addiction
defense
You can not be "addicted" to a drug. When you create the dependency based on a normal, healthy and natural chemical dependence in your body it's not an addiction. Just like all the weak faggots here who claim so with alcohol.
Also there are many high level case precedents specifically outlining how "addiction" and use of drugs does not remove liability for one's actions. Many many many. https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/i-was-drunk-is-not-a-defense-to-a-crime/ https://www.justia.com/criminal/defenses/intoxication/ -> https://archive.ph/rLkTe
You can not be "addicted" to a drug. When you create the dependency based on a normal, healthy and natural chemical dependence in your body it's not an addiction. Just like all the weak faggots here who claim so with alcohol.
Addiction is NOT a Brain Disease, It is a Choice addiction is a choice study Drug dependence is not addiction—and it matters
While I agree with you that addiction is not a disease, I don't see how posting these links is going to convince anyone trying to absolve Hunter from responsibility not to use that tack. Most people don't (or won't) understand that addiction = weakness.
To end the argument (won't happen here, but whatever) before it pops up. Now people have the knowledge if a family member says such or something like. Giving people tools (knowledge) is of more benefit to all than doing things for them. Teach a man to fish...
To end the argument (won't happen here, but whatever) before it pops up. Now people have the knowledge if a family member says such or something like. Giving people tools (knowledge) is of more benefit to all than doing things for them. Teach a man to fish...
Ah, OK. It seemed to me that you were trying to convince people here after calling them weak faggots.
(post is archived)