Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses

Amazon's Answer To Delivery Driver Shortage: Recruit Pot Smokers (bloomberg.com) 176

Posted by msmash from the not-the-onion dept.
Amazon.com has a solution for a potentially crippling shortage of delivery drivers: Recruit pot smokers. From a report: The company is advising its delivery partners -- the mom and pops that operate the ubiquitous blue Amazon vans -- to prominently advertise that they don't screen applicants for marijuana use, according to correspondence reviewed by Bloomberg and interviews with four business owners. Doing so can boost the number of job applicants by as much as 400%, Amazon says in one message, without explaining how it came up with the statistic. Conversely, the company says, screening for marijuana cuts the prospective worker pool by up to 30%.

One delivery partner, who stopped screening applicants at Amazon's behest, says marijuana was the prevailing reason most people failed drug tests. Now that she's only testing for drugs like opiates and amphetamines, more drivers pass. Other delivery companies are continuing to screen applicants, concerned about the insurance and liability implications in the many states where weed use remains illegal. They also worry that ending drug testing might prompt some drivers to toke up before going out on a route. "If one of my drivers crashes and kills someone and tests positive for marijuana, that's my problem, not Amazon's," said one, who requested anonymity to discuss the issue because Amazon discourages delivery company owners from speaking to the media.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Amazon's Answer To Delivery Driver Shortage: Recruit Pot Smokers More

Amazon's Answer To Delivery Driver Shortage: Recruit Pot Smokers

Comments Filter:

  • no labor shortage (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sdinfoserv ( 1793266 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2021 @01:29PM (#61752731)
    There's no labor shortage, don't let the corporate oligarchs fool you. It's a wage shortage. The normal rules of capitalism is the market is driven by supply and demand. When a resource is scarce, demand goes up, price follows. Just try and buy a car. https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/08... [cnn.com]
    The same should be true for labor, to attract workers, raise wages... but companies are not raising wages despite raising prices. The greedy oligarchs continue to pressure wages despite record profits. So apparently, capitalism only works for owners, workers are left behind. No better reason than that to unionize, now.
    • Yeah, this is stupid business owners trying to pickup pennies in front of a Amazon steamroller. I predict if they raised the wages by $5/hr+, their applications would go up 400%.

      • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2021 @03:36PM (#61753325)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by sjames ( 1099 )

          Put another way, a lot of businesses would actually rather die than be nice to their employees and pay them more. Admittedly, paying them more might be tough for some, but being nice doesn't cost anything.

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by shanen ( 462549 )

        Interesting opening to the discussion, but I really wonder if money is the only problem Amazon has in hiring people.

        I was recently trying to imagine what it would take to get me to apply to work for such a company. I concluded they would have to offer me a job dedicated to making the company less evil. Then they'd have to con me into believing they meant it. Doesn't seem very likely in Amazon's case.

        But I still blame Bork for creating the legal cover for the new corporate cancers.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Z80a ( 971949 )

      There are more options than just forming "that kind of unions".
      You can have a peerless, leaderless movement with specific purposes in mind rather than just creating a seat with a lot of power and hopping someone good will sit on it.
      It is never the case, and corporations will just make sure you think it's either "commie like unions or nothing", so people choose nothing and they keep doing their abuses.

      • You can have a peerless, leaderless movement with specific purposes in mind

        Can you cite an example of a successful labor movement organized this way?

    • where labor is defined to mean the same as serf.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by RobinH ( 124750 )
      Paying a bunch of people for sitting at home will create a labour shortage.

      • So does destroying the facade that you'll die from exposure or hunger if you don't work.

        • Or boredom.

          Remember how some people honestly tried to tell us that people "need" work because otherwise they'd go crazy?

          • Or boredom.

            Remember how some people honestly tried to tell us that people "need" work because otherwise they'd go crazy?

            You mean the people who post on Facebook about using sheep medicine to cure a virus or that the con artist will be reinstated as President any day now? Those people?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by RobinH ( 124750 )
          We're wealthy enough that people who can't work for some reason can be provided for. But if you can work, you need to earn that roof over your head and the food to sustain you. It's a free country - you can go get any job you want or even start your own business and become a millionaire. Or you can choose to not work and die of hunger and exposure. That's the way it should be.

          • But if you can work, you need to earn that roof over your head and the food to sustain you. It's a free country - you can go get any job you want or even start your own business and become a millionaire. Or you can choose to not work and die of hunger and exposure. That's the way it should be.

            Yeah I grew up on that, too. The people who told me that all owned houses while they were making a wage that's an equivalent fraction of my current salary.

            "Should be" assumes: a. Infinite economic/population growth and b. Capitalism always drives prices down. Neither are true, healthcare being a tragic example of both.

          • We're wealthy enough that people who can't work for some reason can be provided for. But if you can work, you need to earn that roof over your head and the food to sustain you. It's a free country - you can go get any job you want or even start your own business and become a millionaire. Or you can choose to not work and die of hunger and exposure. That's the way it should be.

            Why?
            My daddy's rich, how dare you have the unmitigated gall to propose that I should ever have to work.

            Now flip that around and look at it again.


            Now as for you, retiring at 70 is too good for you, I think I'll invest some more in REITS [globalnews.ca]. You should have to work like a dog at a job you hate for all you God-given days. If I could figure out how to get work out of you after you're dead, I'd make you scrub toilets on the night-shift for eternity.
            /jk, dude...

    • Re:no labor shortage (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Darinbob ( 1142669 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2021 @02:24PM (#61752969)

      Yes. The problem here is Amazon and their stupid ubiquitous delivery. They need a ton more drivers than traditional delivery, because they make deliveries constantly. Ie, I will see Amazon vans with subsistance gig workers multiple times a day at my condo complex but the USPS, UPS, and FedEx show up once a day generally, a second time only if there's a priority/premium delivery. And because Amazon does not charge premium rates here, they have to pay the delivery workers the minimum possible for the maximum amount of deliveries, so they're scraping the bottom of the barrel.

      solution 0 stop ordering so much crap from Amazon. If you need toilet paper, put on your damn mask and go to the local store, do not have these people deliver like you're a chilc asking your mom for help. And when you go to the store, buy multiple items that you need including those you need in the future. Make a list. Even if you do order from Amazon, order multiple things at one time so that it's one one van delivery per item for you. Don't choose same or next day delivery, it's ok if it takes a week for the product to arrive, and insist that Amazon puts all the items in one box so that it's one shipment, even if you have to wait longer.

      Sheesh, stop being such pampered babies. We have wars and famines and floods and times are tough all around the world, so you don't need a servant to deliver you your special organically grown ethical sunflower seeds.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Pascoea ( 968200 )

        Even if you do order from Amazon, order multiple things at one time so that it's one one van delivery per item for you. Don't choose same or next day delivery, it's ok if it takes a week for the product to arrive, and insist that Amazon puts all the items in one box so that it's one shipment, even if you have to wait longer.

        While your suggestions make sense, Amazon often simply doesn't give you those options. Sometimes it gives you the option to wait to combine shipments, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes even if "combine shipments" is selected the order shows up in multiple boxes, often delivered by different drivers, anyway. Amazon clearly prioritizes quick delivery over efficiency.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by cusco ( 717999 )

          That's because that's what customers prioritize.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Pascoea ( 968200 )
            No argument there. Most people want their stuff yesterday, and Amazon has done well at fulfilling that desire. To the OP's point, the ability to say "I don't need this widget tomorrow", would be a nice addition. If I'm ordering a bunch of crap for a project there's no point in it showing up in 5 different boxes from 5 different drivers.

        • Customers NEED to push back, not just be passive and accepting shit from Amazon. And especially don't praise them.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by galabar ( 518411 )
      The normal rules of capitalism don't include extended unemployment, stimulus checks, eviction moratoriums, etc.. I walked into a Safeway today with conspicuous signs offering jobs at $20/hour ($40,000/year). I don't think we will make it out of this labor shortage until we stop paying people to not work. At least we've developed a large body of evidence against UBI.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ranton ( 36917 )

      There's no labor shortage, don't let the corporate oligarchs fool you. It's a wage shortage.

      The problem is not as easily solved as just raising wages. If you have 100 workers making $15 per hour, but cannot hire 10 new workers at the same rate, it is usually not as simple as just offering $18 per hour for new workers. Now you have 100 unhappy workers unless you raise everyone's wages, which means those new workers are effectively costing you $48 per hour because of the increase to existing employees. This is among the reasons you see signing bonuses being handed out for low wage work right now.

      Emp

  • Common sense (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Joey Vegetables ( 686525 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2021 @01:30PM (#61752737) Journal

    I'm in favor of decriminalization of marijuana.

    I'm NOT in favor of driving, operating heavy machinery, or most other potentially dangerous activities being done under its influence.

    And I don't think it's unreasonable to require that an applicant for a driving job should test negative for recent pot use. If he or she can't keep from lighting up for a couple days before a job application, then I don't want to be responsible for what he or she does behind the wheel.

    Freedom requires responsibility. Otherwise, bad things happen, they get blamed on freedom rather than on irresponsible actors, and the freedom tends to disappear.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Then it's lucky there's no similar test for whether you have drunk alcohol over the past couple of days. It would be strange to be sipping Sprite on a Friday night because you're applying for a job next Tuesday.

    • Re:Common sense (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jacks smirking reven ( 909048 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2021 @01:38PM (#61752777)

      Issue with marijuana is it can takes weeks and even months to test clean on a drug test for it since it persists in your fat cells, not just the bloodstream. If I smoked up at a party with friends on a Saturday I could fail a test 2-3 weeks later even If that was the only time I smoked.

      Same issue with driving and machinery. Sure they passed the test when you hired them but is that really stopping them from doing it during those times? If the person was really that irresponsible they could probably fake the drug test anyways. It's very easy to fool the cheap tests most companies use. It's not like a probation officer is watching you piss in a cup. That same person could just easily show up drunk one day and cause an accident and there would be no way to prevent that short of testing every person every day.

      Basically drug testing is effectively worthless for all but the most demanding jobs. It does nothing to sort out responsible employees from non-responsible ones.

      • Understood, especially if we're talking about things like testing hair samples, in which evidence of almost any drug use can persist for a really long time.

        This is why I'd test (if possible) for substantial recent use. Not mere traces. I want to screen the folks who show up high, not the ones who party once in a while but nevertheless live fully responsible lives without endangering anyone.

        Safety is my main concern, with liability being a lesser concern but still important since almost any small business

        • I think you answered your own question. Observe their on the job performance and demeanor in general. If that is good and they operate like a responsible person than that is all there is to it. Drug use in their off-time has zero to do with it otherwise and in my opinion is none of the business of my employer. If I get off work at 5 and go home and get super-toasted does that really matter if I am sober at work the next morning on time and doing exactly what needs to be done?

          If you hiring for something

          • I'd agree with most of this.

            However, it does not require "drug-war paranoia" to acknowledge the value in knowing whether an applicant for a driving job is a regular and heavy user of mind-altering drugs.

            In spite of being culturally conservative, I've been a strong and consistent opponent of the "war on drugs" since I was old enough to know about it. I don't believe governments have a legitimate interest in knowing, much less deciding, what people consume (though employers might, in some situations that are

            • From a moral and ethical standpoint, if the government doesn't have the right to control what people do to their bodies outside of harming other people, what right does your employer have to dictate that? If a person is a "heavy user" of drugs but does their job to the standards they are expected to at what point is it their concern over any of it? There are plenty of "functional alcoholics" out there. It's not their employers place or concern to get them help up until it affects their performance at the

              • I think I've addressed most of these points elsewhere, but let me touch on a couple.

                Why might an employer have a legitimate interest in knowing about a prospective or current employee's drug use that the government would not? From my POV, for two reasons.

                * You are voluntarily choosing to apply and/or work for the company. For lots of companies and lots of positions, drug use doesn't matter. You are always free to choose one of those instead. You can't choose your government nearly as easi

        • If my test doesn't come back as high as a test on Willie Nelson, Snoop Dogg or Seth Rogen, I should be good to go!

          • Provided that your job is for your behavior to be recorded for the entertainment industry. No one wants those guys operating heavy machinery under the influence. Especially, they don't want that. It would interfere with the excellent money they make without operating heavy machinery.

            • It was mostly a joke.

              I honestly don't think I could smoke as much as them day-to-day and survive. I'd just turn into a puddle of drool.

              Which explains why Snoop thinks Game of Thrones is an historical documentary. I have yet to understand why my father in law thinks it is. He doesn't do any drugs. Well, except for Fox News. He does a SHIT-TON of Fox News. And online conspiracy theory sites that he actually reads for news. Never mind. Same effect.

      • So, stop smoking weeks or months before the drug test. If the prospective employee can't handle something that simple, they are probably unable to do the job effectively either. If it's for medical reasons, then bring the diagnosis or prescription to prove it. A medical condition can preclude one from some jobs; no taking downers for stress related insomnia if you are applying to be a long haul trucker, no opioids for chronic back pain when you apply for a job that requires heavy lifting, etc.

      • Re:Common sense (Score:5, Insightful)

        by hey! ( 33014 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2021 @04:22PM (#61753559) Homepage Journal

        One problem with drug testing programs is the people using the data don't understand its limitations and don't bother to educate themselves. They just believe what the first vendor who convinces them to buy tells them.

        A more sensitive test is not necessarily better, since it can give false positives from second hand smoke and over the counter pain killer use. What you want is a test that detects *impairment*, and such a test doesn't have to be very sensitive at all. Breath analyzers have the shortest detection window of any test method, which is actually a good thing if you want to spot check for on-the-job impairment.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fermion ( 181285 )
      This is classic fear mongering. We donâ(TM)t screen out beer drinkers, or opioid users, or those take a valid prescription for psychotropics. We say that you cannot be impaired and must do your job. What it means to be impaired is between Amazon, the contractors, and the insurance companies.

      • I don't single out weed. As far as psychoactive substances go, it's toward the bottom of my list of concerns . . . but it is on the list.

        I also wouldn't hire a person who showed up for the job interview drunk, high on anything else, or using any drugs that I thought might impair anyone's safety.

        Did they light up a week ago? A month ago? I don't care. But I do care if it was on the way to their interview.

        • You are singling it out, sort of. The test is positive even if you're only under the influence of the drug in off-hours or even weeks prior. Alcohol does not stay in the body like that. They would show up to the job interview completely clean but metabolites will be in the body for weeks.

          • Not intentionally singling it out. Weed use concerns me in this context a LOT less than booze or even sleeping pills. And, yes, as pointed out by you and several other folks, the tests we have now aren't great, and if weed users are effectively being singled out by those tests, then maybe we need better tests.

            It used to be that any weed use, no matter how slight, flagged a person as someone willing to disobey at least some "laws," which bothers a lot of folks, though not me necessarily, since a lot of "la

        • I don't single out weed. As far as psychoactive substances go, it's toward the bottom of my list of concerns . . . but it is on the list.

          I also wouldn't hire a person who showed up for the job interview drunk, high on anything else, or using any drugs that I thought might impair anyone's safety.

          Did they light up a week ago? A month ago? I don't care. But I do care if it was on the way to their interview.

          Don't hire drunks, and fire employees caught drunk on the job, but why would you make employees take a test that shows they've had no alcohol in their system for the past several weeks and lie to yourself about it having anything to do with safety?

          Nobody here is talking about looking the other way if a potential hire comes in smelling like weed or alcohol, except you? The article and everyone here is talking about screening people with drug tests.

      • We do screen out a lot of those people. Alcohol is out of the system faster than pot, but even then showing up to work with a hangover is going to get you fired. And opiates have indeed caused problems even when taken with a prescription. If you need to be awake and alert then these are reasonable needs to have drug tests.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by NFN_NLN ( 633283 )

      > And I don't think it's unreasonable to require that an applicant for a driving job should test negative for recent pot use.

      Do they have/use such a test? Is there a test that shows "recent use"? I thought all the tests show that you had used in the last x days, where x is well over a week.

      • I don't know.

        I would guess, but don't know for sure, that there are tests that will show the level of any given substance, and that one could reasonably extrapolate from that level, plus the applicant's statements, the likelihood of being a heavy and more than daily user.

      • > And I don't think it's unreasonable to require that an applicant for a driving job should test negative for recent pot use.

        Do they have/use such a test? Is there a test that shows "recent use"? I thought all the tests show that you had used in the last x days, where x is well over a week.

        I'm pretty sure that Joey Vegetable guy, while being for decriminalization, is under the impression that a drug test is like taking a breathalyzer for marijuana. We should abandon the whole thread...

        • No. That Joey Vegetables guy was reminded by numerous commenters that typical drug testing is far too sensitive to test for actual impairment, and, subsequently, responded numerous times that this means we need better testing, so we can give employers options that actually make sense, by distinguishing between prospective/current employees who are likely to be able to drive safely, versus those who aren't.

          • I feel like the "test" is not so much drug related testing but simple vision, reaction time and acuity testing just prior to driving away.

            If you can't pass those tests, you don't drive that day. Get enough of those days logged in a week/month/year, you are fired for not being able to perform your duties.

            No need to invasively test for what is in someone's body directly, just test for impairment.

    • And if they take any sort of medication that makes them drowsy at any time should they be barred from driving for a living? You do understand that people can take mind-altering substances and then not drive, right?

      • I don't really care what people do on their own time.

        But I do care that if I'm hiring drivers, I hire, insofar as possible, only the safest ones I possibly can.

        Drug testing used to be one of the ways employers did this, but the consensus here seems to be that that's no longer appropriate with respect to marijuana. And to a large but not complete extent, I agree.

        So what should we do instead?

        BTW, when I have to be on meds that induce drowsiness (rare for me but not unheard of), I do not drive. I'd hope most

        • The testing should not be for drugs in a person's system. That is a fools errand.

          The testing should be for impairment just prior to the person performing their duties. Do vision, reaction time and acuity tests prior to allowing the person to drive a vehicle. No need to test for drugs.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by taustin ( 171655 )

      Do you feel the same way about alcohol? Would you refuse to hire someone who has a beer after dinner every night? Contrary to some well known propaganda films, a pot high doesn't last forever, any more than a few too many beers does. The impairment is on a par between the two until it wears off. The biggest difference is that alcohol use is harder to detect weeks later. And that's not a safety difference.

      • If a person's alcohol use impairs their judgment and makes him or her an irresponsible driver? Then yes. Otherwise no.

        Same with weed, except that since it's difficult to test for impairment as opposed to traces of use weeks or months previous, I'm suggesting that we need better tests.

        Given the choice I'd way rather hire a pothead than a drunk, but if I'm going to be responsible for that person driving on public roads, I'm going to hire the person I think will be the safest, and any information that will h

  • Short term testing (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Pascoea ( 968200 )
    Why treat this any different than alcohol? As a (hypothetical) employer I don't care if you got high last night and more than I care if you got drunk last night. I'm concerned if you are currently physically safe to operate the vehicle. We have many tests to determine if you are currently under the influence of alcohol, we can employ similar tests for cannabis.

    • Re:Short term testing (Score:5, Informative)

      by Jason Earl ( 1894 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2021 @02:02PM (#61752865) Homepage Journal

      Liability.

      With alcohol we have a test that measures blood alcohol levels that does a very good job of estimating how impaired the driver is. Marijuana tests continue to come back negative long after the impairment has ended.

      So let's say you have a very dependable driver that likes to finish each week with a single joint every Friday night after work. By Monday morning he or she will be unimpaired. However, if this driver gets in an accident they will still test positive for marijuana. Now, all of a sudden, the driver will be blamed for the accident, even if he or she was a victim of someone else's poor driving. Worse, if someone gets seriously hurt the lawyers will almost certainly spin this against the owner of the shipping company. After all, their drivers are operating heavy machinery on public roads. The owners have a responsibility to protect the public against impaired drivers.

      To be honest, if this becomes a trend, I suspect that the insurance companies will push back and simply tell the shipping companies that they are uninsurable without mandatory drug testing. Amazon can say what it wants. The insurance companies are the folks that get to pick the rules.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Pascoea ( 968200 )

        Marijuana tests continue to come back negative long after the impairment has ended.

        I assume this was a slip-up? Tests come back positive for a long time.

        By Monday morning he or she will be unimpaired. However, if this driver gets in an accident they will still test positive for marijuana.

        Agreed, using current urinalysis/follicle testing standards. There are other tests (like saliva) that can be more accurate for "recent" use, but there are limitations around that as well. I don't have a lot of knowledge on the subject, but the quick Google-fu saliva test I found appears to only react to smoked product, and is only effective for 4 hours. With the current trajectory of medical/recreational use becoming legal in more area

      • We need better tests that can distinguish between recent versus non-recent impairment. For the reasons mentioned above, among many others.

  • So tired of mary jane being treated like heroin (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TigerPlish ( 174064 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2021 @01:37PM (#61752767)

    One of the most meaningful reforms would be to drop mary jane from the Federal roster of controlled substances, end all posession / use prosecution, and set the weed free. Just like the much more destructive alcohol.

    Also, prevent any multi-state / multi-country weed conglomerates from happening. I don't want Yerboro by Phillip Morris. It'd be the death of the sweet leaf. I want pot to remain a small local thing, not an organized international thing.

    Surprised to hear this from me? Oh well. Buckle up buttercup, because another thing I want is to end the NFA and GCA, and more, including reversing Citizen's United *and* un-doing *anything* LBJ ever signed. I'm convinced that man was the crystallization of the start of the fall of this country. Objectively examine his legacy and after you're done hurling.. start writing your lawmakers.

    • I want pot to remain a small local thing, not an organized international thing.

      Toooo late. Virtually all of the ma and pa weed operations are gone now, at least in California. Licensing is the death of all good things. As it turns out, decriminalization was better than legalization after all.

    • I agree with much of what you say about prohibition and Citizens United.

      However, I have to respond to "un-doing *anything* LBJ ever signed". Most people in this country don't want to reverse progress on civil rights as well as consumer and environmental protections. There isn't a politician alive who could survive killing Medicare. The following acts signed into law made the US a much better place.

      The Civil Rights Act of 1964[15] forbade job discrimination and the segregation of public accommodations.

  • If the pot smokers go work for Amazon delivery partners, who will I buy my "medical" marijuana from?

  • This is no different than Alcohol. It should be treated exactly the same way.

    You can't be drunk when delivering. You can't be high when delivering.

    Why is this so hard?

    • Too many government and private jobs are riding on keeping pot illegal. The DEA wouldn’t be nearly as busy and all the private prisons would have to find more people to arrest. The cops would have one less reason to snoop in peoples cars. Legal pot is a big loss for government.

  • Do these firms fall under Department of Transportation regulations?

    If so, they're gonna get loved not so gently...

  • Captian space dic wants to thank you again for working on sub-livable wages so he can continue throwing billions at his sky falice.
    https://www.entrepreneur.com/a... [entrepreneur.com]

  • No pot smokers? That's OK (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mveloso ( 325617 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2021 @02:19PM (#61752951)

    Long-haul truckers have been smoking pot forever, and there haven't been a lot of issues.

    Most stoners I've known were pretty aware that they shouldn't bake & drive, or at least bake & work. Of course things are different now.

    I'd say "try it and see."

    If anything they'd be driving really slowly, so it's unlikely anything untoward would happen.

  • and in an bad crash you need sue amzaon and force them to pay out as they have demorstoned control over the DSP.

  • As someone who uses it for medical purposes:
    Without it I have a hard time functioning let alone doing my job. The caveat here is that I use only as much as I need to function. I usually take it at night a couple hours before bed. By morning the high is gone, I can drive, have good control over my medical issues and I can work during the day. Compared to regular medications I get from a pharmacy, I have many less side effects and can deal with them easily. IF USED RESPONSIBLY, I do not think it is any worse

  • Fuck drug testing. Fuck the war on drugs. Fuck Nixon.

Slashdot Top Deals

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Close