Leftover Soup




	If a drug makes people deliriously happy, with no other side effects, most people would agree that it should be legal. If a drug makes people happy, but has a 0.001% chance of causing instant death in the user, should it still be legal? What should the threshold percentage be? If a drug makes people happy, but has a 0.001% chance of making them into violent maniacs, should it still be legal? Is the threshold percentage for this scenario different than for the one above?

0616------------------------------------- (Tuesday morning, INT: Funky Harvest) JH: So if someone was selling PCP, they probably left town, y'think? BK: Not likely. Dealers are all about territory, sometimes down to the block. Besides, moving your stash from one place to another, that's always a risk, you get pulled over for a busted tail light and it's all over. -------------- BK: No, anyone that sells dust likely isn't selling just dust. PCP doesn't go bad, or at least not very quickly - they probably put it on a shelf for a while and stepped up their volume of some other flavour of under-the-sink-surprise to compensate. Molly's popular these days, and you never run out of customers for crack or meth. -------------- JH: You're not a fan of artificially manufactured narcotics, I take it. BK: I am not a fan of watching human beings deteriorate into shrieking copper-stripping ghouls. Method of manufacture's got nothing to do with it. -------------- BK: I mean, there's nothing in that smoothie that didn't come out of the ground, but it's still got more of a kick than any energy drink you'd get at a convenience store. JH: So I should sip this, is what you're saying.