161 replies to this topic

[Mercury69]

FCP Bob, on Monday, April 25th, 2011, 1:46 PM, said:

Trust me, your thought process was muddled and your flippant comment about the Pharmaceutical Industry didn't convey any thought to anybody reading it. If you meant it to have meaning you would have been better explaining what that meaning was.Now don't make me put up a picture of a dead horse.

It wasn't a flippant comment as much as it was flat out accusatory. And you're right in that I wasn't "precise" about what I was getting at. At the same time, God forbid I give people credit for extrapolating on their own, but that seems to be a major fault of mine and the interwebz is a place where misunderstanding is rampant. I think I made myself clear in my follow up posts, though.Sorry, one more thing: I don't come on here looking for fights. I'm not going to claim I come on here with all the facts, either, which I admit is obvious. I have learnt many things from these forums, so I will continue to try and get something out of them. Just spare me the insults and don't call me a retard if you don't understand what I'm saying. I'm not the only person around here who lacks clarity from time to time. Anyway, the Gary Johnson train got derailed...Choo choo!

[Balloon guy]

Mercury69, on Monday, April 25th, 2011, 10:18 AM, said:

The estimated amount of $$$ used for Health industry lobbying between 1998 and 2010 was more than $4.2 billion dollars.

Link to Open Secrets Web siteActually half that, but still a lot of money, more than any other industryAnyone find it scary though that civil service/public officials organizations spends 50% more than Defense/Aerospace on lobbying?

[Mercury69]

Balloon guy, on Monday, April 25th, 2011, 2:42 PM, said:

Link to Open Secrets Web siteActually half that, but still a lot of money, more than any other industryAnyone find it scary though that civil service/public officials organizations spends 50% more than Defense/Aerospace on lobbying?

That seems to be a more accurate figure for the pharma industry. My figure didn't break it down like that and may have included the "Health Professionals" and "Hospitals/Nursing Homes" $ figures. Regardless, that's several boatloads of $$$...

[Balloon guy]

Mercury69, on Monday, April 25th, 2011, 12:02 PM, said:

That seems to be a more accurate figure for the pharma industry. My figure didn't break it down like that and may have included the "Health Professionals" and "Hospitals/Nursing Homes" $ figures. Regardless, that's several boatloads of $$$...

And no way to end the practice....Makes you rethink the foolishness of assuming that Gays, Christians, etc have any real influence in Washington.Like we are following the commands of the magicians to "Look over here" while their other hand is pulling a fast one.

[phlegm]

I hate pot.I love prescription opiates.Anyone who thinks opiates dont affect your mind hasnt read to many of my postsPeace and love to all.

[hblask]

Mercury69, on Monday, April 25th, 2011, 9:22 AM, said:

Privatization of jails...How would they be funded? If the taxpayer still gets hit for the bill, wouldn't that make this a questionable act, in terms of administration and governance of all levels (municipal, state, federal) of law enforcement? Is privatization of law enformcement agencies next? What happens when these private law agencies begin to get more power legislated to them?

Again, out of all his positions, I'm not sure why this one keeps coming up. I've seen dozens of his speeches and interviews, and I've never seen him mention once, not ever. Yet about 80% of the criticism toward him starts with it. It makes no sense, I'm starting to think it's some kind of organized thing. I'm going to start complaining about Obama's tie-color policies, it makes about as much sense. Seriously, with all his other outside-the-box solutions, this is the one that gets people's attention? WTF?Anyway, the way privatization works is that private companies bid to meet certain specifications. The lowest bidder that can demonstrate compliance wins. There have been cases where the govt-run prisons have won. The problems you guys keep harping on are just as big of a problem when public sector unions run these things, so I'm not sure why the word "privatization" is so scary. If a private version screws up, you kick them out and replace them. If the public sector version screws up, too bad, you're stuck with them. So there are basically no new problems that are not inherent with the use of govt force in the first place, and for every problem it is less of a problem with privatization.

[vbnautilus]

brvheart, on Monday, April 25th, 2011, 9:45 AM, said:

1. Obviously there are WAY WAY more users of legal opiates that pot smokers in the US. I mean, it's not close.

Do you have data for this or its just a hunch? I really don't know the answer, but I'm pretty sure you're just making something up and then pretending to be very sure about it. According to NIDA, in 2008 the percentage of 12th graders who had smoked pot in their lifetime was 43%. This website says that 1 in 7 teens admits to using opiates (prescription opiates). 1 in 7 is 14%. Surely there are many ways to measure this, but you are definitely exaggerating if you think its not even close. The data I just cited could be interpreted as: there are obviously WAY WAY more users of marijuana than legal opiates in the US, and its not even close.

Quote

5. HOW THE **** IS IT THE DRUG COMPANIES FAULT THAT PEOPLE ARE GETTING A PRESCRIPTION FOR A DRUG?!!?

It would be pretty naive to think that the drug companies which profit off the distribution of these medications have no interest in which ones are legal. I do find it very interesting that the most addictive substances we know of are the ones that have legal forms available for someone to profit from (e.g. opiates, tobacco) while the most benign and socially positive drugs which are not addictive (e.g. marijuana, psilocybin) are illegal. There is definitely more to be earned from a drug that people cannot stop themselves from ingesting.

[Skeleton Jelly]

vbnautilus, on Monday, April 25th, 2011, 5:11 PM, said:

According to NIDA, in 2008 the percentage of 12th graders who had smoked pot in their lifetime was 43%. This website says that 1 in 7 teens admits to using opiates (prescription opiates). 1 in 7 is 14%.

You seem to have dropped the "ab" in front of "using." That makes for a big difference when comparing to "had smoked in their lifetime."Note: I'm not saying either you or brv are right in the big picture; I have no idea.

[vbnautilus]

Skeleton Jelly, on Monday, April 25th, 2011, 5:22 PM, said:

You seem to have dropped the "ab" in front of "using." That makes for a big difference when comparing to "had smoked in their lifetime."Note: I'm not saying either you or brv are right in the big picture; I have no idea.

I don't put those links in my post so that people will actually click on them. My experience with these anti drug types is that to them use = abuse. For instance, all the marijuana smokers would be considered "drug abusers". Just click on the NIDA link (*ahem* National Institute on Drug Abuse) -- they give this bias away instantly on their marijuana fact sheet: "How is Marijuana Abused?" with no definition of abuse other than -- smoking it. I guess we'd have to see how they worded their question to the kids about the opiates. I doubt they are able to tell who has a script for legitimate vs. illegitimate purposes, or who got a script legitimately but abuses it, so I have no idea how they would distinguish between "use" and "abuse".

[Skeleton Jelly]

vbnautilus, on Monday, April 25th, 2011, 6:48 PM, said:

I guess we'd have to see how they worded their question to the kids about the opiates.

Yeah, that's actually why I clicked on the link. Have you ever smoked pot in your lifetime is pretty clear, but I was wondering what they meant by "using."Proper wording of the question is something I struggle with in the important work I do.

[hblask]

Here's why the complaints about private prisons are bogus.TL;DL: the same perverse incentives exist, but public ones are harder to get rid of.

[Balloon guy]

hblask, on Thursday, April 28th, 2011, 10:43 AM, said:

Here's why the complaints about private prisons are bogus.TL;DL: the same perverse incentives exist, but public ones are harder to get rid of.

Yea I have always wondered how man has not removed the entire practice of accounting forecasting and management needs that are in place in public and private sectors.If you spend less than allotted to you, then your budget next year will be reduced.If you have x number of employees, then you are in need of a manager, and if you have x number of managers, then you are in need of a supervisor.Both of these practices just create waste out of thin air.They create waste.

[SilentSnow]

Irony- Hblask supporting a Republican candidate who would be by far the most popular Republican among liberals. http://www.salon.com...ting_republican

[ShakeZuma]

SilentSnow, on Friday, May 6th, 2011, 4:58 AM, said:

Irony- Hblask supporting a Republican candidate who would be by far the most popular Republican among liberals. http://www.salon.com...ting_republican

have you ever actually read any of hblask's posts? those positions are his (and the vast majority of "republicans" on this site's, save for bg obv) views down to a 't'.

[Skeleton Jelly]

ShakeZuma, on Friday, May 6th, 2011, 2:56 AM, said:

have you ever actually read any of hblask's posts?

Have you ever actually read any of SilentSnow's posts?

[Balloon guy]

ShakeZuma, on Friday, May 6th, 2011, 2:56 AM, said:

have you ever actually read any of hblask's posts? those positions are his (and the vast majority of "republicans" on this site's, save for bg obv) views down to a 't'.

Commies

[iZuma]

Skeleton Jelly, on Friday, May 6th, 2011, 12:08 PM, said:

Have you ever actually read any of SilentSnow's posts?

oh yeah. hadn't had my coffee yet I guess.

[Balloon guy]

Ever notice that there are basically two things politically.Social issuesFiscal issuesNow the dems are liberals on social and liberal on fiscal, meaning they want to do whatever they want and have no responsibility for the consequences.Republicans are conservative on social and conservative on fiscal, meaning they feel actions have consequences.Now some republicans want the entire republican party to become liberal social and conservative fiscal.But hardly any democrats want the entire party to become conservative fiscally, while staying liberal socially.The correct thing is for the people that want to split the liberal social outlooks to become a third party, taking some from each party.But the truth is that a third party that is conservative fiscal, and liberal social, will mostly take from the republican party only. Which means a democrat win.Why do you think democrats don't want to join this third party that supports all their liberal social causes, just does a better job with the money?I'll tell you why, democrats/ liberals are brainwashed sheep who think you can make anything permissible in society as long as the government is there to DEAL WITH THE RESULTS.They need the government to pay for unwed black mothers on welfare, which is the result of their inner city programs of the past.They need to have abortions legal and paid for with tax dollars for poor people because they want to de-stigmatize free sex and the results.They need to take God out of society to allow them to feel less conviction for their actions.They need the government to be huge. And for that they need to tax tax tax.That is why the democrat party will always be: big government is better than business. And you guys who go third party, are putting those people in charge.

[mrdannyg]

hblask, on Saturday, April 23rd, 2011, 2:26 PM, said:

Their financial interest can only be realized if government is too big and doing too much. So once again, the so-called problems of leftist big-government agenda are being blamed on free markets.Basically, he was going by his experience in NM, where it worked perfectly. Now, admittedly, he was an exceptionally good governor, so under someone incompetent, e.g. Obama, it's possible it wouldn't work as well. Which brings us back to Johnson's philosophy: let the govt do as little as possible so that after people like Johnson leave office, people like Obama can't destroy the country.There are two problems with this complaint against him: first, this is such a tiny part of his total policy picture that it would be like picking on Obama for the color of his tie. Second, he's the guy who would immediately cut the prison population in half, so complaining that in certain circumstances, where corrupt legislators, prisons, and judges collude, you could end up with a few extra prisoners, seems to be missing the forest for the trees.

I'd be interested in you going into more detail on this. I don't venture into this forum much, but people seem to respect you. And this posts seems crazy, so I'd like to know what I'm missing.1) I assume the private prisons would receive their revenue from government funding. If not, just a quick explanation on how they get funded will answer this question. If not - as Cane points out, the prisons will be incentivized to keep prisoners in for as long as possible. More time = more funding. I have no idea how that interest can only be realized if the government is too big. Almost the opposite - a 'bigger' government would have more supervising of the prison stays, meaning the length of stays would be more closely aligned with the law, and not financial interest. Unless you mean a 'big' government in terms of smaller police forces...? I hope you're not pretending it would require "corrupt legislators, prisons, and judges collude" to lengthen prison stays. It's the free market. Stays would get longer if the people who were profiting from longer stays were a significant part of the decision. How much they would get longer is a fair question, but there's no doubt they would.2) How would he cut the prison population in half? This may have been discussed elsewhere, but my time is just slightly too valuable to read Mercury's political posts. For this one, a quick answer will amend my ignorance. I can raise any further questions if I have them.

[CaneBrain]

mrdannyg, on Friday, May 6th, 2011, 1:49 PM, said:

I'd be interested in you going into more detail on this. I don't venture into this forum much, but people seem to respect you. And this posts seems crazy, so I'd like to know what I'm missing.1) I assume the private prisons would receive their revenue from government funding. If not, just a quick explanation on how they get funded will answer this question. If not - as Cane points out, the prisons will be incentivized to keep prisoners in for as long as possible. More time = more funding. I have no idea how that interest can only be realized if the government is too big. Almost the opposite - a 'bigger' government would have more supervising of the prison stays, meaning the length of stays would be more closely aligned with the law, and not financial interest. Unless you mean a 'big' government in terms of smaller police forces...? I hope you're not pretending it would require "corrupt legislators, prisons, and judges collude" to lengthen prison stays. It's the free market. Stays would get longer if the people who were profiting from longer stays were a significant part of the decision. How much they would get longer is a fair question, but there's no doubt they would.2) How would he cut the prison population in half? This may have been discussed elsewhere, but my time is just slightly too valuable to read Mercury's political posts. For this one, a quick answer will amend my ignorance. I can raise any further questions if I have them.

I'll let Henry answer #1 (because I would like to hear what he has to say).#2 is easy, Gary Johnson believes in a complete revamp of how we handle drug crime----under his drug policies we would be putting far, far less people in jail for drug crimes.