And arresting the users solves none of that. Maybe it hides it from casual observers, but if you actually want to help people, treatment programs and assistance, not cops, are what you need.
Obviously you have to go after supply … but both Japan and Singapore successfully tackle outdoor usage. You don’t see people openly using illegal drugs in either place. Obviously if you are able to procure and do your illegal drugs at home the police can’t stop you unless your neighbors rat you out.
I don't think you can compare East and West cultures like that. I think a big reason the West has so many open drug users is because shame and rule-following are not deeply ingrained parts of the culture. I don't think enforcement is what's doing the grunt of the heavy lifting in the East.
... in your case. There was a cash flow savings in your case.
I've moved several times and done the math each time. Sometime it's been more cost effective to own, sometimes to rent. There are a lot of factors that go into that calculation, and the math doesn't always fall on the side of buying. That's especially true if you don't expect to be in a house for decades.
The issue is not that companies don't have the funds to chase these bugs (which will impact future trust/revenue), it's that they don't want to spend it chasing these bugs. Next quarter thinking leads to bad software.
Sure, but I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on that count. I’m fairly sure that’s because they felt it would be safer if the confidential info they sent wouldn’t stay around.
Imprisonment is worse, being kicked out of university is also worse, but a company taking your money for a product and then banning you from use of that product without a reasonable (and inexpensive) appeals process is also evil (and imo should be illegal).