Its still a Schedule 1 substance, indicating it has no recognized medical value, and on the other hand, the government owns patents on THC compounds used to shrink tumors.
Don't worry folks, it was just a few "bad apples", who happened to be vetted, highly trusted, undercover law enforcement officials. Just goes to show you how only criminals use Bitcoin.
I forgot my yahoo password long ago, I had used my yahoo account to register a domain name. At the time, I agreed to allow recurring billing (though I don't consciously remember doing this). After a few years of seeing the recurring charge on my bank statement, I called to get a debit card with a new number. They sent me a new card with the same number (but new expirey). After discovering a fresh charge in the next yearly cycle, I called my bank to "contest" the charges. They asked if I had talked to them (the vendor, Yahoo in this case) or otherwise explicitly cancelled my "subscription" and told them I had no way of recovering my account information and wasn't about to navigate their phone-based customer service. My bank did absolutely nothing to help me. Moving forward, I've sought to minimize any form of accounts following this paradigm. Getting rid of passwords is great, long over due, but there are bigger problems with these organizations.
It will be great when this substance can be officially studied in a clinical setting but so long as its a schedule 1 substance at the federal level, well, its worse than methamphetamine (on paper).
What was your experience like getting your prescription details from LensCrafters? I've heard they don't like give up the details to allow customers to easily work with a competitor.
I was making a sarcastic remark, echoing the sentiment of all of the "free market" zealots and politicians. Not only are they talking out of both sides of their mouth, their statements are misleading as we see in hindsight.
The only benefit I can see is there is an overall increase in liquidity but the cost of that liquidity is quite high.
As jordon0day just wrote in an unrelated thread, "we have plenty of evidence that people are really bad at being suspicious of the often unreliable stuff they read on the internet"
I think this is a group that is highly sensitive to face value of statements people make and when someone makes an uninformed remark, their entirely argument is cast aside. Dissent is welcomed, but it needs to be backed by a solid justification.