interpreted literally?
I interpret this as a metaphor for life.
I’m looking at it more like the literal usage of the word “addicted”.
Like, even if an addict legitimately quits, they still might feel addicted for many years later. Is that illegal? 🤔
I’m confused as to how that would even work