|
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. |
United States42984 Posts
On July 29 2017 08:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 08:11 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2017 07:44 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 06:56 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 06:21 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 06:14 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 05:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 29 2017 05:31 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 04:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
[quote]
I didn't forget about you buddy.
Hydroxycut recalled their product and was off the market for a year because...? PEOPLE WERE DYING. They may have sold what they labeled, but that doesn't excuse the fact that without FDA oversight, they could put in whatever they wanted. "This product is not approved by the FDA" is what they have to put so that the FDA does not get sued. They fixed their formula and came back. Sales are still strong afaik.
People expect the shit they buy to not kill them. Having to do diligent research on everything you purchase is asinine to expect. their new formula doesnt contain ephedra anymore. it wasn't fixed so much as rendered impotent. the product doesnt work anymore, despite the sales Point is, that with the FDA gone, you'll get people prescribing and selling opiates as a cure to opiates. This happened at the turn of the 20th century. Doctors were prescribing cocaine to get rid of cocaine addiction. FDA was the result of that. As was stated previously, the process and institution could use an overhaul and streamlining effort, but to wish for it to be disbanded makes no sense. i never said get rid of the FDA . . . You're advocating for people taking substances for health purposes that are entirely unregulated based upon "rational people would have known there were risks" to consuming supplements. At the very least that's bypassing the FDA. i shouldnt have to repeat this but i am asking for STRICTER controls. I want the bottle to contain what it says it contains. right now its the wild fucking west. insofar as you think adults shouldnt be allowed to take plant extracts if they want to, i think thats nuts. bodily autonomy We've never allowed companies to avoid responsibility for what people do with their products before, not sure why you think we should start now. If you sell a dangerous product you can't hide behind "bodily autonomy" and insist that if one of your customers gets hurt then clearly they made a deliberate choice to exercise their autonomy through hurting themselves. As for "plant extracts", chemicals are chemicals. Slapping a "ALL NATURAL" sticker on the side of the bottle doesn't change the contents, it shouldn't change the legality. Didn't someone just post how cigarettes kill half of it's users if used as intended? And they spent an awful lot of money buying their special treatment. And insisting that cigarettes don't cause cancer. I mean if you think the fraction of their profits they've paid is being held responsible for them selling death in a box I guess?
Wasn't trying to say they're being held responsible. I was trying to say that the basic premise that we don't put up with companies doing that shit isn't necessarily destroyed by cigarette and alcohol companies getting away with it. It's rather amended to "unless they bribe most of the politicians and the scientific community".
|
On July 29 2017 08:15 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 08:11 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Does anyone else feel like people skip pages or posts and we're just all repeating the same things over and over? If the thread is moving quickly, there may be 10-20 posts while you are typing yours. That just happened to me, for example.
I get that, it's just I've already mentioned the drug thing to IgnE pretty clearly and we're telling him the same thing over and over. Some more eloquently than others, but the basics of the argument has already been beaten to death.
IgnE: LABELS are needed to properly tell the consumer what is in it. If you knowingly or unknowingly ingest it, that's your problem to deal with. You have to be the researcher for your own safety.
Everyone else: Agreed. But to expect us to do that every time doesn't make sense. If supplement manufacturers are being overseen by the FDA like most other forms, since it is technically a drug, we would have some semblance of reassurance that it passed the rigorous safety tests that the FDA puts into place.
IgnE: Go for it. But don't complain if you're injured by no doing the research.
Everyone else: We shouldn't have to be worrying about that if it's for sale and has been verified by the FDA it won't kill you and has the proper risks labeled on the bottle/package.
Is that the summation of the debate?
|
Plus we actually do have some FDA oversight of tobacco thanks to a bill Obama signed in 2009. Took forever, but they're probably more regulated than supplements today-there are premarket applications for tobacco products now, and they regulate labeling (because it's marketing).
On July 29 2017 08:21 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 08:14 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 08:08 Gorsameth wrote:On July 29 2017 08:06 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 07:55 Simberto wrote:On July 29 2017 07:44 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 06:56 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 06:21 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 06:14 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 05:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
[quote]
Point is, that with the FDA gone, you'll get people prescribing and selling opiates as a cure to opiates. This happened at the turn of the 20th century. Doctors were prescribing cocaine to get rid of cocaine addiction. FDA was the result of that. As was stated previously, the process and institution could use an overhaul and streamlining effort, but to wish for it to be disbanded makes no sense. i never said get rid of the FDA . . . You're advocating for people taking substances for health purposes that are entirely unregulated based upon "rational people would have known there were risks" to consuming supplements. At the very least that's bypassing the FDA. i shouldnt have to repeat this but i am asking for STRICTER controls. I want the bottle to contain what it says it contains. right now its the wild fucking west. insofar as you think adults shouldnt be allowed to take plant extracts if they want to, i think thats nuts. bodily autonomy We've never allowed companies to avoid responsibility for what people do with their products before, not sure why you think we should start now. If you sell a dangerous product you can't hide behind "bodily autonomy" and insist that if one of your customers gets hurt then clearly they made a deliberate choice to exercise their autonomy through hurting themselves. As for "plant extracts", chemicals are chemicals. Slapping a "ALL NATURAL" sticker on the side of the bottle doesn't change the contents, it shouldn't change the legality. Indeed. If i buy something in a store, and use it the way it i am supposed to, it should not kill me. If there is the danger that it might kill me, it should definitively tell me so, very clearly. If i use it in some incredibly stupid way that it was never thought to be used as (like eating batteries or something like that), and then get killed by it, that is obviously a different situation. And i am very often amazed by the very persistent idea that if something is "natural" (whatever that even means), it can not be dangerous, and is actually good for you. Belladonna is natural. Fly Amanita is natural. Poison dart frogs are natural. Rattlesnakes are all natural. Death cap is natural. Anthrax is all natural too. as i mentioned earlier this disrespect for biochemistry is largely a product of marketing and regulatory regimes produced by a pharmaceutical/medical complex designed to sell chemical "cures" to an uncriticial public. Disrespect or not having to check everything you buy at every moment for substances that will kill you? We have rules to allow society to function in a productive manner. please. why are you browsing the amphetamine weight loss aisle for a chemical weight loss solution if you arent willing to look up whats in it and how it works? if you want warnings go ahead and put them on there. if you want restricted marketing im all for it. marketing is mostly just socially accepted lying. ban it. lets do it. a LABEL should tell you whats in it. we arent talking about sneaking cocaine and heroin into "soft drinks" here. we are talking about requiring supplement manufacturers to clearly tell the customers what chemicals are in the product they are selling. New question: You have an amphetamine weight loss aisle? Is this actually a thing?
No. Things like Hydroxycut were sold in the "supplements and vitamins" aisle, with at most a little flag with "weight loss" over their subsection.
|
On July 29 2017 08:24 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 08:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2017 08:11 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2017 07:44 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 06:56 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 06:21 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 06:14 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 05:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 29 2017 05:31 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
their new formula doesnt contain ephedra anymore. it wasn't fixed so much as rendered impotent. the product doesnt work anymore, despite the sales
Point is, that with the FDA gone, you'll get people prescribing and selling opiates as a cure to opiates. This happened at the turn of the 20th century. Doctors were prescribing cocaine to get rid of cocaine addiction. FDA was the result of that. As was stated previously, the process and institution could use an overhaul and streamlining effort, but to wish for it to be disbanded makes no sense. i never said get rid of the FDA . . . You're advocating for people taking substances for health purposes that are entirely unregulated based upon "rational people would have known there were risks" to consuming supplements. At the very least that's bypassing the FDA. i shouldnt have to repeat this but i am asking for STRICTER controls. I want the bottle to contain what it says it contains. right now its the wild fucking west. insofar as you think adults shouldnt be allowed to take plant extracts if they want to, i think thats nuts. bodily autonomy We've never allowed companies to avoid responsibility for what people do with their products before, not sure why you think we should start now. If you sell a dangerous product you can't hide behind "bodily autonomy" and insist that if one of your customers gets hurt then clearly they made a deliberate choice to exercise their autonomy through hurting themselves. As for "plant extracts", chemicals are chemicals. Slapping a "ALL NATURAL" sticker on the side of the bottle doesn't change the contents, it shouldn't change the legality. Didn't someone just post how cigarettes kill half of it's users if used as intended? And they spent an awful lot of money buying their special treatment. And insisting that cigarettes don't cause cancer. I mean if you think the fraction of their profits they've paid is being held responsible for them selling death in a box I guess? Wasn't trying to say they're being held responsible. I was trying to say that the basic premise that we don't put up with companies doing that shit isn't necessarily destroyed by cigarette and alcohol companies getting away with it. It's rather amended to "unless they bribe most of the politicians and the scientific community".
I can kind of agree with that amendment, but we know it's not just those ones right? Those are just the ones we settled on the fact that they kill more people per year than terrorists have in the history of the country and as long as they pay, they can continue.
So considering most multi-billion dollar industries bribe most of our politicians and buy scientists, it's fair to say we're not really holding them responsible, we're more just making sure only the wealthy get away with it.
|
On July 29 2017 08:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 08:06 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 07:55 Simberto wrote:On July 29 2017 07:44 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 06:56 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 06:21 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 06:14 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 05:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 29 2017 05:31 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 04:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
[quote]
I didn't forget about you buddy.
Hydroxycut recalled their product and was off the market for a year because...? PEOPLE WERE DYING. They may have sold what they labeled, but that doesn't excuse the fact that without FDA oversight, they could put in whatever they wanted. "This product is not approved by the FDA" is what they have to put so that the FDA does not get sued. They fixed their formula and came back. Sales are still strong afaik.
People expect the shit they buy to not kill them. Having to do diligent research on everything you purchase is asinine to expect. their new formula doesnt contain ephedra anymore. it wasn't fixed so much as rendered impotent. the product doesnt work anymore, despite the sales Point is, that with the FDA gone, you'll get people prescribing and selling opiates as a cure to opiates. This happened at the turn of the 20th century. Doctors were prescribing cocaine to get rid of cocaine addiction. FDA was the result of that. As was stated previously, the process and institution could use an overhaul and streamlining effort, but to wish for it to be disbanded makes no sense. i never said get rid of the FDA . . . You're advocating for people taking substances for health purposes that are entirely unregulated based upon "rational people would have known there were risks" to consuming supplements. At the very least that's bypassing the FDA. i shouldnt have to repeat this but i am asking for STRICTER controls. I want the bottle to contain what it says it contains. right now its the wild fucking west. insofar as you think adults shouldnt be allowed to take plant extracts if they want to, i think thats nuts. bodily autonomy We've never allowed companies to avoid responsibility for what people do with their products before, not sure why you think we should start now. If you sell a dangerous product you can't hide behind "bodily autonomy" and insist that if one of your customers gets hurt then clearly they made a deliberate choice to exercise their autonomy through hurting themselves. As for "plant extracts", chemicals are chemicals. Slapping a "ALL NATURAL" sticker on the side of the bottle doesn't change the contents, it shouldn't change the legality. Indeed. If i buy something in a store, and use it the way it i am supposed to, it should not kill me. If there is the danger that it might kill me, it should definitively tell me so, very clearly. If i use it in some incredibly stupid way that it was never thought to be used as (like eating batteries or something like that), and then get killed by it, that is obviously a different situation. And i am very often amazed by the very persistent idea that if something is "natural" (whatever that even means), it can not be dangerous, and is actually good for you. Belladonna is natural. Fly Amanita is natural. Poison dart frogs are natural. Rattlesnakes are all natural. Death cap is natural. Anthrax is all natural too. as i mentioned earlier this disrespect for biochemistry is largely a product of marketing and regulatory regimes produced by a pharmaceutical/medical complex designed to sell chemical "cures" to an uncriticial public. I think you misunderstood my point about chemicals. I'm well aware that everything we consume is made of chemicals and I'm certainly not one of the crowd that insists that chemicals are bad and that I only eat natural things without chemicals. My point was simply that distinguishing between the right to put natural things in your body and synthetic things in your body is absurd. You seemed to suggest that plant extracts should be allowed as a unique category, I was responding to that.
well my point is that we prescribe amphetamines to children like candy and used to let everyone buy pseudo until it atartes being used to make meth, but we need to totally ban ephedra for knowing adults. lets compare the death rate on ephedra to legally prescribed amphetamines. lets consider that one is an unpatented plant extract and the other is a patented salt formulation.
|
United States42984 Posts
On July 29 2017 08:31 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 08:16 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 08:06 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 07:55 Simberto wrote:On July 29 2017 07:44 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 06:56 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 06:21 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 06:14 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 05:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 29 2017 05:31 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
their new formula doesnt contain ephedra anymore. it wasn't fixed so much as rendered impotent. the product doesnt work anymore, despite the sales
Point is, that with the FDA gone, you'll get people prescribing and selling opiates as a cure to opiates. This happened at the turn of the 20th century. Doctors were prescribing cocaine to get rid of cocaine addiction. FDA was the result of that. As was stated previously, the process and institution could use an overhaul and streamlining effort, but to wish for it to be disbanded makes no sense. i never said get rid of the FDA . . . You're advocating for people taking substances for health purposes that are entirely unregulated based upon "rational people would have known there were risks" to consuming supplements. At the very least that's bypassing the FDA. i shouldnt have to repeat this but i am asking for STRICTER controls. I want the bottle to contain what it says it contains. right now its the wild fucking west. insofar as you think adults shouldnt be allowed to take plant extracts if they want to, i think thats nuts. bodily autonomy We've never allowed companies to avoid responsibility for what people do with their products before, not sure why you think we should start now. If you sell a dangerous product you can't hide behind "bodily autonomy" and insist that if one of your customers gets hurt then clearly they made a deliberate choice to exercise their autonomy through hurting themselves. As for "plant extracts", chemicals are chemicals. Slapping a "ALL NATURAL" sticker on the side of the bottle doesn't change the contents, it shouldn't change the legality. Indeed. If i buy something in a store, and use it the way it i am supposed to, it should not kill me. If there is the danger that it might kill me, it should definitively tell me so, very clearly. If i use it in some incredibly stupid way that it was never thought to be used as (like eating batteries or something like that), and then get killed by it, that is obviously a different situation. And i am very often amazed by the very persistent idea that if something is "natural" (whatever that even means), it can not be dangerous, and is actually good for you. Belladonna is natural. Fly Amanita is natural. Poison dart frogs are natural. Rattlesnakes are all natural. Death cap is natural. Anthrax is all natural too. as i mentioned earlier this disrespect for biochemistry is largely a product of marketing and regulatory regimes produced by a pharmaceutical/medical complex designed to sell chemical "cures" to an uncriticial public. I think you misunderstood my point about chemicals. I'm well aware that everything we consume is made of chemicals and I'm certainly not one of the crowd that insists that chemicals are bad and that I only eat natural things without chemicals. My point was simply that distinguishing between the right to put natural things in your body and synthetic things in your body is absurd. You seemed to suggest that plant extracts should be allowed as a unique category, I was responding to that. well my point is that we prescribe amphetamines to children like candy and used to let everyone buy pseudo until it atartes being used to make meth, but we need to totally ban ephedra for knowing adults. lets compare the death rate on ephedra to legally prescribed amphetamines. lets consider that one is an unpatented plant extract and the other is a patented salt formulation.
That essentially amounts to "if we allow children with a medical need to use drugs to restore their body chemistry to normalcy then how come adults can't use it to get high". I mean, do I really need to address why prescribed drug use is different from drug abuse? And if doctors are abusing their prescribing privileges that doesn't invalid the concept of prescriptions, it means it should be fixed.
And anyway, I don't especially object to adults getting high. I'm not saying ban everything, I'm saying ban the shit that really will fuck you up and cover the other stuff with warning labels as appropriate.
|
On July 29 2017 08:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 08:31 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 08:16 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 08:06 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 07:55 Simberto wrote:On July 29 2017 07:44 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 06:56 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 06:21 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 06:14 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 05:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
[quote]
Point is, that with the FDA gone, you'll get people prescribing and selling opiates as a cure to opiates. This happened at the turn of the 20th century. Doctors were prescribing cocaine to get rid of cocaine addiction. FDA was the result of that. As was stated previously, the process and institution could use an overhaul and streamlining effort, but to wish for it to be disbanded makes no sense. i never said get rid of the FDA . . . You're advocating for people taking substances for health purposes that are entirely unregulated based upon "rational people would have known there were risks" to consuming supplements. At the very least that's bypassing the FDA. i shouldnt have to repeat this but i am asking for STRICTER controls. I want the bottle to contain what it says it contains. right now its the wild fucking west. insofar as you think adults shouldnt be allowed to take plant extracts if they want to, i think thats nuts. bodily autonomy We've never allowed companies to avoid responsibility for what people do with their products before, not sure why you think we should start now. If you sell a dangerous product you can't hide behind "bodily autonomy" and insist that if one of your customers gets hurt then clearly they made a deliberate choice to exercise their autonomy through hurting themselves. As for "plant extracts", chemicals are chemicals. Slapping a "ALL NATURAL" sticker on the side of the bottle doesn't change the contents, it shouldn't change the legality. Indeed. If i buy something in a store, and use it the way it i am supposed to, it should not kill me. If there is the danger that it might kill me, it should definitively tell me so, very clearly. If i use it in some incredibly stupid way that it was never thought to be used as (like eating batteries or something like that), and then get killed by it, that is obviously a different situation. And i am very often amazed by the very persistent idea that if something is "natural" (whatever that even means), it can not be dangerous, and is actually good for you. Belladonna is natural. Fly Amanita is natural. Poison dart frogs are natural. Rattlesnakes are all natural. Death cap is natural. Anthrax is all natural too. as i mentioned earlier this disrespect for biochemistry is largely a product of marketing and regulatory regimes produced by a pharmaceutical/medical complex designed to sell chemical "cures" to an uncriticial public. I think you misunderstood my point about chemicals. I'm well aware that everything we consume is made of chemicals and I'm certainly not one of the crowd that insists that chemicals are bad and that I only eat natural things without chemicals. My point was simply that distinguishing between the right to put natural things in your body and synthetic things in your body is absurd. You seemed to suggest that plant extracts should be allowed as a unique category, I was responding to that. well my point is that we prescribe amphetamines to children like candy and used to let everyone buy pseudo until it atartes being used to make meth, but we need to totally ban ephedra for knowing adults. lets compare the death rate on ephedra to legally prescribed amphetamines. lets consider that one is an unpatented plant extract and the other is a patented salt formulation. That essentially amounts to "if we allow children with a medical need to use drugs to restore their body chemistry to normalcy then how come adults can't use it to get high". I mean, do I really need to address why prescribed drug use is different from drug abuse?
Pretty sure there's a host of doctors and users families around the country that could use that lecture on opiates.
EDIT: When you say "fix" to what condition are we repairing it to? Like when was it working in such a way that we would be fixing it to resemble?
|
This is About the level of substance Trump has to him.
|
They really could, but they are so petty and in the pocket of insurance companies they wouldn't. They could get some Republicans too.
|
United States42984 Posts
On July 29 2017 08:53 GreenHorizons wrote:They really could, but they are so petty and in the pocket of insurance companies they wouldn't. They could get some Republicans too.
They'd have to import those Republicans from the parallel universe where Republicans would sign something supported by Democrats.
|
On July 29 2017 08:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 08:31 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 08:16 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 08:06 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 07:55 Simberto wrote:On July 29 2017 07:44 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 06:56 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 06:21 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 06:14 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 05:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
[quote]
Point is, that with the FDA gone, you'll get people prescribing and selling opiates as a cure to opiates. This happened at the turn of the 20th century. Doctors were prescribing cocaine to get rid of cocaine addiction. FDA was the result of that. As was stated previously, the process and institution could use an overhaul and streamlining effort, but to wish for it to be disbanded makes no sense. i never said get rid of the FDA . . . You're advocating for people taking substances for health purposes that are entirely unregulated based upon "rational people would have known there were risks" to consuming supplements. At the very least that's bypassing the FDA. i shouldnt have to repeat this but i am asking for STRICTER controls. I want the bottle to contain what it says it contains. right now its the wild fucking west. insofar as you think adults shouldnt be allowed to take plant extracts if they want to, i think thats nuts. bodily autonomy We've never allowed companies to avoid responsibility for what people do with their products before, not sure why you think we should start now. If you sell a dangerous product you can't hide behind "bodily autonomy" and insist that if one of your customers gets hurt then clearly they made a deliberate choice to exercise their autonomy through hurting themselves. As for "plant extracts", chemicals are chemicals. Slapping a "ALL NATURAL" sticker on the side of the bottle doesn't change the contents, it shouldn't change the legality. Indeed. If i buy something in a store, and use it the way it i am supposed to, it should not kill me. If there is the danger that it might kill me, it should definitively tell me so, very clearly. If i use it in some incredibly stupid way that it was never thought to be used as (like eating batteries or something like that), and then get killed by it, that is obviously a different situation. And i am very often amazed by the very persistent idea that if something is "natural" (whatever that even means), it can not be dangerous, and is actually good for you. Belladonna is natural. Fly Amanita is natural. Poison dart frogs are natural. Rattlesnakes are all natural. Death cap is natural. Anthrax is all natural too. as i mentioned earlier this disrespect for biochemistry is largely a product of marketing and regulatory regimes produced by a pharmaceutical/medical complex designed to sell chemical "cures" to an uncriticial public. I think you misunderstood my point about chemicals. I'm well aware that everything we consume is made of chemicals and I'm certainly not one of the crowd that insists that chemicals are bad and that I only eat natural things without chemicals. My point was simply that distinguishing between the right to put natural things in your body and synthetic things in your body is absurd. You seemed to suggest that plant extracts should be allowed as a unique category, I was responding to that. well my point is that we prescribe amphetamines to children like candy and used to let everyone buy pseudo until it atartes being used to make meth, but we need to totally ban ephedra for knowing adults. lets compare the death rate on ephedra to legally prescribed amphetamines. lets consider that one is an unpatented plant extract and the other is a patented salt formulation. That essentially amounts to "if we allow children with a medical need to use drugs to restore their body chemistry to normalcy then how come adults can't use it to get high". I mean, do I really need to address why prescribed drug use is different from drug abuse? And if doctors are abusing their prescribing privileges that doesn't invalid the concept of prescriptions, it means it should be fixed. And anyway, I don't especially object to adults getting high. I'm not saying ban everything, I'm saying ban the shit that really will fuck you up and cover the other stuff with warning labels as appropriate.
lol amphetamine just "restoring body chemistry." lets just talk about "getting high" because thats what hydroxycut was used for. i mean the supplement aisle is for getting high right?
this is why conversations like this with people who dont understand chemistry is pointless
|
On July 29 2017 08:53 GreenHorizons wrote:They really could, but they are so petty and in the pocket of insurance companies they wouldn't. They could get some Republicans too.
Except for that rule about needed a majority of the majority party agreeing to even bring a bill to the floor to discuss.
But you know, details.
|
On July 29 2017 09:05 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 08:53 GreenHorizons wrote:They really could, but they are so petty and in the pocket of insurance companies they wouldn't. They could get some Republicans too. Except for that rule about needed a majority of the majority party agreeing to even bring a bill to the floor to discuss. But you know, details.
I thought that the wording of that post was a conditional statement, i.e., "If Dems could somehow pass it through Congress, then they could easily dodge any issue from Trump if they put his name on the bill". As in, anything with Trump's name on it would be okay with Trump, regardless of the content.
|
On July 29 2017 09:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 09:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 29 2017 08:53 GreenHorizons wrote:They really could, but they are so petty and in the pocket of insurance companies they wouldn't. They could get some Republicans too. Except for that rule about needed a majority of the majority party agreeing to even bring a bill to the floor to discuss. But you know, details. I thought that the wording of that post was a conditional statement, i.e., "If Dems could somehow pass it through Congress, then they could easily dodge any issue from Trump if they put his name on the bill". As in, anything with Trump's name on it would be okay with Trump, regardless of the content.
The Tweet yes.
GH took it a bit further in order to shit on Democrats.
|
In any other presidency Trumps disastrous Boy Scout speech or his approval of roughing up prisoners to the Suffolk County Police would dominate the news cycke for weeks. They are already overrun.
Tho I do expect more blowback on the police one in the coming days. A bunch of police groups are having to make statements distancing themselves. Just wait until some Suffolk County resident gets hurt by police and the rally tape is played of them cheering...
|
On July 29 2017 09:00 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 08:42 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 08:31 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 08:16 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 08:06 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 07:55 Simberto wrote:On July 29 2017 07:44 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 06:56 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 06:21 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 06:14 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
i never said get rid of the FDA . . . You're advocating for people taking substances for health purposes that are entirely unregulated based upon "rational people would have known there were risks" to consuming supplements. At the very least that's bypassing the FDA. i shouldnt have to repeat this but i am asking for STRICTER controls. I want the bottle to contain what it says it contains. right now its the wild fucking west. insofar as you think adults shouldnt be allowed to take plant extracts if they want to, i think thats nuts. bodily autonomy We've never allowed companies to avoid responsibility for what people do with their products before, not sure why you think we should start now. If you sell a dangerous product you can't hide behind "bodily autonomy" and insist that if one of your customers gets hurt then clearly they made a deliberate choice to exercise their autonomy through hurting themselves. As for "plant extracts", chemicals are chemicals. Slapping a "ALL NATURAL" sticker on the side of the bottle doesn't change the contents, it shouldn't change the legality. Indeed. If i buy something in a store, and use it the way it i am supposed to, it should not kill me. If there is the danger that it might kill me, it should definitively tell me so, very clearly. If i use it in some incredibly stupid way that it was never thought to be used as (like eating batteries or something like that), and then get killed by it, that is obviously a different situation. And i am very often amazed by the very persistent idea that if something is "natural" (whatever that even means), it can not be dangerous, and is actually good for you. Belladonna is natural. Fly Amanita is natural. Poison dart frogs are natural. Rattlesnakes are all natural. Death cap is natural. Anthrax is all natural too. as i mentioned earlier this disrespect for biochemistry is largely a product of marketing and regulatory regimes produced by a pharmaceutical/medical complex designed to sell chemical "cures" to an uncriticial public. I think you misunderstood my point about chemicals. I'm well aware that everything we consume is made of chemicals and I'm certainly not one of the crowd that insists that chemicals are bad and that I only eat natural things without chemicals. My point was simply that distinguishing between the right to put natural things in your body and synthetic things in your body is absurd. You seemed to suggest that plant extracts should be allowed as a unique category, I was responding to that. well my point is that we prescribe amphetamines to children like candy and used to let everyone buy pseudo until it atartes being used to make meth, but we need to totally ban ephedra for knowing adults. lets compare the death rate on ephedra to legally prescribed amphetamines. lets consider that one is an unpatented plant extract and the other is a patented salt formulation. That essentially amounts to "if we allow children with a medical need to use drugs to restore their body chemistry to normalcy then how come adults can't use it to get high". I mean, do I really need to address why prescribed drug use is different from drug abuse? And if doctors are abusing their prescribing privileges that doesn't invalid the concept of prescriptions, it means it should be fixed. And anyway, I don't especially object to adults getting high. I'm not saying ban everything, I'm saying ban the shit that really will fuck you up and cover the other stuff with warning labels as appropriate. lol amphetamine just "restoring body chemistry." lets just talk about "getting high" because thats what hydroxycut was used for. i mean the supplement aisle is for getting high right? this is why conversations like this with people who dont understand chemistry is pointless
Umm yes, ADHD drugs (which is what you seem to be referring to in your misplaced comment about prescribing to kids like candy) work by trying to restore a balance of chemicals in the patients brain. That's how they work, changing the brain chemistry, increasing dopamine levels because the person's reward center isn't functioning as "normal".
Seems you don't understand the chemistry.
|
I'll believe the Dems can pass something when Ben Cardin's healthcare legislation he proposed a month ago goes anywhere. Republicans are literally just ignoring everything by them
|
Progress only occurs when they find out they hate each other more than democrats
|
Calling members of the transnational street gang MS-13 "animals" who like to let their victims "die slowly because that way it's more painful," President Trump on Friday sought to highlight his administration's efforts to crack down on illegal immigration, reduce violent crime and secure additional congressional funding for immigration enforcement.
The president spoke before a crowd in Suffolk County, N.Y., which since the start of last year has seen 17 brutal murders allegedly committed by MS-13, including a fatal attack with machetes and baseball bats on two teenage girls, authorities say.
Trump also used his speech to praise the work of John Kelly as Secretary of Homeland Security. On Twitter, the president announced that Kelly would become the new White House chief of staff.
Source
Here's the article regarding the comments about approving abuse towards those under arrest.
Towards the end of the article"We have families here and young people who are being terrorized by gangs who will not come forward because of the fear of the Donald Trumps and Jeff Sessions," said Phil Ramos, a Democrat in the New York Assembly who represents Brentwood, the largely Latino community where Trump's speech took place. Ramos says many residents now "won't come forward and report gang activity or gang threats or the fact that they are being extorted, or violence against their children because they fear that threat from authorities."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
