Discussion World Forum  


Go Back   Discussion World Forum > Discussion Forums > Science

Science From your kid's science project to relativity, this is the place to discuss it.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old Jul 9th 2010, 08:02 PM
evanescence's Avatar
evanescence evanescence is offline
Misanthrope
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,040
Default Re: Eminent Mass Destruction- evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by Americano View Post
The demand for Oxycontin here is so high that prescriptions for it are cross referenced by patient name in a database accessed by licensed pharmacists before filling any prescription for it or other serious pain killers. I've read of six different prescriptions being obtained from different MDs in a single day. Street price is $1/mg, which drives people seeking it for resale to devise some unusual schemes in attempting to obtain it. Burglaries? First places they hit are medicine cabinets, bedside tables and kitchen cupboards near the water.

Amputations? No idea what that demand level is.

The general public as thinkers. There's a novel idea. Between reality shows or before the game comes on?
60-80 bucks for Oxys here. Only 8 bucks for hydros.
__________________
"Never underestimate the capacity of other people to let you down"
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old Jul 9th 2010, 08:58 PM
Americano's Avatar
Americano Americano is offline
Globetrotter
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,614
Default Re: Eminent Mass Destruction- evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by evanescence View Post
60-80 bucks for Oxys here. Only 8 bucks for hydros.
Demand drives supply. US military occupation of Afghanistan has somehow flooded the world market with a surplus of Afghan heroin. In the US imported heroin interests are unable to expand their stable market share due to wide availability of legal/illegal opiates and synthetic equivalents in pill/capsule form. US bandits now hijack trucks leaving distribution centers with desired pharmaceuticals cargo. Far more efficient and hygienic for a user than having to source needles and risk a hot shot.

But, let's do get those borders sealed and eliminate common US drug addiction societal problems caused by those foreigners and their drugs!
__________________
"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."
~H.L. Mencken~
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old Jul 9th 2010, 09:04 PM
evanescence's Avatar
evanescence evanescence is offline
Misanthrope
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,040
Default Re: Eminent Mass Destruction- evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by Americano View Post
Demand drives supply. US military occupation of Afghanistan has somehow flooded the world market with a surplus of Afghan heroin. In the US imported heroin interests are unable to expand their stable market share due to wide availability of legal/illegal opiates and synthetic equivalents in pill/capsule form. US bandits now hijack trucks leaving distribution centers with desired pharmaceuticals cargo. Far more efficient and hygienic for a user than having to source needles and risk a hot shot.

But, let's do get those borders sealed and eliminate common US drug addiction societal problems caused by those foreigners and their drugs!


I find it ironic that the most ardent (self proclaimed) "free market capitalist" is often against legalizing or at least decriminalizing drugs. Using the supply-demand model, this is the most logical step.
__________________
"Never underestimate the capacity of other people to let you down"
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old Jul 9th 2010, 09:38 PM
Non Sequitur's Avatar
Non Sequitur Non Sequitur is offline
Official Forum Lutheran
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The Kingdom on the Left and the Right
Posts: 2,142
Default Re: Eminent Mass Destruction- evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by evanescence View Post


I find it ironic that the most ardent (self proclaimed) "free market capitalist" is often against legalizing or at least decriminalizing drugs. Using the supply-demand model, this is the most logical step.
I think the issue is not about what is most efficient from a market perspective. If you really pressed the ardent supporters of the status quo I think they would grant you that the supply and demand system is certainly in favor of decriminalization. Their problem would probably be rooted in some form of moral/ethical concerns. If pressed to clearly define their position I bet the answer would be that beyond alcohol and tobacco, which society by virtue of tradition has allowed, drugs are morally offensive and should not be permitted by society. Their response would be something like "just because the demand is there does not mean that we should bow to the pressure"

Now of course this is still inconsistent. Many people have no problem with greed or gluttony that our system encourages. However, this issue is not about the supply and demand.
__________________
Lighten our darkness.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old Jul 9th 2010, 10:12 PM
Americano's Avatar
Americano Americano is offline
Globetrotter
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,614
Default Re: Eminent Mass Destruction- evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by Non Sequitur View Post
I think the issue is not about what is most efficient from a market perspective. If you really pressed the ardent supporters of the status quo I think they would grant you that the supply and demand system is certainly in favor of decriminalization. Their problem would probably be rooted in some form of moral/ethical concerns. If pressed to clearly define their position I bet the answer would be that beyond alcohol and tobacco, which society by virtue of tradition has allowed, drugs are morally offensive and should not be permitted by society. Their response would be something like "just because the demand is there does not mean that we should bow to the pressure"

Now of course this is still inconsistent. Many people have no problem with greed or gluttony that our system encourages. However, this issue is not about the supply and demand.
I personally believe control of moral legislation and enforcement in this instance is directly attributable to lobbying efforts by the pharmaceutical, LE and transportation industries. No citations but that's a very powerful, combined sector to dislodge with logic. Those industries do own members of our governing system who chair important decision making processes. Anything that threatens to restrict financial ambition by a significant monopoly is faced with challenges that would have been approved by any one of say the Mongol Conquers.
__________________
"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."
~H.L. Mencken~
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old Jul 10th 2010, 02:31 AM
Non Sequitur's Avatar
Non Sequitur Non Sequitur is offline
Official Forum Lutheran
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The Kingdom on the Left and the Right
Posts: 2,142
Default Re: Eminent Mass Destruction- evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by Americano View Post
I personally believe control of moral legislation and enforcement in this instance is directly attributable to lobbying efforts by the pharmaceutical, LE and transportation industries. No citations but that's a very powerful, combined sector to dislodge with logic. Those industries do own members of our governing system who chair important decision making processes. Anything that threatens to restrict financial ambition by a significant monopoly is faced with challenges that would have been approved by any one of say the Mongol Conquers.
You attribute the moral component to lobbying? Certainly I would agree that those industries play a role in the current structure of the law, but I think it is overstating the effectiveness of corporations to say they are responsible for the moral component of the debate. The pharmaceutical industry probably supports the moral opinion, but I doubt they have the power to create that opinion.
__________________
Lighten our darkness.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old Jul 10th 2010, 09:41 AM
Americano's Avatar
Americano Americano is offline
Globetrotter
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,614
Default Re: Eminent Mass Destruction- evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by Non Sequitur View Post
You attribute the moral component to lobbying? Certainly I would agree that those industries play a role in the current structure of the law, but I think it is overstating the effectiveness of corporations to say they are responsible for the moral component of the debate. The pharmaceutical industry probably supports the moral opinion, but I doubt they have the power to create that opinion.
The moral opinion is supported by somewhat recent legislation making possession/consumption of opiates and their synthetic counterparts without a prescription a serious crime. Yet methadone, a synthetic heroin used to maintain heroin addicts, is widely available by prescription from an approved supplier. Ask any junkie and you'll be informed that methadone is no different than heroin with the best part being its legality and wide availability. Oxycontin enjoys that same status. Buy it from an approved supplier with a prescription and enjoy your addiction. Buy heroin on the street and risk jail.

How was that legislation put in place? Certainly not from the apathetic general public deciding morphine, heroin and cocaine were bad for them and drug stores shouldn't be allowed to continue selling it over-the-counter for pennies. Politicians certainly don't perform without incentives. Why not make it a sin and control the legitimate supply through government authorized outlets while enjoying immensely profitable monopolies enforced by police and the judicial system?

Who would have the motivation to create monopolies and enforce them?
__________________
"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."
~H.L. Mencken~
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old Jul 10th 2010, 10:05 AM
Michael's Avatar
Michael Michael is offline
Administrator
Herder of Cats
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 14,835
Default Re: Eminent Mass Destruction- evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by Non Sequitur View Post
I think the issue is not about what is most efficient from a market perspective. If you really pressed the ardent supporters of the status quo I think they would grant you that the supply and demand system is certainly in favor of decriminalization. Their problem would probably be rooted in some form of moral/ethical concerns. If pressed to clearly define their position I bet the answer would be that beyond alcohol and tobacco, which society by virtue of tradition has allowed, drugs are morally offensive and should not be permitted by society. Their response would be something like "just because the demand is there does not mean that we should bow to the pressure"

Now of course this is still inconsistent. Many people have no problem with greed or gluttony that our system encourages. However, this issue is not about the supply and demand.
Yes and no. You make a good argument here and it is true to some extent with respect to the public. Indeed, the same can be said of 'kiddie porn' - the government and private industry could make a fortune if it was legalized and taxed, but "just because the demand is there does not mean we should bow to the pressure" is equally applicable here as well.

That is to say, the moral argument is certainly there and stands on its own merits, regardless of any capitalist or supply/demand issues.

But I said, "yes and no" because, as Americano is arguing, the real reason that pot is illegal and oxycotin is legal is because of special interest lobbying, not morality. The morality of right/wrong only seems to be used to politically defend the status quo, it wasn't used to create the original laws that created the status quo that is being defended.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Americano View Post
I personally believe control of moral legislation and enforcement in this instance is directly attributable to lobbying efforts by the pharmaceutical, LE and transportation industries. No citations but that's a very powerful, combined sector to dislodge with logic. Those industries do own members of our governing system who chair important decision making processes. Anything that threatens to restrict financial ambition by a significant monopoly is faced with challenges that would have been approved by any one of say the Mongol Conquers.
Agreed. Pot was originally made illegal back in the 1920's based on lobbying by the oil industry because they feared hemp-based ethanol as a serious competitor to fostering gasoline-addiction in the USA.

The 'morality' argument of 'pot is evil' comes afterwards in the 1950s and 1960s.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Non Sequitur View Post
You attribute the moral component to lobbying? Certainly I would agree that those industries play a role in the current structure of the law, but I think it is overstating the effectiveness of corporations to say they are responsible for the moral component of the debate. The pharmaceutical industry probably supports the moral opinion, but I doubt they have the power to create that opinion.
Again, yes and no.

It is true, as I pointed to above, that the morality argument stands independent of the market argument (theoretically or by definition) but in reality of modern politics, this is not entirely so. Moral opinions of the masses can and are routinely manufactured or manipulated by political propaganda (public relations and advertising) paid for by these same corporations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Americano View Post
The moral opinion is supported by somewhat recent legislation making possession/consumption of opiates and their synthetic counterparts without a prescription a serious crime. Yet methadone, a synthetic heroin used to maintain heroin addicts, is widely available by prescription from an approved supplier. Ask any junkie and you'll be informed that methadone is no different than heroin with the best part being its legality and wide availability. Oxycontin enjoys that same status. Buy it from an approved supplier with a prescription and enjoy your addiction. Buy heroin on the street and risk jail.

How was that legislation put in place? Certainly not from the apathetic general public deciding morphine, heroin and cocaine were bad for them and drug stores shouldn't be allowed to continue selling it over-the-counter for pennies. Politicians certainly don't perform without incentives. Why not make it a sin and control the legitimate supply through government authorized outlets while enjoying immensely profitable monopolies enforced by police and the judicial system?

Who would have the motivation to create monopolies and enforce them?
The bolded sentence is key here. I was just arguing this issue last night (offline) that under our form of pseudo-democracy, governments and politicians do not lead society - they follow it or reflect it.
__________________
Remember what the dormouse said: Feed your head!
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old Jul 10th 2010, 10:44 AM
Americano's Avatar
Americano Americano is offline
Globetrotter
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,614
Default Re: Eminent Mass Destruction- evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael View Post
The bolded sentence is key here. I was just arguing this issue last night (offline) that under our form of pseudo-democracy, governments and politicians do not lead society - they follow it or reflect it.
Which brings forth the question of who does lead US societal trends. Certainly not the general public nor their elected representatives. Bags of money are required and with US investment policy that general public eagerly responds with capital which is utilized to create monopolies by directing political representation to enact legislation protecting those monopolies. Politicians easily rationalize their self-serving actions with the usual blanket statement of protecting the people.

Government regulation has long been a favored corporate tool for eliminating competition. Owning compliant politicians a necessary component of that strategy.
__________________
"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."
~H.L. Mencken~
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old Jul 10th 2010, 11:40 AM
Non Sequitur's Avatar
Non Sequitur Non Sequitur is offline
Official Forum Lutheran
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The Kingdom on the Left and the Right
Posts: 2,142
Default Re: Eminent Mass Destruction- evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael View Post
Yes and no. You make a good argument here and it is true to some extent with respect to the public. Indeed, the same can be said of 'kiddie porn' - the government and private industry could make a fortune if it was legalized and taxed, but "just because the demand is there does not mean we should bow to the pressure" is equally applicable here as well.

That is to say, the moral argument is certainly there and stands on its own merits, regardless of any capitalist or supply/demand issues.

But I said, "yes and no" because, as Americano is arguing, the real reason that pot is illegal and oxycotin is legal is because of special interest lobbying, not morality. The morality of right/wrong only seems to be used to politically defend the status quo, it wasn't used to create the original laws that created the status quo that is being defended.


Agreed. Pot was originally made illegal back in the 1920's based on lobbying by the oil industry because they feared hemp-based ethanol as a serious competitor to fostering gasoline-addiction in the USA.

The 'morality' argument of 'pot is evil' comes afterwards in the 1950s and 1960s.


Again, yes and no.

It is true, as I pointed to above, that the morality argument stands independent of the market argument (theoretically or by definition) but in reality of modern politics, this is not entirely so. Moral opinions of the masses can and are routinely manufactured or manipulated by political propaganda (public relations and advertising) paid for by these same corporations.


The bolded sentence is key here. I was just arguing this issue last night (offline) that under our form of pseudo-democracy, governments and politicians do not lead society - they follow it or reflect it.
Ah, well then I think we are in agreement about why the system is the way it is. As I said, the structure of the law is effected by the pharmaceutical industry. I was just saying that the moral argument is it's own issue.
__________________
Lighten our darkness.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2008 - 2017, DiscussionWorldForum.com