#31
|
|||
|
|||
Off Topic
On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 2:33:19 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/2/2019 7:50 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 1:00:47 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote: On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 1:15:27 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote: The net effect of the first hundred years of near-worldwide heroin ban hasn't worked out all that well. Seems to have merely kept the price up, encouraging supply. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 The pure, theoretical, ivory tower solution is to legalise drugs, which instantly kills a lot of crime. I'm surprised that the Left, which also supports fewer people and abortion, hasn't yet twigged that cheap drugs is another eugenic solution to "too many people on Gaia." We'll see how the legalisation of cannabis works out. So far, so good, dude. My family owned a pharmacy that opened its doors in 1888 and had all sorts of ancient patent medicines stashed in the scary basement, many of which contained cocaine, heroine, marijuana -- and less fun stuff like strychnine and arsenic. My youth in the late '50s early '60s: https://storage.googleapis.com/hippo...16148838ac.jpg The old brick basement would give Edgar Allan Poe the willies. There was, as you know, a long period when all the illegal drugs were not illegal. The opiate epidemic in the late 1880s that resulted in the eventual regulation of narcotics was barely worse than the current opioid epidemic. https://www.livescience.com/60559-op...-of-1800s.html Regulation has little effect on criminals and addicts, and now that we have an epidemic, doctors are refusing to prescribe opioids even when indicated. Compound fracture your leg and get an extra strength Tylenol because doctors are worried that they will get busted for prescribing opioids. The pendulum swing is bad for legitimate pain sufferers. I've already had four offers from young doctors and researchers to "review" the drugs that keep me alive, none of them opioids. (For pain I take paracetamol, what Americans call -- my autopiler is being bolshie and won't let me type the word without turning it into something else.) I decline politely because I might need those people when they grow up a bit, but one wonders how mature they could be if they really think I will let them mess with the prescriptions of the best specialist available. These idealistic young people have heard of the opioid "crisis" and are now fanatical about "cutting down", of course on everybody else's painkillers. And to your point about liberals, unlike the conservatives who just go kill people https://www.history.com/.image/t_sha...p-murrah-f.jpg liberals simply allow people to choose death. The problem with liberals is that they don't let people choose death. What's it now, 3m abortions a year? And the "right to euthenasia" for the incurably ill is already in some places become the right of the authorities to kill people who don't want to die, and I'm not talking about criminals being killed to have their organs harvested in China, I'm talking about Belgium, and Canada, and soon the US, where it is in some places already legal to kill a baby born alive after efforts to abort it have failed. Murder is increasingly licensed, and certainly not by conservatives, which leaves only the caring, sharing so-called liberals. I wish Americans wouldn't insist on ruining good words. I am a liberal who now has to capitalise the word, Liberal, to distinguish myself from those wretched American troublemakers, at the risk of being confused with some British limp wimps whose party is called "Liberal" but whose actions are not at all liberal. Wouldn't you rather have the choice? Its all about making good choices. None of that nanny conservative government telling us what to do or not do. Liberals . . . protecting your right to choose death! I'm definitely for choice. But I spit on your "good" choices. They're your "good" choices, and you should keep them. I'll make my own. As for "nanny conservative government" you slipped in, haven't you noticed Mr Trump's administration tearing up many thick books of regulations promulgated under Democrat governments? The current president is hardly a conservative -- he's a moderate Democrat who walked through the wrong caucus door -- but even a sensible Democrat is clearly superior to the insane asylum the Left has conjured up out of the fraudulent "oppression" of tiny minorities, who together cannot account for rolling a single log, as we shall discover in November 2020. I don't think this issue cleaves well along usual right-left political lines. You have F A Hayek, Allen Ginsberg, Milton Friedman and Abbie Hoffman together on one side... Licensed murder on the scale it is committed every year in America isn't a partisan matter for anyone who has a conscience. The high concept of those people locked in a room, which will not be unlocked until they agree on something, offers huge entertainment potential. Let's throw in Linda Lovelace, just for fun. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 Andre Jute There was a movie with Spencer Tracy about a jury of radically differentiated characters... |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Off Topic
On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 4:10:02 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 2:33:19 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote: On 8/2/2019 7:50 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 1:00:47 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote: On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 1:15:27 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote: The net effect of the first hundred years of near-worldwide heroin ban hasn't worked out all that well. Seems to have merely kept the price up, encouraging supply. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 The pure, theoretical, ivory tower solution is to legalise drugs, which instantly kills a lot of crime. I'm surprised that the Left, which also supports fewer people and abortion, hasn't yet twigged that cheap drugs is another eugenic solution to "too many people on Gaia." We'll see how the legalisation of cannabis works out. So far, so good, dude. My family owned a pharmacy that opened its doors in 1888 and had all sorts of ancient patent medicines stashed in the scary basement, many of which contained cocaine, heroine, marijuana -- and less fun stuff like strychnine and arsenic. My youth in the late '50s early '60s: https://storage.googleapis.com/hippo...16148838ac.jpg The old brick basement would give Edgar Allan Poe the willies. There was, as you know, a long period when all the illegal drugs were not illegal. The opiate epidemic in the late 1880s that resulted in the eventual regulation of narcotics was barely worse than the current opioid epidemic. https://www.livescience.com/60559-op...-of-1800s.html Regulation has little effect on criminals and addicts, and now that we have an epidemic, doctors are refusing to prescribe opioids even when indicated. Compound fracture your leg and get an extra strength Tylenol because doctors are worried that they will get busted for prescribing opioids.. The pendulum swing is bad for legitimate pain sufferers. I've already had four offers from young doctors and researchers to "review" the drugs that keep me alive, none of them opioids. (For pain I take paracetamol, what Americans call -- my autopiler is being bolshie and won't let me type the word without turning it into something else.) I decline politely because I might need those people when they grow up a bit, but one wonders how mature they could be if they really think I will let them mess with the prescriptions of the best specialist available. These idealistic young people have heard of the opioid "crisis" and are now fanatical about "cutting down", of course on everybody else's painkillers. And to your point about liberals, unlike the conservatives who just go kill people https://www.history.com/.image/t_sha...p-murrah-f.jpg liberals simply allow people to choose death. The problem with liberals is that they don't let people choose death. What's it now, 3m abortions a year? And the "right to euthenasia" for the incurably ill is already in some places become the right of the authorities to kill people who don't want to die, and I'm not talking about criminals being killed to have their organs harvested in China, I'm talking about Belgium, and Canada, and soon the US, where it is in some places already legal to kill a baby born alive after efforts to abort it have failed. Murder is increasingly licensed, and certainly not by conservatives, which leaves only the caring, sharing so-called liberals. I wish Americans wouldn't insist on ruining good words. I am a liberal who now has to capitalise the word, Liberal, to distinguish myself from those wretched American troublemakers, at the risk of being confused with some British limp wimps whose party is called "Liberal" but whose actions are not at all liberal. In the US, "left" or "liberal" is the new epithet for anyone who doesn't want to wear a MAGA hat or adopt Leviticus as statutory law. The term "conservative" is now used as short hand for a collection of moral judgments rather than a political philosophy or fiscal policy. None of these labels has its old meaning. Wouldn't you rather have the choice? Its all about making good choices. None of that nanny conservative government telling us what to do or not do. Liberals . . . protecting your right to choose death! I'm definitely for choice. But I spit on your "good" choices. They're your "good" choices, and you should keep them. I'll make my own. As for "nanny conservative government" you slipped in, haven't you noticed Mr Trump's administration tearing up many thick books of regulations promulgated under Democrat governments? How about "a few rules." The CFR is just as thick. It's not like rule-making has stopped, and in fact, it seems to be moving at the usual pace. BTW, regulations come, and regulations go -- regardless of who is the Twitterer in chief. https://www.brookings.edu/interactiv...the-trump-era/ The current president is hardly a conservative -- he's a moderate Democrat who walked through the wrong caucus door -- but even a sensible Democrat is clearly superior to the insane asylum the Left has conjured up out of the fraudulent "oppression" of tiny minorities, who together cannot account for rolling a single log, as we shall discover in November 2020. Somewhat true. One hopes for a sane option. I don't think this issue cleaves well along usual right-left political lines. You have F A Hayek, Allen Ginsberg, Milton Friedman and Abbie Hoffman together on one side... Licensed murder on the scale it is committed every year in America isn't a partisan matter for anyone who has a conscience. Murder is definitional -- and if it is licensed, it is not murder. Whether one can murder a fetus in the US varies from state to state. The religious and historical prohibition on murder was to maintain social peace and order. The Fifth Commandment did not apply to a fetus, at least not absolutely and not according to the Jews -- whose God god wrote the rule (although the original was lost for many years until found by Stephen Spielberg.) Regrettably, Catholics and conservative Christians have pushed for prohibition as an article of faith and without regard to what becomes of the fetus once born, and in fact Christian conservatives bemoan the "welfare state." Well, you can't have it both ways. If you want to prohibit abortion, you better have a plan for that child once born. Perhaps we can send them all to Ireland. How's space looking at your place? -- Jay Beattie. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Off Topic
On 8/3/2019 11:55 AM, jbeattie wrote:
... even a sensible Democrat is clearly superior to the insane asylum the Left has conjured up out of the fraudulent "oppression" of tiny minorities, who together cannot account for rolling a single log... Agreed. And I think lots of people agree. Murder is definitional -- and if it is licensed, it is not murder. Whether one can murder a fetus in the US varies from state to state. The religious and historical prohibition on murder was to maintain social peace and order. The Fifth Commandment did not apply to a fetus, at least not absolutely and not according to the Jews -- whose God god wrote the rule (although the original was lost for many years until found by Stephen Spielberg.) Regrettably, Catholics and conservative Christians have pushed for prohibition as an article of faith and without regard to what becomes of the fetus once born, and in fact Christian conservatives bemoan the "welfare state." I disagree with that final sentence. At least around here, there are many church-based institutions that care for women and children, and there are ongoing congregational charity drives for them. We contribute. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Off Topic
On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 9:19:52 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/3/2019 11:55 AM, jbeattie wrote: ... even a sensible Democrat is clearly superior to the insane asylum the Left has conjured up out of the fraudulent "oppression" of tiny minorities, who together cannot account for rolling a single log... Agreed. And I think lots of people agree. Murder is definitional -- and if it is licensed, it is not murder. Whether one can murder a fetus in the US varies from state to state. The religious and historical prohibition on murder was to maintain social peace and order. The Fifth Commandment did not apply to a fetus, at least not absolutely and not according to the Jews -- whose God god wrote the rule (although the original was lost for many years until found by Stephen Spielberg.) Regrettably, Catholics and conservative Christians have pushed for prohibition as an article of faith and without regard to what becomes of the fetus once born, and in fact Christian conservatives bemoan the "welfare state." I disagree with that final sentence. At least around here, there are many church-based institutions that care for women and children, and there are ongoing congregational charity drives for them. We contribute. I'm talking about the Christian right and its approach to state welfare. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/v...1&context=jssw This has nothing to do with charitable giving -- which is great -- but accounts for a small fraction of total welfare costs. -- Jay Beattie. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Off Topic
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 12:19:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 8/3/2019 11:55 AM, jbeattie wrote: ... even a sensible Democrat is clearly superior to the insane asylum the Left has conjured up out of the fraudulent "oppression" of tiny minorities, who together cannot account for rolling a single log... Agreed. And I think lots of people agree. Murder is definitional -- and if it is licensed, it is not murder. Whether one can murder a fetus in the US varies from state to state. The religious and historical prohibition on murder was to maintain social peace and order. The Fifth Commandment did not apply to a fetus, at least not absolutely and not according to the Jews -- whose God god wrote the rule (although the original was lost for many years until found by Stephen Spielberg.) Regrettably, Catholics and conservative Christians have pushed for prohibition as an article of faith and without regard to what becomes of the fetus once born, and in fact Christian conservatives bemoan the "welfare state." I disagree with that final sentence. At least around here, there are many church-based institutions that care for women and children, and there are ongoing congregational charity drives for them. We contribute. I'm not "into" women's rights but can the death of a fetus that would not survive if removed from the mother logically be termed "murder"? -- cheers, John B. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Off Topic
On 8/3/2019 4:01 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 9:19:52 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/3/2019 11:55 AM, jbeattie wrote: ... even a sensible Democrat is clearly superior to the insane asylum the Left has conjured up out of the fraudulent "oppression" of tiny minorities, who together cannot account for rolling a single log... Agreed. And I think lots of people agree. Murder is definitional -- and if it is licensed, it is not murder. Whether one can murder a fetus in the US varies from state to state. The religious and historical prohibition on murder was to maintain social peace and order. The Fifth Commandment did not apply to a fetus, at least not absolutely and not according to the Jews -- whose God god wrote the rule (although the original was lost for many years until found by Stephen Spielberg.) Regrettably, Catholics and conservative Christians have pushed for prohibition as an article of faith and without regard to what becomes of the fetus once born, and in fact Christian conservatives bemoan the "welfare state." I disagree with that final sentence. At least around here, there are many church-based institutions that care for women and children, and there are ongoing congregational charity drives for them. We contribute. I'm talking about the Christian right and its approach to state welfare. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/v...1&context=jssw This has nothing to do with charitable giving -- which is great -- but accounts for a small fraction of total welfare costs. You're still wrong when you include Catholics in "without regard to what becomes of the fetus once born." You're mistakenly treating Catholics as one unified bloc marching in step. And you're ignoring the Church's general attitude toward social safety nets, as well as the immense (really, unequaled) amount of charity work done by institutions and people connected with the Church. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Off Topic
On 8/3/2019 6:53 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 12:19:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/3/2019 11:55 AM, jbeattie wrote: ... even a sensible Democrat is clearly superior to the insane asylum the Left has conjured up out of the fraudulent "oppression" of tiny minorities, who together cannot account for rolling a single log... Agreed. And I think lots of people agree. Murder is definitional -- and if it is licensed, it is not murder. Whether one can murder a fetus in the US varies from state to state. The religious and historical prohibition on murder was to maintain social peace and order. The Fifth Commandment did not apply to a fetus, at least not absolutely and not according to the Jews -- whose God god wrote the rule (although the original was lost for many years until found by Stephen Spielberg.) Regrettably, Catholics and conservative Christians have pushed for prohibition as an article of faith and without regard to what becomes of the fetus once born, and in fact Christian conservatives bemoan the "welfare state." I disagree with that final sentence. At least around here, there are many church-based institutions that care for women and children, and there are ongoing congregational charity drives for them. We contribute. I'm not "into" women's rights but can the death of a fetus that would not survive if removed from the mother logically be termed "murder"? And conversely, babies born after 24 weeks are now regularly saved. But others are aborted after 24 weeks. Granted, it's not common - but what should it be called? -- - Frank Krygowski |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Off Topic
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 20:14:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 8/3/2019 6:53 PM, John B. wrote: On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 12:19:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/3/2019 11:55 AM, jbeattie wrote: ... even a sensible Democrat is clearly superior to the insane asylum the Left has conjured up out of the fraudulent "oppression" of tiny minorities, who together cannot account for rolling a single log... Agreed. And I think lots of people agree. Murder is definitional -- and if it is licensed, it is not murder. Whether one can murder a fetus in the US varies from state to state. The religious and historical prohibition on murder was to maintain social peace and order. The Fifth Commandment did not apply to a fetus, at least not absolutely and not according to the Jews -- whose God god wrote the rule (although the original was lost for many years until found by Stephen Spielberg.) Regrettably, Catholics and conservative Christians have pushed for prohibition as an article of faith and without regard to what becomes of the fetus once born, and in fact Christian conservatives bemoan the "welfare state." I disagree with that final sentence. At least around here, there are many church-based institutions that care for women and children, and there are ongoing congregational charity drives for them. We contribute. I'm not "into" women's rights but can the death of a fetus that would not survive if removed from the mother logically be termed "murder"? And conversely, babies born after 24 weeks are now regularly saved. But others are aborted after 24 weeks. Granted, it's not common - but what should it be called? I don't know and my thoughts were aimed at early abortion before the fetus is capable of survival outside the mother. And those who cry that any abortion is murder. What should it be called? I don't know and frankly I don't care as my attitude is that I will do as good as I can do and what you do is up to you. The uniquely Christian concept that one should run about and force their neighbors to conform to "their" belief is totally foreign to me. -- cheers, John B. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Off Topic
On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 5:14:19 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/3/2019 6:53 PM, John B. wrote: On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 12:19:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/3/2019 11:55 AM, jbeattie wrote: ... even a sensible Democrat is clearly superior to the insane asylum the Left has conjured up out of the fraudulent "oppression" of tiny minorities, who together cannot account for rolling a single log... Agreed. And I think lots of people agree. Murder is definitional -- and if it is licensed, it is not murder. Whether one can murder a fetus in the US varies from state to state. The religious and historical prohibition on murder was to maintain social peace and order. The Fifth Commandment did not apply to a fetus, at least not absolutely and not according to the Jews -- whose God god wrote the rule (although the original was lost for many years until found by Stephen Spielberg.) Regrettably, Catholics and conservative Christians have pushed for prohibition as an article of faith and without regard to what becomes of the fetus once born, and in fact Christian conservatives bemoan the "welfare state." I disagree with that final sentence. At least around here, there are many church-based institutions that care for women and children, and there are ongoing congregational charity drives for them. We contribute. I'm not "into" women's rights but can the death of a fetus that would not survive if removed from the mother logically be termed "murder"? And conversely, babies born after 24 weeks are now regularly saved. But others are aborted after 24 weeks. Granted, it's not common - but what should it be called? Abortion. The termination of a pregnancy before a child is born is, by definition, an abortion. Legislatures have decided at what point in gestation an abortion amounts to a homicide or at least when it justifies some enhanced penalty for the assault on the mother. In Oregon, for example, you can't be convicted of murdering a human before it is born. https://www.oregonlaws..org/ors/163.005 There is an enhanced penalty for assaulting a pregnant woman. https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/163.185 BTW, you're right about the Catholic charities. I'm not sure if the church has any doctrine requiring the support of orphaned children, but they do have a long history of running orphanages -- for better or worse. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...nage-reactions Catholic charities, and in fact all religious charities combined, provide a tiny fraction of all social services. I'm all for charities, but when Trump suggested that federal welfare could be assumed by charities, that was debunked in about a second. -- Jay Beattie. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Off Topic
Tom Kunich writes:
On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 6:03:16 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote: On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 5:29:18 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: I know this is off topic but I don't find the answer anywhere else. Today's news has Pres. Trump accusing the Chinese of continuing to sell fentanyl to the United States -- "and many Americans continue to die!" But my research shows that fentanyl is a medical drug for the alleviation of severe pain and as such I would assume to be a controlled substance. How than, "many Americans continue to die!" ? See https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/01/w...nyl-trump.html Fentanyl and all its variants are now controlled substances in China which, of course, does not stop illegal trade. -- Jay Beattie. Jay, Fentanyl was developed to be used as an injectable painkiller when all else fails. The people in the final stages of cancer and the like do not respond much to most of the pain killers on the market including the strongest forms of Morphine. I'm not sure what the idea was when it was developed, but fentanyl is widely used for pain relief in transdermal patches. You can quite easily absorb enough narcotic to light you right up from a patch smaller than a postage stamp applied to your skin. Put a few on and you might absorb a lethal dose. It is useful, but I have to wonder if humanity would not have been better off just liberalizing the use of heroin, which works much the same way but is easier to titrate. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Off topic for UK, on topic for another good laugh at cyclists | Mr Pounder Esquire | UK | 1 | May 22nd 16 09:25 PM |
Three Greatest Inventions (2/3 On Topic, 1/3 Off Topic) | Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman | General | 21 | December 19th 06 05:40 AM |
Frank exchange of words with black cabbie New Topic Reply to Topic | spindrift | UK | 50 | August 7th 06 06:25 AM |
Sort of on topic/off topic: Rising toll of kids hurt on roads | wafflycat | UK | 4 | March 24th 06 06:28 PM |
This is off topic some ... but on topic also... make up your mind | Thomas Wentworth | General | 7 | November 8th 05 10:46 PM |