This is sort of ok. Sort of. But the best by far.

That is good to hear. Unfortunately, your words continually do not seem to reflect that understanding.

IT IS MEANT TO CHANGE AS NEEDED.

"I have to get a background check to buy a car, rent an apartment, and gain employment"

Sort of, I guess. But then you have to equate the alcohol being sold int he stores with the women — it is hard to argue that an inanimate object is a "vulnerable party."

I'm confused: you think that letting yourself be extorted is ok? Because that is, in effect, what you seem to be advocating.

I don't get it, the whole Zac Effron thing. I honestly do not find him even remotely attractive — he is just so feminine looking that I imagine him as being a prissy little bitch of a man who takes 5x as long as me to get ready. Nothing about him says masculine, and I likes me some manly men.

You can't have liquor in the same place you show a fully naked woman

It can be changed. That is called a constitutional amendment. What cannot be changed is what the words on the paper meant when they were written — what principals the words stood for.

Besides those persons who think themselves adequately positioned to definitively comment on who the "World's Biggest Assholes" are, right?

Again, you can say the same thing about seat-belts and helmets. It depends on the specific risk scenario you are looking at. What may reduce risks for some things may increase risks for others, etc. For example, while seat-belt usage reduces risk of death by flying through a windshield, it increases the risk of…

As your spreading around wholly false, objectively inaccurate information is really 'harshing' mine.

That is a Savannah Cat, no?

And ad revenue.

This is the same thing they did with Breaking Bad. fuckers.

I can safely ride in a car without a seat-belt too. I've been effectively doing it for years. That doesn't mean the seat-belt law that requires me to wear it isn't "about safety." I can also safely ride my bike without a helmet, but riding with one on is more safe.

The article you just quoted is about the doctor prescribing the drug being in the same room as the patient and doing an actual physical exam before prescribing it (also a really good idea for safety reasons!), not about watching them take the drug. Thus, it is inapplicable to our discussion about watching the pill be…

First, I didn't declare anybody to be "morally repugnant." Those are your words.

Read three sentences down. The sentence that describes what is unique about this particular drug and the people who are obtaining it without doctors. Prescribing it is relevant to —but not determinative of!— who actually consumes the pills. Watching the pill being taken is 100% effective in determining that the pill…

I'm aware of all that, thanks. Which is why I asked what state she was from.