Addiction, a loss of control in behavior and thought, is very different than an organic desire for a product or service.

If you asked an addict if they want to have to consume a product everyday in increasing quantities, lest they convulse into a fit of pain, insomnia, sweat and uncontrollable bowel movements for a week straight, they'd say no.

Free will and choice do not factor in with this scenario and a laissez-faire attitude towards highly addictive drugs can be damaging.

People turn to hard drugs for a variety of reasons, a good percentage of them out of untreated mental illness or their situation in life. Addressing why people turn to them would eliminate a lot of demand that is not organic.

The safety information is: don't fucking do it. There isn't a set guideline for mixing potent CNS depressants because there is a fine line between breathing and complete respiratory failure that is unique to every user.

Except users do get prescribed such combos. And users often mix alcohol and benzos and opiates without issues. So taking a prohibition-based approach is good from a CYA perspective, but doesn't provide value to end users.

Reminder that people only started caring about police brutality when it became common knowledge that the cops could break down your door and shoot your dog with impunity.

The decades of brutality against the poor and racial minorities before that triggered no such reaction and was applauded by many.

Pattern jury instructions exist in most states to prevent arbitrary and unjustified decisions made by jurors. I don't agree with how they can be used in some cases, but you might be explicitly barred from making such decisions.

IANAL but my understanding is that on a jury there are deliberations and then votes. A juror gets to vote; doesn't have to explain the vote but just casts a vote.

If the judge can tell a juror how they must vote, then we don't need a jury. Else we have a jury, and the jurors get to vote.

Maybe the judge instructs the jurors to consider this, ignore that, on and on. But still a juror gets to vote and for reasons they don't have to explain.

It's our jury system. Maybe some lawyers, judges, etc. have had lots of biggie ideas about this and that legal detail about what would, could, should be the case for juries, instructions to the jurors, all sorts of this and that. Still a juror gets to sit in the jury box, watch the trial, think, think for themselves, and then vote and not explain their vote.

This is assuming your case goes to trial. I'd assume 99% cases don't ever reach that stage. Plea bargains are also marketed as a way to save resources and keep the justice system from getting backed up. Most people take a plea bargain if their charges aren't dropped.

If it came to that, a trial by judge versus a trial by jury might have a better outcome than relying on a group of laymen who just want to go home to decide your fate.

Yes, they are responsible for killing them. It's a conscience decision an executioner makes to kill those the state deems worthy of execution.

More than half of the police shootings this year were of white males.

Tell this to the mentally ill, whose first encounter with anyone trying to get them help usually involves police with guns who have a tendency to shoot them.

Cancer is not in an organism's interest, but mutations can still occur and cause it.

I started drinking green tea and black tea in the morning in high school. Then I ran out. Cue a few days of headaches, bad moods, falling asleep and cold-like symptoms.

Then a few years later I started drinking coffee regularly. Same thing happened when I quit.

Now, I drink green tea in the mornings occasionally and have had no problems with stopping.

If you don't have a need consume caffeine, don't start. It seems to follow the tolerance/withdrawal pattern at even small doses.