Idk who taught people the incorrect definition for “exponentially different”, but it does not mean “identical”, “very similar” or “minutely different”.
And how “different” illegal meth is from legal meth is based on its dosages and regulation, which both articles state.
So yea, you could read the articles, I just don’t know if they would benefit you since your reading comprehension isn’t up to snuff.
From your linked article that you don’t seem to have read beyond whatever quote you think vindicates the incorrect thing you typed:
However, Brody explains it’s essential to understand that the safety and tolerability of legalized prescription ADHD medications are miles apart compared with illegal meth.
“To emphasize this, I will compare it to the degree to which the distance to the moon dwarfs the distance to the local supermarket,” he states.
I’d say to learn to fucking read, but that’s not even the main problem with you. It’s not even the condescending smugness while being clearly wrong, though that does make you insufferable.
The real problem is how the only conversation you want to have is to undermine a valid news article for invalid reasons and to undermine the people responding with relevant lived experience, then intentionally miss the point and double down to attempt to convince yourself you didn’t say something stupid in the first place. Fuck off.
Idk who taught people the incorrect definition for “exponentially different”, but it does not mean “identical”, “very similar” or “minutely different”.
And how “different” illegal meth is from legal meth is based on its dosages and regulation, which both articles state.
So yea, you could read the articles, I just don’t know if they would benefit you since your reading comprehension isn’t up to snuff.
From your linked article that you don’t seem to have read beyond whatever quote you think vindicates the incorrect thing you typed:
You do know that agreeing with my previous comments and article is not the slam you think it is, right?
I’d say to learn to fucking read, but that’s not even the main problem with you. It’s not even the condescending smugness while being clearly wrong, though that does make you insufferable.
The real problem is how the only conversation you want to have is to undermine a valid news article for invalid reasons and to undermine the people responding with relevant lived experience, then intentionally miss the point and double down to attempt to convince yourself you didn’t say something stupid in the first place. Fuck off.
Yea, projecting your exact issues onto others is a valid choice.
Love how being right translates into being wrong if you don’t like the science.