|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 13 2016 06:56 Plansix wrote: I have my own theories on the rise of populism and Trump, but those lack any data to back them up. Needless to say, this is not the last we have heard of this populism. I just hope we can move away from it, because it has a strong contempt for education, experience and reality.
As someone who's had similar thought to Trump was years before he came around...
My opinion is that it's something that will become more and more common the further we detach ourselves from normal human biological function, which in my mind will keep happening the more things around us become black boxes we don't understand, whether that's technology or the system in place that controls us. Not only that, but the more we try to suppress whatever it means to be biologically human... Where we all put on this act.
Whenever I have a dinner party with anyone, however professional they might be, it's soothing being able to release, and not have to be so careful with your speech, possibly swear, possibly make a racist joke, etc. We've been trying to change people quite a lot for the benefit of collective society, and I think it'll backfire.
I'll gladly take a higher speed limit at the expense of more fatalities, gun rights at the expense of slightly more crime, lower incomes for economic security, less immigration at the expense of lower pensions/older retirement... To me, these things scream more freedom, and more in line with the human experience.
That's where my like for Trump stems from, putting aside all his flaws. I wouldn't go so far to call it populism... Just trying to keep everything in check - for example as posted a little while back some US state being allowed to use police drones for non-lethal force.
|
At least this has the side befit of reminding me of other presidents passing out.
|
|
On September 13 2016 06:41 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2016 05:55 Dan HH wrote:On September 13 2016 05:07 Danglars wrote:On September 13 2016 01:49 Dan HH wrote:On September 13 2016 01:43 Danglars wrote:On September 13 2016 00:56 xDaunt wrote:I'll just let this guy make the point for me:Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign just made a massive error. We'll know within the next few weeks if the error will prove to be catastrophic.
On Sunday, Clinton abruptly left a Manhattan ceremony marking the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. A video shows her shakily stumbling while trying to get into a van to leave. The candidate's physician later offered this explanation: Clinton has had an allergy-related cough for some time, and during an examination on Friday, the Democratic nominee was diagnosed with pneumonia, put on antibiotics, and told to take time out to rest. She became overheated and dehydrated during Sunday morning's event, which led her to collapse. She's now home in Chappaqua and on the road to recovery.
Compare this timeline to details from Hillary Clinton's public schedule and behavior over these same two days.
After Clinton was diagnosed with pneumonia and put on antibiotics, she did not, as her physician recommended, take time out to rest. Instead, she attended a fundraiser featuring Barbra Streisand. Then on Sunday morning, she attended the 9/11 commemoration, became "overheated," and woozily wobbled rather dramatically. Ninety minutes later she exited her daughter Chelsea's apartment building to tell the press she was "feeling great." The Secret Service permitted a young girl to come over to give the candidate a hug.
It was only a few hours later when her campaign finally announced that she has pneumonia and is recovering.
The most charitable reading of this timeline is that her campaign — presumably with the blessing and perhaps insistence of the candidate — fully intended to keep her illness a secret from the public. Let's be clear about what this means: Her campaign intended to lie. Even though doing so would require her to keep up a public schedule that might well make her condition worse and require ever-more elaborate forms of concealment. Because, of course, to curtail her schedule would raise questions that might reveal the truth.
So even after she collapsed, the campaign decided the ruse would continue. It arranged for the candidate to make her curbside declaration of wellness, even bringing on the girl to give her a "spontaneous" hug. (Clinton's protection detail would never have permitted a genuinely spontaneous embrace on the street, even by a child.)
It's easy to understand why the Clinton campaign would want to keep this kind of news a secret. The candidate doesn't trust the media. The right has been hitting her over supposed health issues for months (and even years), and the assault has picked up in intensity over the past week or so — since Clinton found herself in the midst of an extended coughing fit at a campaign event in Cleveland. Then there's the gender dynamic. Donald Trump presents himself as a hyper-masculine tough guy, while Clinton is the first female presidential nominee. The Clinton camp is probably twice as terrified of their candidate looking frail as a less path-breaking campaign would be.
So the campaign chose to lie. The potential reward was considerable: namely, an absence of politically damaging news stories about Clinton's medical condition. But the risk was enormous — and it's blown up in their faces. Because now the story isn't just that Clinton is ill. It's that, once again, she's untrustworthy — and this time about her own health.
That's why the announcement that she has pneumonia will only fuel more speculation about Clinton's physical condition, with potentially no end in sight. The world saw her collapse, and 90 minutes later, the candidate looked America in the eye and proclaimed that she was feeling great. Except now we know that she wasn't.
Not long after this charade, someone on the campaign staff made the call to come clean. But it may well have been too late.
The best the campaign can hope for now is that Clinton recovers quickly and soon looks healthy in her public appearances. Then maybe the topic will recede into the background of the campaign. The candidate got sick, but then she got better. End of story.
But if she doesn't recover quickly? If she appears weak and frail for more than a few days? Then, yes, she'll face perfectly reasonable questions about whether she's physically up to serving as president. But worse, she'll confront lingering doubts about what, precisely, is ailing her. "It's pneumonia," the campaign will proclaim over and over again. To which a skeptical America will justifiably reply, "Yes, we can tell that you'd like us to think so. But we have no reason to trust that's true."
Political trust is a fragile thing. Once it's gone, it's exceedingly difficult to get back — and without it, there's no basis on which to dismiss conspiracy theories that even normally level-headed observers will begin, for perfectly understandable reasons, to entertain.
Like so many of the scandals and pseudo-scandals that have dogged Hillary Clinton and her husband through the years, this one needs to be recognized as entirely self-inflicted. The campaign now has to live with the consequences of having chosen to lie to get out of a problem. You Hillary supporters need to shake yourselves out of your delusions. Her campaign clearly messed up, and I'm not sure why it's so hard for y'all to see it and concede that point (edit: Actually, I do know why, but I'm going to be nice). It's not that she lies, she just needs to hire on better liars. This issue comes on the heels of a related topic: it's not that she's corrupt, she's incompetent at hiding her corruption. I see Hunts abandoned asking xDaunt to elaborate about Clinton's clear corruption after the nth time of no answer. But if you say that she is incompetent at hiding her corruption, I do hope at least you have some examples. You'll have to buy a book if you want all her corruption spelled out. The reduced form comes down to trying and failing to hide a private server to conduct business free from FOIA requests, with a pattern of lying when questions arose about classified emails and deleting emails even while they were subpoena'd. + Show Spoiler [hilarious as hell "oh shit"] +She also met with and assisted foreign national donors to her clinton family foundation while working as secretary of state. The incompetence story is huge and shows no signs of stopping, though it's hard to get better than the current admissions out there. She instructed aides to remove the classified headers from documents before sending them to her, and later claimed she couldn't identify other emails as classified because there were no headers. Her foundation accidentally didn't disclose tens of millions of dollars of donations from foreign governments for three years, and had to refile. The deletions were justified because they were just yoga emails etc, even though the latest 15,000 contained at least one benghazi email. She claimed Comey corroborated her "truthful" statements made with respect to the investigation and what she told the American people. I've been reading the responses in this thread and the acrobatics, and my only takeaway is that paying for government favors shouldn't surprise anybody, and it was only natural for Hillary to cover up her violations of the espionage act because nobody should care about classifications regardless. To say that another way since the thread's been heading there lately, everybody knows Clinton is corrupt and has used her office to commit crimes without consequence and enrich herself. (shitposter clarification: she has been dragged to interviews & hearings, so it wasn't entirely without consequence) I was hoping for something along the lines of person puts money in then receives political favor that can be reasonably correlated with it. When you say that not only is she corrupt (something that I'm very willing to consider), but she is incompetent at hiding said corruption, I don't think that 'everyone know she is corrupt', 'she met with donors' and 'she deleted emails' is good enough. When you claim it's so obvious, you need at least something half as clear as the several instances of Trump paying for favors such as with Pam Bondi or Andrew Stein. That would all depend on your level of reasonability. But I just heard the case that everybody knows that Trump is racist and something like half his supporters are in a basket of deplorables. I'm feeling very emboldened to say everybody knows Clinton is corrupt, has used her office to financial profit and to increase her power, has broken laws, and lied about both. I don't really know how clear clear is to you, but I have this nagging feeling that your mirror is broken for looking hard at the failings of people you mostly agree with. I certainly do not mostly agree with Clinton or even like her/the Democratic party/American liberalism. But while I can see how my much greater distaste of Trump could have given you that impression, I can't see how it impeded you to answer.
I never claimed Trump is corrupt, yet I was able to name you 2 examples of him paying for political/judiciary favors. You claimed Hillary is not only corrupt but incompetent at hiding her corruption, yet you chose to deflect and expect me to accept 'everybody knows it' as sufficient. Do you see from my perspective how trying to put the burden of this claim on my 'mirror' is not helping?
|
Pharmaceutical Executives who recently made a major donation to an anti-marijuana legalization campaign claimed they were doing so out of concern for the safety of children — but their investor filings reveal that pot poses a direct threat to their plans to cash in on a synthetic cannabis product they have developed.
On August 31, Insys Therapeutics Inc. donated $500,000 to Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy, becoming the single largest donor to the group leading the charge to defeat a ballot measure in Arizona to legalize marijuana.
The drug company, which currently markets a fast-acting version of the deadly painkiller fentanyl, assured local news reporters that they had the public interest in mind when making the hefty donation. A spokesperson told the Arizona Republic that Insys opposes the legalization measure, Prop. 205, “because it fails to protect the safety of Arizona’s citizens, and particularly its children.”
A Washington Post story on Friday noted the potential self-interest involved in Insys’s donation.
Investor filings examined by The Intercept confirm the obvious.
Insys is currently developing a product called the Dronabinol Oral Solution, a drug that uses a synthetic version of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) to alleviate chemotherapy-caused nausea and vomiting. In an early filing related to the dronabinol drug, assessing market concerns and competition, Insys filed a disclosure statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission stating plainly that legal marijuana is a direct threat to their product line:
Legalization of marijuana or non-synthetic cannabinoids in the United States could significantly limit the commercial success of any dronabinol product candidate. … If marijuana or non-synthetic cannabinoids were legalized in the United States, the market for dronabinol product sales would likely be significantly reduced and our ability to generate revenue and our business prospects would be materially adversely affected.
Insys explains in the filing that dronabinol is “one of a limited number of FDA-approved synthetic cannabinoids in the United States” and “therefore in the United States, dronabinol products do not have to compete with natural cannabis or non-synthetic cannabinoids.”
The company concedes that scientific literature has argued the benefits of marijuana over synthetic dronabinol, and that support for marijuana legalization is growing. In the company’s latest 10-K filing with the SEC, in a section outlining competitive threats, Insys warns that several states “have already enacted laws legalizing medicinal and recreational marijuana.”
Subsys, the fentanyl spray Insys makes, is used as a fast-acting pain reliever. Fenatyl is an opioid that has made headlines in recent years as the number of Americans overdosing on the drug has skyrocketed. Fenatyl is 50 times stronger than heroin and has been linked to the death of Prince earlier this year. Last month, two Insys executives pled guilty to a pay-for-play scheme to use speakers fees as a way to get doctors to prescribe Subsys.
Marijuana advocates claim that legalized pot has a variety of medical uses, including pain relief.
Source
|
What I never guess with the child protectors and good to know that they stay the same on the other side of the atlanti:
Are dealers more concerned about childprotection then legal marijuana shop owners who risk of losing their license?
|
Presidential parties must get pretty wild
|
United States2979 Posts
On September 13 2016 07:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Pharmaceutical Executives who recently made a major donation to an anti-marijuana legalization campaign claimed they were doing so out of concern for the safety of children — but their investor filings reveal that pot poses a direct threat to their plans to cash in on a synthetic cannabis product they have developed.
On August 31, Insys Therapeutics Inc. donated $500,000 to Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy, becoming the single largest donor to the group leading the charge to defeat a ballot measure in Arizona to legalize marijuana.
The drug company, which currently markets a fast-acting version of the deadly painkiller fentanyl, assured local news reporters that they had the public interest in mind when making the hefty donation. A spokesperson told the Arizona Republic that Insys opposes the legalization measure, Prop. 205, “because it fails to protect the safety of Arizona’s citizens, and particularly its children.”
A Washington Post story on Friday noted the potential self-interest involved in Insys’s donation.
Investor filings examined by The Intercept confirm the obvious.
Insys is currently developing a product called the Dronabinol Oral Solution, a drug that uses a synthetic version of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) to alleviate chemotherapy-caused nausea and vomiting. In an early filing related to the dronabinol drug, assessing market concerns and competition, Insys filed a disclosure statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission stating plainly that legal marijuana is a direct threat to their product line:
Legalization of marijuana or non-synthetic cannabinoids in the United States could significantly limit the commercial success of any dronabinol product candidate. … If marijuana or non-synthetic cannabinoids were legalized in the United States, the market for dronabinol product sales would likely be significantly reduced and our ability to generate revenue and our business prospects would be materially adversely affected.
Insys explains in the filing that dronabinol is “one of a limited number of FDA-approved synthetic cannabinoids in the United States” and “therefore in the United States, dronabinol products do not have to compete with natural cannabis or non-synthetic cannabinoids.”
The company concedes that scientific literature has argued the benefits of marijuana over synthetic dronabinol, and that support for marijuana legalization is growing. In the company’s latest 10-K filing with the SEC, in a section outlining competitive threats, Insys warns that several states “have already enacted laws legalizing medicinal and recreational marijuana.”
Subsys, the fentanyl spray Insys makes, is used as a fast-acting pain reliever. Fenatyl is an opioid that has made headlines in recent years as the number of Americans overdosing on the drug has skyrocketed. Fenatyl is 50 times stronger than heroin and has been linked to the death of Prince earlier this year. Last month, two Insys executives pled guilty to a pay-for-play scheme to use speakers fees as a way to get doctors to prescribe Subsys.
Marijuana advocates claim that legalized pot has a variety of medical uses, including pain relief. Source
"The drug company, which currently markets a fast-acting version of the deadly painkiller fentanyl, assured local news reporters that they had the public interest in mind when making the hefty donation"
Mmmhmmm... Although I'm not a fan of how the legalization system is set up (Only certain number of dispensaries, grow stations, etc.) I still believe it's better than no legalization at all, and it's not nearly as bad as the trash they tried to push in Ohio, which is why it failed. We will be voting yes on it. My girl already has a MMJ card and it'll still be worth getting it next year with how much the taxes are on the recreational.
|
United States2979 Posts
On September 13 2016 07:57 Clonester wrote: What I never guess with the child protectors and good to know that they stay the same on the other side of the atlanti:
Are dealers more concerned about childprotection then legal marijuana shop owners who risk of losing their license?
They have too much risk to lose their license. There are pretty tight on certain things I've seen happen myself at medical ones - people passing the herb to someone else like an idiot before they have left the parking lot. They are banned from the store.
|
"Any increase [by the Fed to interest rates] at all will be a very, very small increase because they want to keep the market up so Obama goes out and let the new guy ... raise interest rates ... and watch what happens in the stock market...[Obama] wants to go out. He wants to play golf for the rest of this life. And he doesn't care what's going to happen after January."
"I think we should have a debate with no moderators — just Hillary and I sitting there talking."
- D. Trump, letting his (less than smart) true opinions be known, 9/12/16
|
On September 13 2016 07:04 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2016 06:56 Plansix wrote: I have my own theories on the rise of populism and Trump, but those lack any data to back them up. Needless to say, this is not the last we have heard of this populism. I just hope we can move away from it, because it has a strong contempt for education, experience and reality. As someone who's had similar thought to Trump was years before he came around... My opinion is that it's something that will become more and more common the further we detach ourselves from normal human biological function, which in my mind will keep happening the more things around us become black boxes we don't understand, whether that's technology or the system in place that controls us. Not only that, but the more we try to suppress whatever it means to be biologically human... Where we all put on this act. Whenever I have a dinner party with anyone, however professional they might be, it's soothing being able to release, and not have to be so careful with your speech, possibly swear, possibly make a racist joke, etc. We've been trying to change people quite a lot for the benefit of collective society, and I think it'll backfire. I'll gladly take a higher speed limit at the expense of more fatalities, gun rights at the expense of slightly more crime, lower incomes for economic security, less immigration at the expense of lower pensions/older retirement... To me, these things scream more freedom, and more in line with the human experience. That's where my like for Trump stems from, putting aside all his flaws. I wouldn't go so far to call it populism... Just trying to keep everything in check - for example as posted a little while back some US state being allowed to use police drones for non-lethal force. its not populism, its just that human nature forces me to be a reactionary idiot. nothing can be done about that
|
On September 13 2016 08:05 scott31337 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2016 07:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Pharmaceutical Executives who recently made a major donation to an anti-marijuana legalization campaign claimed they were doing so out of concern for the safety of children — but their investor filings reveal that pot poses a direct threat to their plans to cash in on a synthetic cannabis product they have developed.
On August 31, Insys Therapeutics Inc. donated $500,000 to Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy, becoming the single largest donor to the group leading the charge to defeat a ballot measure in Arizona to legalize marijuana.
The drug company, which currently markets a fast-acting version of the deadly painkiller fentanyl, assured local news reporters that they had the public interest in mind when making the hefty donation. A spokesperson told the Arizona Republic that Insys opposes the legalization measure, Prop. 205, “because it fails to protect the safety of Arizona’s citizens, and particularly its children.”
A Washington Post story on Friday noted the potential self-interest involved in Insys’s donation.
Investor filings examined by The Intercept confirm the obvious.
Insys is currently developing a product called the Dronabinol Oral Solution, a drug that uses a synthetic version of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) to alleviate chemotherapy-caused nausea and vomiting. In an early filing related to the dronabinol drug, assessing market concerns and competition, Insys filed a disclosure statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission stating plainly that legal marijuana is a direct threat to their product line:
Legalization of marijuana or non-synthetic cannabinoids in the United States could significantly limit the commercial success of any dronabinol product candidate. … If marijuana or non-synthetic cannabinoids were legalized in the United States, the market for dronabinol product sales would likely be significantly reduced and our ability to generate revenue and our business prospects would be materially adversely affected.
Insys explains in the filing that dronabinol is “one of a limited number of FDA-approved synthetic cannabinoids in the United States” and “therefore in the United States, dronabinol products do not have to compete with natural cannabis or non-synthetic cannabinoids.”
The company concedes that scientific literature has argued the benefits of marijuana over synthetic dronabinol, and that support for marijuana legalization is growing. In the company’s latest 10-K filing with the SEC, in a section outlining competitive threats, Insys warns that several states “have already enacted laws legalizing medicinal and recreational marijuana.”
Subsys, the fentanyl spray Insys makes, is used as a fast-acting pain reliever. Fenatyl is an opioid that has made headlines in recent years as the number of Americans overdosing on the drug has skyrocketed. Fenatyl is 50 times stronger than heroin and has been linked to the death of Prince earlier this year. Last month, two Insys executives pled guilty to a pay-for-play scheme to use speakers fees as a way to get doctors to prescribe Subsys.
Marijuana advocates claim that legalized pot has a variety of medical uses, including pain relief. Source "The drug company, which currently markets a fast-acting version of the deadly painkiller fentanyl, assured local news reporters that they had the public interest in mind when making the hefty donation" Mmmhmmm... Although I'm not a fan of how the legalization system is set up (Only certain number of dispensaries, grow stations, etc.) I still believe it's better than no legalization at all, and it's not nearly as bad as the trash they tried to push in Ohio, which is why it failed. We will be voting yes on it. My girl already has a MMJ card and it'll still be worth getting it next year with how much the taxes are on the recreational.
One thing I don't like about mmj is that now if you're registered you can't buy guns. That's insanely stupid. If you just smoke for shits and giggles you're fine to buy a gun, but if you use it to treat a medical condition no 2nd amendment (or it's usual advocates) for you.
I'd like to see cannabis limited to small businesses. No large corporate producers, Cannabis is cheaper today than it was 20 years ago (one of few products that is), so forget about any gains from economies of scale. Any gains will get transferred directly to the top and not workers or consumers.
Our drug policy could be better if it was written by a bunch of 6th graders.
|
What are some good political podcasts? I like 538's a lot, just curious as to what else is out there.
|
On September 13 2016 08:43 Nevuk wrote: What are some good political podcasts? I like 538's a lot, just curious as to what else is out there. NPR Politics is solid.
Quick Take: Clinton's Health/'Basket of Deplorables' http://one.npr.org/i/493651289:493658969
They do it twice to three times a week and are also funny. But really well informed.
|
On September 13 2016 08:22 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2016 07:04 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 13 2016 06:56 Plansix wrote: I have my own theories on the rise of populism and Trump, but those lack any data to back them up. Needless to say, this is not the last we have heard of this populism. I just hope we can move away from it, because it has a strong contempt for education, experience and reality. As someone who's had similar thought to Trump was years before he came around... My opinion is that it's something that will become more and more common the further we detach ourselves from normal human biological function, which in my mind will keep happening the more things around us become black boxes we don't understand, whether that's technology or the system in place that controls us. Not only that, but the more we try to suppress whatever it means to be biologically human... Where we all put on this act. Whenever I have a dinner party with anyone, however professional they might be, it's soothing being able to release, and not have to be so careful with your speech, possibly swear, possibly make a racist joke, etc. We've been trying to change people quite a lot for the benefit of collective society, and I think it'll backfire. I'll gladly take a higher speed limit at the expense of more fatalities, gun rights at the expense of slightly more crime, lower incomes for economic security, less immigration at the expense of lower pensions/older retirement... To me, these things scream more freedom, and more in line with the human experience. That's where my like for Trump stems from, putting aside all his flaws. I wouldn't go so far to call it populism... Just trying to keep everything in check - for example as posted a little while back some US state being allowed to use police drones for non-lethal force. its not populism, its just that human nature forces me to be a reactionary idiot. nothing can be done about that
I don't know how you extracted that from what I said.
|
On September 13 2016 08:05 scott31337 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2016 07:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Pharmaceutical Executives who recently made a major donation to an anti-marijuana legalization campaign claimed they were doing so out of concern for the safety of children — but their investor filings reveal that pot poses a direct threat to their plans to cash in on a synthetic cannabis product they have developed.
On August 31, Insys Therapeutics Inc. donated $500,000 to Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy, becoming the single largest donor to the group leading the charge to defeat a ballot measure in Arizona to legalize marijuana.
The drug company, which currently markets a fast-acting version of the deadly painkiller fentanyl, assured local news reporters that they had the public interest in mind when making the hefty donation. A spokesperson told the Arizona Republic that Insys opposes the legalization measure, Prop. 205, “because it fails to protect the safety of Arizona’s citizens, and particularly its children.”
A Washington Post story on Friday noted the potential self-interest involved in Insys’s donation.
Investor filings examined by The Intercept confirm the obvious.
Insys is currently developing a product called the Dronabinol Oral Solution, a drug that uses a synthetic version of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) to alleviate chemotherapy-caused nausea and vomiting. In an early filing related to the dronabinol drug, assessing market concerns and competition, Insys filed a disclosure statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission stating plainly that legal marijuana is a direct threat to their product line:
Legalization of marijuana or non-synthetic cannabinoids in the United States could significantly limit the commercial success of any dronabinol product candidate. … If marijuana or non-synthetic cannabinoids were legalized in the United States, the market for dronabinol product sales would likely be significantly reduced and our ability to generate revenue and our business prospects would be materially adversely affected.
Insys explains in the filing that dronabinol is “one of a limited number of FDA-approved synthetic cannabinoids in the United States” and “therefore in the United States, dronabinol products do not have to compete with natural cannabis or non-synthetic cannabinoids.”
The company concedes that scientific literature has argued the benefits of marijuana over synthetic dronabinol, and that support for marijuana legalization is growing. In the company’s latest 10-K filing with the SEC, in a section outlining competitive threats, Insys warns that several states “have already enacted laws legalizing medicinal and recreational marijuana.”
Subsys, the fentanyl spray Insys makes, is used as a fast-acting pain reliever. Fenatyl is an opioid that has made headlines in recent years as the number of Americans overdosing on the drug has skyrocketed. Fenatyl is 50 times stronger than heroin and has been linked to the death of Prince earlier this year. Last month, two Insys executives pled guilty to a pay-for-play scheme to use speakers fees as a way to get doctors to prescribe Subsys.
Marijuana advocates claim that legalized pot has a variety of medical uses, including pain relief. Source "The drug company, which currently markets a fast-acting version of the deadly painkiller fentanyl, assured local news reporters that they had the public interest in mind when making the hefty donation" Mmmhmmm... Although I'm not a fan of how the legalization system is set up (Only certain number of dispensaries, grow stations, etc.) I still believe it's better than no legalization at all, and it's not nearly as bad as the trash they tried to push in Ohio, which is why it failed. We will be voting yes on it. My girl already has a MMJ card and it'll still be worth getting it next year with how much the taxes are on the recreational.
Keep in mind that the article is somewhat neglectful in not mentioning that the fast-acting version of fentanyl is only, as far as I know, approved only for opioid-tolerant cancer patients more or less on death's door-which is part of why it's a spray (they may not be able to swallow). You can't walk in to your doc and get a script. I think it's to the point where you'd be liable for a malpractice suit if you prescribed it to anyone that didn't fit those conditions.
It's especially surprising they don't mention this considering cancer patients are a major market for medical marijuana-then again, marijuana is not really going to take the place of this kind of drug for cancer pain relief (this is for searing, skull-ripping, insane pain). It's better to pay attention to them prepping a THC compound for marketing imo
|
On September 13 2016 08:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2016 08:43 Nevuk wrote: What are some good political podcasts? I like 538's a lot, just curious as to what else is out there. NPR Politics is solid. Quick Take: Clinton's Health/'Basket of Deplorables' http://one.npr.org/i/493651289:493658969They do it twice to three times a week and are also funny. But really well informed. I actually don't think NPR doing a podcast would be particularly interesting due to them actually needing to appear unbiased/objective.
|
On September 13 2016 09:23 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2016 08:51 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2016 08:43 Nevuk wrote: What are some good political podcasts? I like 538's a lot, just curious as to what else is out there. NPR Politics is solid. Quick Take: Clinton's Health/'Basket of Deplorables' http://one.npr.org/i/493651289:493658969They do it twice to three times a week and are also funny. But really well informed. I actually don't think NPR doing a podcast would be particularly interesting due to them actually needing to appear unbiased/objective. They do a good job and talk about the difficulties of remaining unbiased pretty openly. Their code switch podcast talks about being a minority (black/Hispanic/Arab) journalist and reporting on Trump/race issues without bias. And that sometimes they fuck up.
But they provide good info and insight since several of them are traveling with Trump and Clinton.
|
On September 13 2016 09:36 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2016 09:23 Nevuk wrote:On September 13 2016 08:51 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2016 08:43 Nevuk wrote: What are some good political podcasts? I like 538's a lot, just curious as to what else is out there. NPR Politics is solid. Quick Take: Clinton's Health/'Basket of Deplorables' http://one.npr.org/i/493651289:493658969They do it twice to three times a week and are also funny. But really well informed. I actually don't think NPR doing a podcast would be particularly interesting due to them actually needing to appear unbiased/objective. They do a good job and talk about the difficulties of remaining unbiased pretty openly. Their code switch podcast talks about being a minority (black/Hispanic/Arab) journalist and reporting on Trump/race issues without bias. And that sometimes they fuck up. But they provide good info and insight since several of them are traveling with Trump and Clinton.
I watched that podcast you linked, better than I expected. Yeah I dunno, I still feel a bit of Hillary bias in the undertone, but better than most of what's out there in terms of an objective conversation.
|
The NCAA has pulled seven championship events from North Carolina, including opening weekend men’s basketball tournament games, for the coming year due to a state law that some say can lead to discrimination against LGBT people.
In a news release Monday, the NCAA said the decision by its board of governors came “because of the cumulative actions taken by the state concerning civil rights protections”.
“This decision is consistent with the NCAA’s long-standing core values of inclusion, student-athlete well-being and creating a culture of fairness,” said Georgia Tech president GP “Bud” Peterson, the chair of the board of governors.
The law – known as HB2 – requires transgender people to use restrooms at schools and government buildings corresponding to the sex on their birth certificates. It also excludes gender identity and sexual orientation from local and statewide anti-discrimination protections.
HB2 was signed into law by Governor Pat McCrory earlier this year.
The NCAA’s release also noted that five states and several cities prohibit travel to the state for public employees and representatives of public institutions, which could include athletes and staff members. The only championship events that can be hosted in the state are ones determined when a team earns the right to play on their own campus.
Source
|
|
|
|