Slashdot Mirror


CDC: 1 In 10 Adult Deaths In US Caused By Excessive Drinking

An anonymous reader writes: According to new research from the CDC, 9.8% of deaths in working-age adults (22-64 years old) in the U.S. from 2006 to 2010 were "attributable to excessive drinking." This makes excessive drinking the fourth leading cause of preventable death in the U.S. The study included deaths from medical conditions, such as liver disease and alcohol-induced strokes, as well as deaths from alcohol-related events, like car accidents, homicides, and fall injuries. However, it did not account for cases where excessive alcohol consumption was a factor in contracting conditions like AIDS, pneumonia, and tuberculosis, so the count may actually be higher. Many western states with low population spread out over a large area showed the highest alcohol-related death rates, while states from the east coast and the midwest tended to be on the lower end of the spectrum. The study also tracked years of life lost, which is higher for alcohol-related deaths than for most other types of death. Researcher Robert Brewer said, "One of the issues with alcohol that is particularly tragic is the extent to which it gets people in the prime of their lives."

454 comments

  1. So....far more than guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Guess we better reinstate prohibition. Oh and it must cause health problems, so it needs banning like soda too. Oh yeah, lets not forget "for the children"

    1. Re:So....far more than guns by thaylin · · Score: 2

      Well to be fair, and I am 100% pro gun, that is a false equivalency. Typically those killed by guns are not the gun owner itself, where as those killed by alcohol, soda and the like is are the drinkers themselves.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    2. Re:So....far more than guns by Your.Master · · Score: 0

      Drinking and driving was one of the big causes in here, and it is illegal.

      Aside from drunk driving, drinking is more likely to end in killing yourself. I think gun deaths are more likely to kill other people (aside from suicide, which I would personally exclude from gun violence statistics, but I know is a large number). Nobody talks about restricting access to guns for your personal health.

      Also, the number of people who drink is much higher than the number who have guns handy, so this statistic doesn't really inform whether the threat of gun violence is or is not more deserving of regulation than the thread of excessive drinking deaths. *Also* guns are useful for intimidation in robberies and the like in a way that booze is not -- the negative effect of guns is not just death but also the imminent and credible threat of death. Of course on the flip side there are social ills associated with alcohol that are not generally deadly.

      The comparison to pop is a little more sensible. However, even the "sugary drinks" ban people were talking about was nothing like prohibition -- it essentially banned selling in a large cup, without banning bottomless refills. I still think it wasn't quite right, but you're the only one talking about blanket bans. Or children, for that matter.

      I am not making any statement on gun control (not derailing an article about drinking deaths) other than that there isn't a comparison that's both simple and reasonable between gun control and prohibition.

    3. Re:So....far more than guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      False. The majority of gun deaths in the US are suicide. Didn't you know that? Seriously?

    4. Re:So....far more than guns by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Informative

      Whoa. Hold your horses there pal. They are most likely to be the gun owner(and their immediate family). It gets pretty extreme in some specific measurable cases. People like to frame it in terms of murder, since that appeals to more peoples' moral systems more directly. But suicide is the single biggest measurable concern vis-a-vis firearms.

      For example: for the first year after purchasing your first handgun, that's the single most likely cause of death in your life, approaching almost 50% of deaths.

      I feel like it would be extraordinarily intellectually dishonest of me to accept handguns as public health issue, and not alcohol. They are both serious concerns and need to be acknowledged as they are, not stewed in pots of rhetoric.

    5. Re:So....far more than guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typically it's the family / love interest of the gun owner, actually. More often than anyone "else" getting shot.

    6. Re:So....far more than guns by knightghost · · Score: 0

      Blaming firearms for suicide is blaming firearms for mental illness. Guns are a tool, nothing more, nothing less. Tools don't instigate anything. Going down that blame road does a severe disservice to what can actually help people in distress.

    7. Re:So....far more than guns by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Tools for death cause death in exactly the same way that tools for construction cause construction:

      It wasn't nearly as easy without them, and we know how much firearm prevalence increases suicide prevalence. The two variables are actually related, and the disconnect you allege is purely hypothetical, and isn't worth discussing in a reality with measurable effects.

      Naturally, no one is claiming suicide is a single variable event, but firearm ownership is an actual major variable.

    8. Re:So....far more than guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      " Tools don't instigate anything. " Having _this_ tool (handguns) increases the likelihood of things being instigated that lead to the death of a loved one, statistics show.

      Your rhetorical position makes common sense and I agree, but when you look at the statistics you see it does actually have a very strong correlation.

      (And I'm a gun owner all my adult life, so there's that.)

    9. Re:So....far more than guns by RobbieCrash · · Score: 2

      The comment isn't blaming the guns for the suicide. It's stating the fact that if you buy a gun, you are likely to use it to kill yourself.

      --
      Keep on knockin'
      https://robbiecrash.me
    10. Re:So....far more than guns by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Are there major healthcare costs associated with suicide by handgun? If someone wants to kill themselves, how is it society's concern?

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    11. Re:So....far more than guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Blaming firearms for suicide is blaming firearms for mental illness. Guns are a tool, nothing more, nothing less. Tools don't instigate anything. Going down that blame road does a severe disservice to what can actually help people in distress.

      Cigarettes are a tool. Highly addictive drugs are a tool. Cars are a tool. Just because something is a tool does not mean it should be immune to regulation and have limited access.

      The amount of regulation and consideration is driven by the stats. And, as illustrated by the parent, some of the stats surrounding gun ownership is pretty grim. Not all of them mind you (not arguing that). But with that in mind, knightghost's reasoning is perfectly valid.

    12. Re:So....far more than guns by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Because people have responsibilities. Or do you think that orphans never happen from suicides? Or that there isn't also a risk to others in that household? I mean, come on.

      We don't live in the disconnected libertarian fantasy land, where no one affects anyone else.

    13. Re:So....far more than guns by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      Reducing alcohol-related (or soda-related) deaths simply spreads certain death among other factors. Some other cause will take it's place as the 4th leader. What's the point? Trying to get accidents and natural causes to the top, doesn't seem like a worthy goal for humanity, to me.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    14. Re:So....far more than guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tools for death cause death in exactly the same way that tools for construction cause construction:

      It wasn't nearly as easy without them, and we know how much firearm prevalence increases suicide prevalence. The two variables are actually related, and the disconnect you allege is purely hypothetical, and isn't worth discussing in a reality with measurable effects.

      Naturally, no one is claiming suicide is a single variable event, but firearm ownership is an actual major variable.

      What you say and the whole alcohol death thing, all of it sounds like natural selection to me.

      The only part i have a problem with is when a drunk driver kills a responsible adult. and when a street thug uses a gun to victimize someone that obeys the laws and so wasn't allowed to carry their own.

      all the rest of it is natural selection. do not interfere. i know it seems sometimes like you really should interfere, but it is unwise and has never ended well. resist the temptation to preserve stupid. stupid spreads and multiplies. it contains itself if not actively preserved.

    15. Re:So....far more than guns by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1, Troll

      Okay.

      Point the first, you're an idiot.

      I acknowledged full well that suicide is multivariate. Japan has a bit more of those other variables. Suddenly switching to simplistic 1 dimensional analysis in order to cherry pick a one nation datapoint that suits your case isn't clever argumentation. It's intentional duplicitousness. Don't be that guy. Being that guy makes you an idiot.

      Point the second, one can minimize the effect of these other variables by analyzing within populations to control for other known variables. This is called science.

      Here is one such study. There are more if you can invent any variables you think need to be more adequately controlled for.

      Point the third, no matter what the data say about the relationships, none of that calls for a specific course of action, and contesting relatively reasonable facts doesn't actually help the case you want to make, which is almost certainly about what kind of gun control is acceptable. It just helps you look ill-informed.

    16. Re:So....far more than guns by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 1

      >Blaming firearms for suicide is blaming firearms for mental illness

      No it's not, though the gun-fondlers will make that claim. Guns make suicide much too easy, which denies these people a chance to recover from their depression.

    17. Re:So....far more than guns by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For example: for the first year after purchasing your first handgun, that's the single most likely cause of death in your life, approaching almost 50% of deaths.

      ...which indicates that the gun was bought specifically for that purpose in those 50% of handgun suicide deaths. It wasn't the other way around - people didn't die because they happened to have bought a handgun, which is the way you phrased it. They wanted to die, so they bought a handgun. I've owned my handgun for over 20 years, and I've not wanted to die, hence I'm not dead by it.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    18. Re:So....far more than guns by sribe · · Score: 2

      And don't give me that "fuh fuh culture fuh fuh" crap, we're talking pure statistics here...

      Actually, no they are not pure at all. They are contaminated with cultural interpretation. For instance, and my specific point, Japan's patriarchal society counts things very differently than we in the west do. When a stressed-out man comes home, kills his wife and two children, then himself, we call that a "murder-suicide" and count 3 murders + 1 suicide. In Japan they call it "familial suicide" and count it as 4 suicides.

    19. Re:So....far more than guns by causality · · Score: 1

      The amount of regulation and consideration is driven by who can write the best, most emotional propaganda and purchase the finest access to mass media while operating through various PR firms and front groups to make it less obvious that they are doing so.

      Fixed that for you. It's been that way for a long time, ever since Sigmund Freud's nephew decided that calling propaganda "public relations" was much more euphemistic than Woodrow Wilson and Walter Lippmann's term for it which was "manufactured consent".

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    20. Re:So....far more than guns by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      "Natural selection" on people who already have children.

      Good job.

      And that's giving you the absurd notion that because natural selection is the natural state of things, it's something we should strive for.

    21. Re:So....far more than guns by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      For example: for the first year after purchasing your first handgun, that's the single most likely cause of death in your life, approaching almost 50% of deaths.

      Wouldn't that be the cart leading the horse? If you're committing suicide with a gun in 'under a year' my first thought is that there's a very good chance you bought the gun specifically contemplating suicide.

      The suicide problem is huge, and we're not actually losing all that many young adults to anything else. Disease is down, car fatalities are down, other accidental deaths are down, etc...

      I feel like it would be extraordinarily intellectually dishonest of me to accept handguns as public health issue, and not alcohol. They are both serious concerns and need to be acknowledged as they are, not stewed in pots of rhetoric.

      I agree. Heck, my proposals of fixing schools and our mental healthcare system would actually address suicide as well as violence and other crimes, so bonus.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    22. Re:So....far more than guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have your causes and effects mixed up. If your suicidal that gives you cause to buy a gun. Not the other way around.

    23. Re:So....far more than guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For example: for the first year after purchasing your first handgun, that's the single most likely cause of death in your life, approaching almost 50% of deaths.

      I feel like it would be extraordinarily intellectually dishonest of me to accept handguns as public health issue, and not alcohol. They are both serious concerns and need to be acknowledged as they are, not stewed in pots of rhetoric.

      If someone purchases a gun to commit suicide, the gun did not cause the suicide.

    24. Re:So....far more than guns by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1, Troll

      Okay.

      Point the first, you're an idiot.

      ... and you just destroyed any point you might have been about to make by opening up with an ad hominem.

      I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of your post.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    25. Re:So....far more than guns by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      When a stressed-out man comes home, kills his wife and two children, then himself, we call that a "murder-suicide" and count 3 murders + 1 suicide. In Japan they call it "familial suicide" and count it as 4 suicides.

      Do you have any reference source for this claim?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    26. Re:So....far more than guns by i+kan+reed · · Score: 0, Troll

      "You called me stupid when I was being stupid, and I mistook identifying that fact as an ad-hominemm argument, and then I could continue to wallow in the ignorance that causes me to be stupid in the first place".

      Congratulations, Mr. Sensitive pants.

      You also don't know what an ad-hominem argument is. Look it up, sometime.

    27. Re:So....far more than guns by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Simply not true.

      Suicidal ideation isn't tied to handgun purchases. That's also been measured.

    28. Re:So....far more than guns by causality · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I am not making any statement on gun control (not derailing an article about drinking deaths) other than that there isn't a comparison that's both simple and reasonable between gun control and prohibition.

      The one thing they both have absolutely in common: the implicit assumption that inanimate objects are the cause of social problems, and the belief that controlling those inanimate objects will magically make social problems go away. Perhaps you can see how childish this viewpoint is?

      The way I see it, the underlying cause of the social problems is a form of energy. It doesn't ever really go away, it just changes form. Guns and booze happen to be powerful, readily available tools allowing this energy to express itself. It can't be done, but if you somehow could make absolutely 100% of all guns and booze disappear overnight, you would find that this energy will move on to the next most convenient methods of expressing itself. Perhaps stabbings and abuse of some other drug would rise. Perhaps some other, unforeseen methods would emerge.

      What no one really seems interested in doing is really understanding the underlying causes for why people want to abuse alcohol instead of using it responsibly, why people want to shoot either themselves or others absent provocation, and what can be done to transform this energy into something better. Actually understanding and beginning to change this would start with a complete restructuring of governments, corporations, educational institutions, and other institutions to make them adhere to their true purposes and to treat people like human beings rather than automatons. Where it would end, I couldn't tell you.

      The real obstacle is that no one with the power to move in that direction has any incentive to do it: the current model is too profitable for them. But blaming our problems on objects that have no volition and no desire of their own certainly makes for a great distraction! It lets us waste time debating frivolous non-solutions with no hope of convincing "the opposition" of anything, meanwhile we avoid all these uncomfortable questions about the way we live, whom that serves, and precisely how we were taught to live that way.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    29. Re:So....far more than guns by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Informative

      Let's reinforce this with some related data:

      here we go

    30. Re:So....far more than guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That assumes that it is difficult to commit suicide without this specific tool. There are a lot easier, more convenient & more pleasant ways of killing yourself without a firearm. It is simply a current cultural view that people see firearms as a preferable method. Just look at the suicide rates by country, despite having amongst the highest rates of firearm ownership on the planet the US falls in 33rd for suicide, some of the countries with the highest rates of suicide are also HIGHLY restrictive regarding firearm ownership.

    31. Re:So....far more than guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes because taking a bunch of pills or hanging yourself is SOOOOOO hard. If guns disappeared from this planet suicide rates would most certainly stay the same because people with issues would still have issues. The ease of the tool doesn't matter. People that are depressed to the point of thinking about suicide will find a way. Think about it. You think that putting a gun in your mouth and pulling the trigger is easy? Whenever I hear of a person shooting themselves I think about how they could do that without thinking of their families or the possibility that they survive it to be honorably disfigured or worse. You can say that about any form a person would take to accomplish that, but getting to that point isn't easy in any way and the tool doesn't make it any easier.

    32. Re:So....far more than guns by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      How about data to support the notion I'm presenting

      Non-firearm suicides are pretty consistent with high and low gun ownership, but firearm assisted suicide goes waaaaaaaaaaay the fuck up.

    33. Re:So....far more than guns by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Your hypothesis doesn't explain the available data

      I know, I know, reusing the same data for everyone in this thread, but they all seem to be making the same argument that is strictly hypothetical, and doesn't account for real-world data.

    34. Re:So....far more than guns by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

      So, the problem is that it's too easy for people to do what they want to do, and they are thus subject to the injustice of actually doing what they want to do?

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    35. Re:So....far more than guns by Bengie · · Score: 1

      It costs society A LOT of directly money plus opportunity costs for each child that reaches adulthood, and it takes a long time for that adult to pay back their debt to society.

      Children are a drain on society, they cost parents money and the contribute no immediately value. They're an investment. It's like putting money into the stock market, then all of it disappears. It would be nice to at least get back the initial investment.

    36. Re:So....far more than guns by dmullenaux · · Score: 1

      Tools for death cause death in exactly the same way that tools for construction cause construction:

      What about construction tools used for death? http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-...

    37. Re:So....far more than guns by losfromla · · Score: 1

      You're so right, states with the highest rates of gun ownership have 60% more suicides total and 4-10x the gun suicide rate. Interesting data, I was really not aware.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    38. Re:So....far more than guns by losfromla · · Score: 1

      Meant to post here:
      You're so right, states with the highest rates of gun ownership have 60% more suicides total and 4-10x the gun suicide rate. Interesting data, I was really not aware.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    39. Re:So....far more than guns by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      And if I were trying assert that other things can't cause deaths, that would be an astounding counter-argument.

      Because I'd be pretty dumb to argue that. Because it's a stupid point.

    40. Re:So....far more than guns by CanHasDIY · · Score: 0

      Hey, fuck you and the high horse you rode in on, buddy. This ain't third grade, "you're a poo-poo head" is no longer a valid basis for argument.

      Now, if you don't mind, the grown-ups are trying to have a conversation. Go back to screaming obscenities on CoD in your mother's basement, like a good little troll.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    41. Re:So....far more than guns by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

      So, are you claiming that an individual 'owes' society a certain debt? Are we keeping track of that? Is there a countdown to when ending my life is my own business? About what age are you going to actually become 'your own man'? If I cure a disease, can I kill myself right after? If I'm never a net contribution to society, am I perpetually in debt and thus never able to commit suicide, or am I never getting out of that hole, and thus free to kill myself at any time?

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    42. Re:So....far more than guns by i+kan+reed · · Score: 0

      "Having a grown up conversation" means letting utter bullshit that's intentially deceitful go uncalled out?

      Fuck that. All you had to do was not be a piece of shit misrepresenting what I said purposefully, and it wouldn't be called-for to call you an idiot.

      You were being an idiot and I'm not going to let that slide, just because it hurts your feelings. The degree to which you embrace ignorance as a virtue is always going to be a fuckton worse than a few well-deserved names.

    43. Re:So....far more than guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But each person can do as they please. I choose to drink alcohol in moderation and I choose to own guns. I am free to do both of those, as are you and anyone else in the country. If 1 in 10 people want to drink themselves to death that is 100% acceptable and OK by me.

    44. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      False. The majority of gun deaths in the US are suicide. Didn't you know that? Seriously?

      And Pew Research is typically full of bullshit.

      You didn't know that? Seriously?

      Even the "categories" it divides people into are weird, seemingly arbitrary groups, and it even does that based on a bizarre, non-scientific "survey" full of highly loaded questions.

      I used to have some respect for Pew, until I looked a bit more into their methodologies.

    45. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      To clarify my comment above:

      First, CDC has been expanding its activities beyond its Congressional mandate. It has no lawful business spending taxpayer dollars in this area.

      Second, CDC has been notoriously biased on precisely the subjects of guns, alcohol, and tobacco. Even courts have said so. Their figures are not credible. You might as well consider them a branch of the ATF.

      Third, PEW has also demonstrated bias in these areas. So when you pile bias on top of bias, you end up with very little credibility indeed.

      I would have to see the raw numbers CDC used for their "study" of this. I'm not disputing that the suicide figures are basically true. But I'm not going to accept them based on "Pew said CDC said so."

    46. Re:So....far more than guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The study forgot to include deaths in auto accidents while driving to a store/restaurant that sells/serves alcohol. Oh, and auto accidents where one or more of the vehicles is using an ethanol fuel. That aught to ratchet up the number more.

    47. Re:So....far more than guns by aceboomblain · · Score: 1

      I'm calling BS on those numbers. The problem with including "alcohol-related events, like car accidents" in the numbers is because an accident will be considered "alcohol related" if there were empty beer cans in the trunk, regardless of whether or not the driver was under the influence. This makes the numbers look much worse than they are in order to server the MADD agenda, which is a return to prohibition.

    48. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      They are most likely to be the gun owner(and their immediate family).

      This is a MYTH that was popularized by the mainstream press 40 years ago, and continued to spread.

      Department of Justice statistics, in the 70s, pointed out that victims of violent crime -- note: this is violent crime, most of which is NOT "gun" crime -- was perpetrated by someone who was known to the victim.

      Investigation into the matter turned up that in these figures, "known to" meant anybody the victim was known to have encountered before... like the guy who lives 3 blocks away who walks his dog past the house once every 2 weeks, or somebody seen a few times in the subway while waiting for the train to work. It did NOT mean a close friend, and it did NOT mean family (although those of course were also included).

      The next thing you know, you had politicians and press saying that violent crime like rape was mostly committed by friends and family members (false). THEN it morphed into "Most GUN victims are family members."

      And it's just not true. None of it. The fact is that the perpetrators of most violent crime are NOT "well known" to their victims, much less family. And that includes (but it is not exclusive to) guns. The very idea is a distortion of a distortion of a distortion.

    49. Re:So....far more than guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That data seems to be a bit cherry picked, They use 15 states to represent "High firearm ownership" and 5 states to represent "Low firearm ownership". The statistics also completely ignore poverty, 6 of the states for high firearm ownership in this "study" are in the top 10 for poverty, none in the low firearm ownership category are. Three of the states with low firearm ownership rates are in the top 10 for the least amount of poverty, only 1 (again out of 15 comparables) has such low poverty. Based on this if you want to stop suicide by firearm, focus on the decent paying jobs.

    50. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      The one thing they both have absolutely in common: the implicit assumption that inanimate objects are the cause of social problems, and the belief that controlling those inanimate objects will magically make social problems go away. Perhaps you can see how childish this viewpoint is?

      Obviously a lot of people don't. Otherwise, we would not have had continual attempts to create legislation to "protect people from themselves".

      We KNOW from history that Prohibition was a social, economic, and criminal disaster. We have absolutely NO reason to suspect that trying it again would work out any better. (Economic and criminal in that it drove honest businesses out of businesses, while criminal markets boomed.)

    51. Re:So....far more than guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So 30 seconds on Google would have saved you from looking like a loon and an asshat.
       
      Or are you hoping that by leaving data out instead of researching it yourself that people will just accept your word as fact since you "looked a bit more into their methodologies"?
       
      Funny how people like you can take the time to cite an organization to attempt to discredit someone else instead of cross referencing their data with a source you already proclaimed reputable without even seeing their data. Things like this really make me wonder... are you really that stupid, lazy and backwards or are you trying to enforce misdirection on the stupid, lazy and backward people?

    52. Re:So....far more than guns by sribe · · Score: 1

      Do you have any reference source for this claim?

      Directly, no. It has been way too long since I first learned this for me to remember where.

      But googling gets you this news article from today. Can you imagine any police or newspaper in North America, the EU or UK using the phrase "forced family suicide"???

    53. Re:So....far more than guns by Urkki · · Score: 1

      Guns make suicide much too easy, which denies these people a chance to recover from their depression.

      Well, guns are an effective suicide method yes, but I wouldn't say it's that easy. According to Wikipedia (and presumably the reference it gives, which I of course did not check), there's 10% chance it fails. But what's bad about doing it with a gun is, if it does fail, it'll likely leave the perp/victim maimed for life, unlike many other suicide methods, where failure is much less likely to result in any serious permanent injury.

      So I'd say, guns only seem an easy way for suicide. If people knew the chance of failure and considered the likely results of failure, it'd seem much less tempting way to go, even for one who has decided to do it.

    54. Re:So....far more than guns by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      And Pew Research is typically full of bullshit [people-press.org].

      Wow what a horrible research tool this is. They boil down some very complicated and typically nuanced issues into binary decisions. All outcomes from this are useless.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    55. Re:So....far more than guns by Entropius · · Score: 1

      What fraction of that 50% were suicides, and what fraction of those suicides would have killed themselves by another method were a firearm not available?

      In Washington DC, jumping in front of trains is the preferred method.

    56. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Maybe reading and understanding what my post actually said would have saved YOU from looking like an asshat.

      I've been following what CDC has been saying about these subjects since the 1980s.

    57. Re:So....far more than guns by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Interesting... Although, I'm pretty sure it's already been said, at this point, how variations in statistical reporting methods pretty much invalidate comparisons between nations. Probably municipalities, too, if we bothered to look hard enough.

      Which kind of invalidates my own point, which is fine - you actually made a concerted effort to prove your case, whereas that other guy responding to my post is just being flat out insulting, without offering any sort of empirical verification of their position. So, kudos to you for making a valid point and not being a jackass about it.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    58. Re:So....far more than guns by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      High bridges are magnets for suicidal people. Not only is death nearly guaranteed, it's nicely public and dramatic. Might even shut down a major route for a few hours. The Golden Gate Bridge has had problems with suicides ever since it was built. Authorities are finally taking some preventative measures, like adding netting so it's not quite so easy to throw yourself off. We have rails that make it difficult for cars to drive off the side, but human bodies slipped through the cracks, so to speak.

      If high bridges are so attractive as a means of suicide, it makes sense that a tool purposely built to kill would also be attractive.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    59. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of your post.

      Don't worry about it. This is pretty much the guy's typical mode of argument:

      First, he will spout mainstream (usually but not always "liberal") news propaganda as fact. Then if you disagree with him, he will then insult you, and link to the first things he finds on Google (or maybe it's Bing) that he thinks support his point.

      Then insult you again.

      And don't you dare swear at him or insult him back. Because then you're being "infantile".

      He's done it to me about 100 times now.

    60. Re:So....far more than guns by Sentrion · · Score: 1

      The underlying problem leading so many to commit suicide is the public health issue. But if I lived in a country where things are allowed to get so bad that I would want to off myself, I would prefer to have an effective tool like a firearm to do the job quickly. Forcing suicidal folks to leap off tall structures is terrifying, inhumane, and puts people below those structures at risk. It is the suicide equivalent of a back-alley coat hanger abortion.

      If we had legal and affordable suicide clinics that could do the job cleanly and properly, then we could dispense with the whole gun-suicide debate altogether. And in the clinical setting someone who is really just crying for help (most "attempted" suicides) could possibly receive help they need, such as counseling resources, help with finances, etc.

    61. Re:So....far more than guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      idiot

    62. Re:So....far more than guns by felrom · · Score: 1

      Nobody talks about restricting access to guns for your personal health.

      The CDC does. It spent much of the 80s and 90s putting out politically motivated research trying to whip people into a frenzy over the dangers of gun ownership.
      The VA does it too. It's been expanding its definitions of mentally defective, all the way to veterans only having slight sleeping problems from PTSD, in order to then prevent them from owning guns.
      Hell, not two days ago in Colorado a court upheld the state's 15-round magazine capacity limit under the pretense that it contributes to public safety, only a single thinly veiled step away from claiming it's for your health.

      Maybe you're not steeped in the gun rights fight that way I am every day, but that doesn't mean these things simply aren't happening.

    63. Re:So....far more than guns by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      Lonny Eachus went on a similar rant about that exact survey just last night. What a coincidence!

    64. Re:So....far more than guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, it's not just Pew Research; it's pretty much all such statistics. Polls and statistics are generally bullshit, and unless there's damn good reason, I just disregard them.

    65. Re:So....far more than guns by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Your hypothesis doesn't explain the available data

      I know, I know, reusing the same data for everyone in this thread, but they all seem to be making the same argument that is strictly hypothetical, and doesn't account for real-world data.

      None of these statistics take into account the rate of attempted suicides. That would certainly be a factor. Using a gun the first time you decide to try to kill yourself, you're much more likely to succeed because guns are so efficient. Taking pills or cutting yourself, or even driving your car into a tree, can land you in a hospital and the people around you realize you try to off yourself and you just might get the help you need to keep you from trying again.

      "He said suicide rates tend to be higher in states with higher gun ownership — not because gun owners are more likely to suffer from depression, but because guns are faster and deadlier than other methods such as drugs, carbon monoxide or hanging. People are more likely to survive an attempted overdose or even a hanging than they are a gun-shot wound."

      Also from the CDC: "There is one suicide for every 25 attempted suicides."

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    66. Re:So....far more than guns by felrom · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the world of fighting for gun rights, where among other things:

      "Children" killed by guns includes people up to age 35 in some studies.
      "School shootings" includes gang violence that just happens to take place close enough to a school.
      "People killed by an acquaintance with a gun" includes rival drug dealers who knew each other, one of which kills the other.
      "Victims of gun violence" include Tamerlan Tsarnaev.
      "Gun deaths" include suicides, lawful homicide (cop-on-criminal) and lawful self-defense (citizen-on-criminal).

      MADD and gun-grabbers have much in common when it comes to creative use of statistics.

    67. Re:So....far more than guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blaming alcohol for drinking-related deaths is blaming alcohol for dependency syndromes and mental illness. Alcohol is a beverage, nothing less. Drinks don't instigate anything. Going down that blame road does a severe disservice to thirsty people and teen keggers.

    68. Re:So....far more than guns by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      We don't live in the disconnected libertarian fantasy land, where no one affects anyone else.

      Nor do we live in a hive socialist fantasy land, where everyone happily does his duty at the direction of an all-knowing benevolent dictator.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    69. Re:So....far more than guns by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      They choose the data this way:

      They sorted the states by rate of firearm ownership. Then they divided them such that half the US population was represented in each group.

      That's not particularly "cherry-picked"

    70. Re:So....far more than guns by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Yea, he actually took this argument to another thread. So you can add "then he'll stalk you around Slashdot for having the audacity to contradict him" to the list of behaviors.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    71. Re:So....far more than guns by OutOnARock · · Score: 1

      So we should get rid of the Golden Gate Bridge as well?

      Because it makes suicide much too easy......even if they put up the steel suicide net people will figure out a way around it.

      If someone wants to kill themselves, they are going to do it regardless of the "tool" used....

    72. Re:So....far more than guns by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Um, okay?

      If this isn't just color and context, and is attempting to make the point that more success is somehow preferable, I'd only respond with the following point:

      It seems entirely reasonable, and it's worth noting that the majority of people who attempt suicide and survive say that they regretted it.

    73. Re:So....far more than guns by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      So, are you claiming that an individual 'owes' society a certain debt? Are we keeping track of that?

      Well your self-appointed masters are. It was, I believe, the State Department that came up with the figure of $7.2 million as the value to the US for each citizen. I can't find the reference though.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    74. Re:So....far more than guns by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      High bridges are magnets for suicidal people. Not only is death nearly guaranteed, it's nicely public and dramatic. Might even shut down a major route for a few hours. The Golden Gate Bridge has had problems with suicides ever since it was built. Authorities are finally taking some preventative measures, like adding netting so it's not quite so easy to throw yourself off. We have rails that make it difficult for cars to drive off the side, but human bodies slipped through the cracks, so to speak.

      I read about that; probably a good idea, too, not because of the loss of life, but because of the loss of tax dollars wasted on shutting down roads, cleaning up corpses, et al.

      If high bridges are so attractive as a means of suicide, it makes sense that a tool purposely built to kill would also be attractive.

      Nope; think, if a tool was built for a purpose, but sucked at it, would you still use it? Or would you use a different tool, made for a different purpose, but more effective for the job at hand?

      No, suicidal people are attracted to 'tools' that are effective at killing people without causing much pain - guns, buildings, pills, rope, et. al.

      FWIW, if all the guns in the world magically disappeared tomorrow, people would still commit suicide; thus, guns are not the problem, situations that make people suicidal are. I would prefer if we stopped wasting time chasing unicorns and started focusing on the real causes.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    75. Re:So....far more than guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well you could start by making pot legal and shutting the fuck app alkie faggot.

    76. Re:So....far more than guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe reading and understanding what my post actually said would have saved YOU from looking like an asshat.

      I've been following what CDC has been saying about these subjects since the 1980s.
       
      Accept that I don't look like an asshat from your own words you admit to not looking into this:
       
        I would have to see the raw numbers CDC used for their "study" of this. I'm not disputing that the suicide figures are basically true. But I'm not going to accept them based on "Pew said CDC said so."
       
      And this completes the point, you said you wouldn't accept Pew's numbers based on the "CDC said so" but you claim that you would have to see the CDCs raw numbers but you also have claimed to have been in the know on this for roughly 30 years.... Um, what?
       
      Face it, you came along to spread some kind of skepticism but brought nothing to the table. The data has been provided but you make it seem like you either don't know the data even though you claim you follow the ultimate source of said data or that data isn't good enough for you either. Either way, you lose. Thanks for playing.

    77. Re:So....far more than guns by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're so right, states with the highest rates of gun ownership have 60% more suicides total and 4-10x the gun suicide rate. Interesting data, I was really not aware.

      Yeah, but now look at the states in question and tell me what else they have in common. Seems to me like people who live in those states also want to kill themselves more often. And I can see why.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    78. Re:So....far more than guns by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The comment isn't blaming the guns for the suicide. It's stating the fact that if you buy a gun, you are likely to use it to kill yourself.

      Wait, what? What percentage of gun owners commits gun suicide again? It seems more likely that if you want to use a gun to kill yourself, you will buy one.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    79. Re:So....far more than guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get off your soap box dude. Can't you let a joke slide?

    80. Re:So....far more than guns by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm hurt.

      No wait, it's not actually a big deal. You're an anonymous stranger on the internet.

      Also, justify your criticism. Having a point helps a lot if you're trying to reprimand someone for doing something awful.

    81. Re:So....far more than guns by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      No.

      You tell me what you think they have in common.

        If we're criticizing the lack of controls, it helps to take those uncontrolled variables, and study in more depth. Chances are they have and the resulting data doesn't support your position, but if you want the benefit of the doubt, you should state an affirmative position of some kind.

    82. Re:So....far more than guns by sribe · · Score: 1

      Interesting... Although, I'm pretty sure it's already been said, at this point, how variations in statistical reporting methods pretty much invalidate comparisons between nations. Probably municipalities, too, if we bothered to look hard enough.

      I would hope that municipalities would at least be pretty comparable. But this is still something to check to the extent one can. Especially since from time to time a local scandal emerges when police get caught falsifying crime statistics.

      So, kudos to you for making a valid point and not being a jackass about it.

      Well, your point to which I responded, although wrong in my opinion, was reasonable. One does not necessarily expect that some other culture's understanding of "suicide" and "homicide" could possibly be so very different. Believe me, my posting history here has plenty of flat-out insulting posts with no sort of justification at all. The difference is, I'm a jackass to dumbasses ;-)

    83. Re:So....far more than guns by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

      Because people have responsibilities. Or do you think that orphans never happen from suicides? Or that there isn't also a risk to others in that household? I mean, come on.

      There are countless children that never met their father even though he is alive and well somewhere. Countless more that have slight recollections of a parent from when they were young and before they left their lives. People don't follow through on their responsibilities and you can't force someone to raise their children properly. Is it really worse for a child to be orphaned because their parent killed themself with a gun, than to be orphaned because their parent just left?

    84. Re:So....far more than guns by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      It would help if you weren't posting things that people have frequently stated to me as honest opinions as "jokes".

    85. Re:So....far more than guns by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      Except for all of those people killed by drunk drivers...

    86. Re:So....far more than guns by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You tell me what you think they have in common.

      They are red states with shitty people, shitty terrain, and shitty climate leading to low population density. Of course those people are depressed. They live in a hole nobody else wants to live in. It would be surprising if they weren't killing themselves. And since a gun is the easiest way to kill yourself, it would be surprising if they weren't buying guns to do it. Gun suicide is most common in the first year after purchase, that tells me that suicide is driving gun sales, rather than the other way around.

      There are reasons why the majority of the country lives in a temperate region near a coast, and it's not coincidental that people who don't commit suicide more often.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    87. Re:So....far more than guns by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

      I think the general idea is that if accidents and natural causes were the top causes of death, people would be living longer before dying. Yes, death is certain, but it comes a lot sooner the worse your behavior is.

    88. Re:So....far more than guns by Meyaht · · Score: 1

      Tools for death cause death in exactly the same way that tools for construction cause construction:

      Well said.

      --
      I believe in karma, which is why, when I do something bad to people, I assume they deserve it.
    89. Re:So....far more than guns by Meyaht · · Score: 1

      what about death used for construction? http://wallpoper.com/images/00...

      --
      I believe in karma, which is why, when I do something bad to people, I assume they deserve it.
    90. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Wow! Links to this survey were posted on Twitter last night, and somebody actually discussed it? Amazing!

      Is it coincidence that 2 people who are science-minded might come to the same conclusions when shown this same information? It's not possible that I follow some of the same people on Twitter that you do?

      So, tell me: do you think it was conspiracy that Lois Lerner's hard drive was "recycled"? Or was it "coincidence"?

      Is it "conspiracy" that USHCN data over the years has progressively shown the past to get colder and recent years warmer than the actual historical station data says? Or are these progressive adjustments mere "coincidence"?

      I am curious about your interpretation of what is coincidence and what isn't.

    91. Re:So....far more than guns by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      That's the value, not the debt accrued.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    92. Re:So....far more than guns by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      It seems more likely that if you want to use a gun to kill yourself, you will buy one.

      You've had a shit day at the office, so you set off for the gun store, and on the way there you start to calm down, and there's a nice sunset so you turn round and go home, have a few beers and fall asleep. Then in the morning you go "shit, what was I thinking?"

      or

      You've had a shit day at the office, so you pull the gun out from under the pillow and shoot yourself with it.

      Which is better? Which is more likely?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    93. Re:So....far more than guns by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      Maybe: Guns don't cause suicide; intent to commit suicide causes (or influences) buying a gun which makes it easier.

    94. Re:So....far more than guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it does. Tools should all be unregulated. Harmful behavior against others should be regulated. Unless you're a statist. then... carry on ruining the world.

    95. Re:So....far more than guns by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      Or maybe that's getting the reasoning backwards. If you're thinking of killing yourself, then you go buy a gun to make it easier.

    96. Re:So....far more than guns by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Okay, I think this one may be debunked, on the grounds of the lifelong suicide risk direct correlation to firearm ownership.

      But rather than dig that one study I remember reading that addresses that particular thing, I think I'd prefer to point out that:

      Hawaii is the hottest average temperature and is in those low suicide states.

      Alaska is the coldest average temperature and is coastal and among the high suicide states.

      Wisconsin and North Carolina aren't traditionally "super red" voting states either. The aspects you're casting as defining are kinda a stretch. I mean, if you insist we examine this hypothesis, we can, but firearm-ownership to firearm-suicide is the much more natural causative connection to make.

    97. Re:So....far more than guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you recommend restricting the rights of all Americans.... Because of orphans?

    98. Re:So....far more than guns by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Which is more likely?

      Most suicide is premeditated, even though two-thirds of suicides are committed by firearm. So it is in fact more likely that they buy the gun because they're thinking about committing suicide, even if they aren't honest about that motivation.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    99. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Accept that I don't look like an asshat from your own words you admit to not looking into this:

      Not even close. What I said was (paraphrase): "Don't expect me to believe from the evidence you've shown me.

      YOU, then, basically called me an asshat for not looking it up. Well, guess what? I have. That still doesn't change the fact that the evidence GP gave me was not very credible.

      And this completes the point, you said you wouldn't accept Pew's numbers based on the "CDC said so" but you claim that you would have to see the CDCs raw numbers but you also have claimed to have been in the know on this for roughly 30 years.... Um, what?

      And this doesn't complete any point, because the point remains that YOU were being an asshat for calling me out for something I never said. So just to be clear: that isn't what I said. I said, in plain English, that I would not accept it based on "Pew said CDC said..."

      Face it, you came along to spread some kind of skepticism but brought nothing to the table.

      What I said was that it wasn't a good enough standard of evidence. For ME. If you want to accept it, go right ahead, but get off my ass.

      The data has been provided

      THIRD-HAND, by sources that lacked credibility. Which I pointed out. I am not obligated to follow links to links to links before I make that observation.

    100. Re:So....far more than guns by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I said shitty weather, not hot.

      It's more natural to assume that suicidal tendencies cause gun ownership than the other way around given that two-thirds of suicides in the USA are by gun, but the majority of suicides are still premeditated. People don't tend to just come home and shoot themselves. They think about it for a while first, then their biases seem confirmed (or whatever) and then they off themselves when they're at a low point. Or sadly, possibly a high point.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    101. Re:So....far more than guns by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      It might be a romantic coincidence that Jane and Lonny Eachus are both Sky Dragon Slayers, 9/11 Truthers, and Obama Birthers who deny the existence of dark matter/energy and dislike the word homophobe. Jane isn't a lesbian, Lonny Eachus isn't gay, and both Jane and Lonny Eachus have ferrets and talk about asshole diameter. So if you two lovebirds aren't already hooking up, you really should!

    102. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      And just so you get the point: Pew linked to a CDC page which in turn said they had gotten their data from yet a third source, and as it turns out I'd seen that data from that third source before.

      So I repeat: third-hand evidence filtered through parties that are known to lack credibility, especially in these particular topics, is a pretty shitty standard of evidence to ask me to accept.

      And YOU should accept that, because it's right in front of your face.

    103. Re:So....far more than guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The system is perfect. It's the people who are wrong."

      The above attitude is precisely what produces things like prohibitionist movements and the perceived need for gun control. The system that we have in this country produces conditions which are conducive to violence and despair. The way we live and the way we work is practically designed to generate misery and it's becoming increasingly difficult for ordinary folk to just fend for themselves, much less attain any kind of respectable, secure lifestyle. Attitudes also have a lot to do with that, but what do you expect in a culture like this? A culture where people are explicitly taught to not think for themselves, to be passive, to alienate themselves, and to surrender their locus of control to outside forces real and imagined, is destined to produce helpless individuals and a helpless society. Yet we're supposed to believe that these are merely intractable human problems, and aside from changing humanity at its core and essentially redefining what 'human' is, there is no way that we can ever be rid of these social ills. So, instead of working through our problems, we work around them by restricting more and more what those people can and can not do, and inventing more and more placebos that do not work. This strangulating hell of 'progress' is nothing like the liberating forces envisioned in the past which acknowledged that societal systems should and must work for, not in spite of, the masses, and that existing human beings were worthy of a better society and not the reason that a better society can not or should not exist.

      Misanthropy is a fundamental constituent of contemporary American society and the way that it is presently structured.

    104. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Again, don't feel bad. I've had someone "stalking" my comments for years now. He also revealed himself to have been using sock-puppet accounts to comment (even after I called him out on it several times!). And even that is not all. He tried to impersonate me here on Slashdot. I got that nipped in the bud though.

      I'm just calmly keeping track of it all.

    105. Re:So....far more than guns by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      "Shitty weather" is not objective. You can't control for something where the definition can be reversed at the drop of a hat.

      And to further question this premise, why are non-firearm suicides relatively consistent under this model? Is there something about "shitty weather" that makes people want to swallow a bullet instead of overdose?

    106. Re:So....far more than guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For example: for the first year after purchasing your first handgun, that's the single most likely cause of death in your life, approaching almost 50% of deaths.

      I'm sure the same could be said for riding motorcycles. Hell... probably driving a car too for that matter

      I'm only guessing, but out of people who started riding motorcycles or driving cars within a year from their deaths, my WILD GUESS is fatal car/motorcycle accident is the first most common cause of death for those people.

    107. Re:So....far more than guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Homogenized behavior would be a BAD THING (tm) for Humanity (as shown by some fossil records). Competition,mutation, evolutionary diversity is important in unexpected and unpredictable ways.

    108. Re:So....far more than guns by Goody · · Score: 1

      Any analogy with guns and gun control would only be valid if someone could buy a beer, point it at you, and make you die from alcoholism.

      --
      Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
    109. Re:So....far more than guns by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      "Shitty weather" is not objective. You can't control for something where the definition can be reversed at the drop of a hat.

      No hat is involved. There's an ideal for human occupation, anything outside of it is suboptimal and if it's very far outside then it's shitty.

      And to further question this premise, why are non-firearm suicides relatively consistent under this model? Is there something about "shitty weather" that makes people want to swallow a bullet instead of overdose?

      No, it leads to premeditated suicide, and the firearm is the preferred tool for that. Used to be gas ovens. Will be again if there's no guns.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    110. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      It might be a romantic coincidence that Jane and Lonny Eachus are both Sky Dragon Slayers, 9/11 Truthers, and Obama Birthers who deny the existence of dark matter/energy and dislike the word homophobe. Jane isn't a lesbian, Lonny Eachus isn't gay, and both Jane and Lonny Eachus have ferrets and talk about asshole diameter. So if you two lovebirds aren't already hooking up, you really should!

      Really? I have a ferret?

      But leaving that aside... I have warned you before: you really ought to be careful what you say about people, because if it turns out that you have made a mistake, you could be creating all kinds of trouble for yourself.

      But maybe more to the point, I have said this before, too: I have to wonder why you care. This behavior seems a bit beyond normal, and well into obsession to me. I mean, I've found out that you have been writing about me and my Slashdot comments FOR YEARS.

      I don't think very many people here would consider that normal.

    111. Re:So....far more than guns by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Alright, we're getting somewhere on testing your alternative hypothesis here.

      Question the first:
      What is "ideal for human occupation" mean? Is there some kind of specific effects weather has on a human being that can help classify it as ideal/not. Please note that we CANNOT use suicide for firearm ownership for this test, since the null hypothesis asserts their relevance as an independent variable.

      Question the second:
      What makes something "far" outside those bounds?

      Bear in mind, now, that any test we do is going to incorporate at least one transitional variable, as we go from the notion of ideal, to the factors that create it to suicide rates. This will lower the statistical significance of our test, but since you're saying it accounts for a 100% difference, that should shine through.

    112. Re:So....far more than guns by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1
      Yes, suicide with dependent children would be irresponsible. However, that's mostly because it is child abandonment in addition to suicide. Furthermore, suicide by firearm is a method disproportionately used by men, who are typically not the primary homemakers. Not saying it doesn't happen, but we don't have an endemic of orphans made from suicide by firearms.

      We don't live in the disconnected libertarian fantasy land, where no one affects anyone else.

      No, but we do live in a world that will still function in our absence, and we generally value the choice and freedom of individuals outside of causing direct harm to others. I would consider it immoral to demand that someone live against their own will.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    113. Re:So....far more than guns by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Again, don't feel bad.

      Oh, I don't. Personally, I find it a bit flattering that someone would find little ol' me important enough to stalk.

      At least, that's how I like to characterize it.

      I've had someone "stalking" my comments for years now... He tried to impersonate me here on Slashdot.

      lol, I had that happen too! Someone made an account as "CanHasDlY," using a lowercase L instead of a capital I. Best part: after I reported him and the admins dropped the banhammer, he went to the comments page of my personal website and left some slobbering-mad rant about how I'm an asshole.

      Fortunately, I've got a pretty... diverse sense of humor, so all this sort of crap just cracks me up.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    114. Re:So....far more than guns by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      What is "ideal for human occupation" mean?

      Well, I'm not going to look up the numbers, but the temps are between 70 and 80, the humidity falls in a certain range, certain amount of rainfall... visual environment not too sparse and not too cluttered, we have pretty good information on that too. I believe there's a pretty fairly well-accepted value for most of this stuff. You can probably define it by comfort, though, if that's easiest.

      What makes something "far" outside those bounds?

      That's a good question. Probably there is a physiological definition for that, too, already.

      You can't account for everything by climate, of course. I did mention the red state factor. The influence of politics cannot simply be ignored. However, I feel that is very much a chicken-and-egg situation. For example, why did Utah end up so homogenized? Answer, nobody else wanted it, and they were chased out of everywhere else. Their legacy is (obviously) still felt in Utah today.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    115. Re:So....far more than guns by profplump · · Score: 1

      Guns make people more effective at suicide than many other tools. Eliminating guns wouldn't solve the underlying problem, but it would move some numbers from the "suicide" column to the "attempted suicide" column, and at least some people see that as desirable.

    116. Re:So....far more than guns by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Believe me, my posting history here has plenty of flat-out insulting posts with no sort of justification at all. The difference is, I'm a jackass to dumbasses ;-)

      I shall allow this. Sometimes dumbassery warrants jackassery in response.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    117. Re:So....far more than guns by sycodon · · Score: 0

      So forget Pew. Just look at the latest propaganda from the gun grabbers. Not being able to win the argument of more guns = more crime, they are now turning to more guns = more suicides.

      Regardless, Drunk Drivers account for a large number of highway accidents and that definitely is the same as shooting someone.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    118. Re:So....far more than guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It wasn't the other way around - people didn't die because they happened to have bought a handgun" Prove it. The data isn't there.

    119. Re:So....far more than guns by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      Initially I only cared about debunking your endless flood of misinformation (more on that later) but here's another reason why I care:

      "... You are really pissing me off here because you are acting out the worst sexist stereotypes of women: completely irrational, expecting special treatment and unable to keep a single thought straight in your head for more than a couple of minutes and then getting hyper-emotional when called on it. You are the kind of woman who makes it that much harder for the rest of us women to be judged on our abilities instead of the same old, ugly stereotypes you've spent the day reinforcing right here. Shame on you." [Someone to Jane, 2012-09-09]

      That anonymous woman would probably be even more pissed off (justifiably so) to find out that Jane is actually a man posing as a woman on the internet. It's bad enough when actual women reinforce sexist female stereotypes, but it's utterly unacceptable for men to pose as women to make all women look bad.

      So why do I care? I care because I have a mother, a grandmother, aunts, sisters, and nieces who indirectly suffer because of the sexist stereotypes you're acting out. Please stop lying, and please try to find it in your heart to stop posing as a woman while reinforcing sexist female stereotypes.

    120. Re:So....far more than guns by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Every single region of the world frequently exceeds those temperature bounds by substantial margins. It's called summer and/or winter.

    121. Re:So....far more than guns by martas · · Score: 1

      Being suicidal is not always a persistent state. Suicide is often impulsive, so your claim is not completely valid.

    122. Re:So....far more than guns by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      Well there is the obvious loss of potential productivity that others have pointed out. More directly though is the counseling that various friends, family and aquantances(sp) will partake in. I suppose that there is a whole hosts of costs, both real and imagined for a suicide.

      I don't feel that any of that should outweigh a persons right to self determination as regards suicide. But I can see why a society would want to prevent it where possible.

    123. Re:So....far more than guns by Znork · · Score: 1

      It's not particularly hard anyway, it's just that the other high efficiency methods like trains, jumps and correctly done automotive suicide tend to cause more collateral damage. Guns are simply the considerate and responsible way to expedite a rescheduled exit. Hardly something to complain about.

    124. Re:So....far more than guns by labnet · · Score: 1

      You know you yanks looked incredibly brain washed from out the US of A.
      A gun is a tool that allows quick any easy DEATH. Such tools should be highly regulated.

      --
      46137
    125. Re:So....far more than guns by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Every single region of the world frequently exceeds those temperature bounds by substantial margins. It's called summer and/or winter.

      Yes, the places that exceed one or more of them by a lot a whole bunch of the time, I don't have a scientific definition for you or I'd supply it. You know where they are when you approach the problem from a human perspective. It rains all the time, or it's hot and humid all the time, or it's always goddamned cold, usually windy, and often rainy too, etc etc.

      I live in California so it's easy to forget how bad weather can be. I grew up in Santa Cruz co. and now I live in Lake and let me tell you, I may not think about suicide (I'm not that sort, I hope, so far so good) but the weather wears at you and it has a damping effect on social activities, and most of the places on the list have much more annoying weather in those regards than this place does. I also spent over a year and a half in Austin, and so I have a pretty good appreciation for just how bad the weather isn't where I am now, as well.

      I think one could reasonably cook up a quality of life index that would be based on weather excesses from the range in which humans are comfortable, a few social factors involving rights, and a couple of other variables like insolation and air quality, to say nothing of water. But the quick summary is climate and oppression. When people are comfortable and not being harassed, they tend to be happier (and less troublesome) than otherwise.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    126. Re:So....far more than guns by CaptnZilog · · Score: 1

      The comparison to pop is a little more sensible. However, even the "sugary drinks" ban people were talking about was nothing like prohibition -- it essentially banned selling in a large cup, without banning bottomless refills. I still think it wasn't quite right, but you're the only one talking about blanket bans. Or children, for that matter.

      So should we be banning 1.75L bottles of alcohol? Perhaps we should ban 16oz 'tall boy' beers, and only sell 12oz or less beers, and limit hard liquor to .75L bottles or less?

    127. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Please stop lying, and please try to find it in your heart to stop posing as a woman while reinforcing sexist female stereotypes.

      This is such disingenuous bullshit that I hardly know where to begin. But I'll try:

      First, point out where I told a lie. Please be specific. Calling me a liar without specific proof could be construed as libel. I've warned you about this before. (But of course, in order for that to be true it would also have to be about ME, not somebody else.)

      Second, even if what you said here was true, how does that justify:

      [A] repeatedly copying comments of mine out of context on your personal blog, and then "arguing" with them there, including demonstrated and deliberate distortions of my clear meaning, and false "interpretations" of my motivations for making those comments, for a period of years.

      [B] Repeatedly, over a period of years, replying to (and possibly even modding) my comments via sock-puppet accounts, including masquerading as AC rather than using your established account. (Perhaps in order to give the illusion of support for your views? Just a guess.) I have told you this before, too: the Slashdot community considers that unacceptable behavior.

      [D] Impersonating me here on Slashdot, by creating an account with a hacked name that looked, to the casual eye, exactly like my own name.

      [E] Other OBSESSIVE behavior, including but not limited to the above, which has been far BEYOND "creepy" from where I sit.

      You can be as "offended" as you like by my behavior (and other things you THINK I'm doing), but your behavior has been demonstrably (i.e., there are records) not just beyond the limits of social acceptability, but very possibly illegal.

      So get stuffed. Before you try to moralize to others, you should start by looking in a goddamned mirror.

    128. Re:So....far more than guns by sribe · · Score: 1

      I shall allow this. Sometimes dumbassery warrants jackassery in response.

      Why, thank you, Your Most Exalted Highness, Prince of Internet Manners.

      And that shall conclude my participation in this thread ;-)

    129. Re:So....far more than guns by William+Baric · · Score: 1

      Oh, please. Leave the mysticism of "energy" out of this. Comparing "social problems" to "energy", in the sense of conservation of energy, is idiotic. I find totally appalling that your comment was moderated insightful.

      It's easy to show that guns and alcohol are a direct cause of some social problems.

      Imagine a person who is frustrated about is place in society. That's his problem and only his. Now imagine that person has a gun, decide to go on a rampage and kill several people. Suddenly, you don't have only one person with problems, but several others also with problems, simply because of a gun. And please, don't say that without a gun the same thing would happen with a knife. That's plain hypocrisy.

      Same thing for alcohol. If someone is depressed for whatever reasons, that's that person problem alone. But if that person decides to get drunk, take his car and kill a father going back home, that suddenly creates a major social problem for all his family.

      You may say I'm selfish for not caring for that poor frustrated person who can't deal with his problems (and saying it's all the fault of governments and institutions is another stupid idea), but you can't deny that access to guns and alcohol, create more social problems.

      To use your idiotic idea of social problems as "energy", I'd say guns and alcohol amplify that "energy". They directly create more "energy". Remove them and you end up with less "energy".

    130. Re:So....far more than guns by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      but it would move some numbers from the "suicide" column to the "attempted suicide" column, and at least some people see that as desirable.

      It would do the same for murder as well, making many murders, "attempted murders"

    131. Re:So....far more than guns by cmdr_tofu · · Score: 1
    132. Re:So....far more than guns by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      The statistics also completely ignore poverty, 6 of the states for high firearm ownership in this "study" are in the top 10 for poverty, none in the low firearm ownership category are. Three of the states with low firearm ownership rates are in the top 10 for the least amount of poverty, only 1 (again out of 15 comparables) has such low poverty.

      Perhaps poor folks in certain regions when they feel they lack "control or power" are more likely to cling to guns as "power"? In other words it's correlated to an extent.

      Based on this if you want to stop suicide by firearm, focus on the decent paying jobs.

      Yes, that has been known for years. You'll also end up with fewer guns because the people won't feel a "need" for them because they feel less anxiety/fear. Did you know that it used to be custom in some of those places to take guns to church? Really! Guns to the place of "Thou Shalt Not Kill".

    133. Re:So....far more than guns by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      People are dicks, and sometimes you don't know someone is going to be a serious dick until they do something. So sometimes it's better to make doing dickish things much harder by regulating what tools a dick needs to be a dick. That saves lives.

    134. Re:So....far more than guns by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      I would consider it immoral to demand that someone live against their own will.

      That could be used to justify some pretty awful behavior, just so you know.

    135. Re:So....far more than guns by cmdr_tofu · · Score: 1

      Actually if you look at the study, AAD (alcohol-attributable deaths - including car accidents) were the minority. The majority were YPLL (years potential life lost) mostly death due to liver damage. http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/...

      This does not factor in the alcohol is a leading cause of cancer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... and strokes http://www.webmd.com/stroke/ne...

      We all know prohibition doesn't work, but more progressive measures like education and increasing taxes on cheap booze as well as promoting alternative stress reduction programs might help to reduce heavy drinking.

    136. Re:So....far more than guns by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      People SHOULD drink less alcohol. There is one good that came out of prohibition...Americans still consume less alcohol per capita than they did before. Really, Americans drink less than they did before prohibition. Alcohol consumption was totally insane before prohibition. Prohibition finally got it through everyone's heads that drinking too much was socially unacceptable.

      The Prohibition and Suffrage movements were also closely aligned. Both Susan B Anthony and Elisabeth Cady Stanton were pro-temperance. Prohibition was basically women using their new power and influence (thanks to WWI) to reduce a serious social problem. Note that until relatively recently alcoholism was MUCH more prevalent in men. in fact the first AA book was titled: "Alcoholics Anonymous: The Story of How More Than One Hundred Men Have Recovered From Alcoholism"

      Notice the "Men" part. Men still drink more than they ought...in part that's because most alcohol advertising is aimed at men so drinking is considered more of a part of "The Rite of Being a Man". Women ARE starting to drink more..that's not a good thing.

    137. Re:So....far more than guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people like guns too much. It's not a penis compensator and you don't have to be afraid all the time. You want to hunt with a rifle or two, fine. But you don't need a dozen guns with 15 round magazines. Single shot is all you need for hunting, in fact that was the ONLY type of gun available when the Second Amendment was written.

      You feel so afraid that you want to carry a gun everywhere? Fine..as long as it's a muzzle loader of 1787 technology.

    138. Re:So....far more than guns by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Blaming firearms for suicide is blaming firearms for mental illness. Guns are a tool, nothing more, nothing less. Tools don't instigate anything. Going down that blame road does a severe disservice to what can actually help people in distress.

      In the 1950's, lots of households in the UK used coal gas ovens. A coal gas oven makes it very easy to kill yourself - just turn the gas on without lighting the oven, stick your head in and wait. Easy, clean and painless. About 1/3rd of suicides in the UK were made that way. Then coal gas fell out of fashion and was replaced. The suicide rate fell by one third. The people who would have used coal gas ovens didn't switch to another method, they just didn't commit suicide.

      On the Golden Gate Bridge, people observed a man who acted very strange and in an agitated way. They called the police. What they found: He had decided to kill himself by jumping off the left side of the Golden Gate Bridge, but found himself on the right side. There is really no difference between both sides, but he had his mind set on the left side. And there were six lanes of traffic he had to cross to his suicide destination, and he was afraid that he would get killed crossing six lanes of traffic.

      People attempting suicide are not thinking clearly. That's why they are attempting suicide in the first place. They have a Plan A, and if that fails, there is no Plan B. A gun makes it very easy to commit suicide. Take that easy way away, make it harder to commit suicide, and the suicide rate drops.

      And then there's the clear statistic that in the USA, there are more women than men attempting suicide, but more men than women succeding - because men own more guns.

    139. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      And by the way, I feel this needs to be said:

      I am also wondering where your evidence of "reinforcing sexist stereotypes" is. I didn't see that in any of the links you provided. (I did, however, find even more evidence of what I wrote above. Thanks for that.) I didn't see any comments of mine that had anything specifically to do with women or their behavior at all. One link does lead to a comment I made about the behavior of certain people, but it wasn't about their sexual orientation.

      I am left to conclude that your rant is actually about something that is going on exclusively in your own mind, and your own personal interpretation of how a woman should behave.

      Maybe it's something else, but that's how it looks from here. And why the hell should I care?

    140. Re:So....far more than guns by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      That's the value, not the debt accrued.

      Well what do you think they're counting on to pay the debt WITH, anyway?

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    141. Re:So....far more than guns by ultranova · · Score: 1

      If someone wants to kill themselves, how is it society's concern?

      Two reasons.

      1) They're usually nuts. Not always, but usually. So not preventing them and sending them to therapy is analogous to passing an accident scene without calling for help.

      2) On a more cynical note, when Christianity began to spread, many slaves drew the perfectly logical conclusion that if their current lifes suck, and Heaven waits after death, then goodbye cruel world. The slavemasters needed a way to stop them, thus the "suicide sends you to Hell" -meme was born. And since the world is still not free from those who dream themselves their brother's masters, they still need some way to keep people from opting out.

      Put these two together and pretty much everyone has a motive to stop other people from killing themselves, whether it's from altruism or to keep fear of death as an effective tool for the oppressor.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    142. Re:So....far more than guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey fucker. You don't matter in the real world so I don't have to listen to your shit. The numbers are in and you are DEAD FUCKING WRONG!!!!! LOLZZZZ!!!!
       
      Eat shit, self important fucktard. No one here gives a fuck about anything you say!!!! You've brought nothing to the table but a feeling of self importance. I shit on your fucking retarded ideas.

    143. Re:So....far more than guns by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      This is such disingenuous bullshit that I hardly know where to begin. But I'll try: First, point out where I told a lie. Please be specific. Calling me a liar without specific proof could be construed as libel. I've warned you about this before. (But of course, in order for that to be true it would also have to be about ME, not somebody else.) ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-27]

      Very well. Let's cut the bullshit. You are Lonny Eachus, a man posing as Jane Q. Public who lies about being female. By now that's almost a dozen links where Lonny Eachus lies about his own gender. How could anyone trust Lonny Eachus to tell the truth about anything important when Lonny Eachus lies about his own gender?

      Your lame attempts to deflect attention away from your pathological lies must seem pathetic even to you. I don't need to justify [A] debunking your public civilization-paralyzing misinformation. In fact, considering the stakes, I'd have to justify ignoring it. I can't.

      Lonny Eachus's sock-puppet account "Jane Q. Public" finds [B] sock-puppet accounts to be unacceptable behavior, and piles paranoia on that irony by wrongly accusing me [D] of creating an account with a hacked name that looked exactly like Jane Q. Public. I watched that hilarious incident, but I don't know how they hacked Jane Q. Public's name when it should've already been taken. If you ever find out who did that, please let me know because I'd like to buy them a drink. And if you ever find the missing [C] in your list, please let me know.

      How funny that you're still speculating about illegal behavior, after I told you that I'm just debunking your public comments while you've quoted from illegally obtained private emails. In fact, you've even argued that up-skirt panty shots should be legal because they happen in public:

      "... Did they show you their genitals on purpose? Is she hanging out of her dress in order to give you a peek? Or are you snooping? ... if you're sitting across from someone on the bus, how can they prove they didn't intend to uncross their legs while wearing no panties; they simply slipped or forgot. (Actually, forgot shouldn't be an exception anyway because that's negligence. But it's still a lack of intent.) As for (2), let's say they flash you deliberately, you take a picture (because after all, it's public), and then later they lie about their "intent". What about the woman who has sex at a party and then when she sobers up lies because she regrets her actions? Hell, things like that have happened throughout history, and of course it's not just women, or sex. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-07]

      "...I've been in LOTS of situations in which things under a dress were made public... intentionally or otherwise. But at least some of those times were definitely intentional. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-07]

      "... some woman standing on those steps lifts up her dress. ... it isn't a matter of "her asking for it", like some people would say if she walked down the wrong alley at night in a skimpy dress. (You and I would probably agree t

    144. Re:So....far more than guns by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      I am also wondering where your evidence of "reinforcing sexist stereotypes" is. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-27]

      See your entire posting history. That anonymous woman described you perfectly: "completely irrational, expecting special treatment and unable to keep a single thought straight in your head for more than a couple of minutes and then getting hyper-emotional when called on it."

      But since you asked, here are a few more examples where Lonny Eachus, through his Jane sock-puppet, has reinforced sexist stereotypes:

      "Talk about crybabies. Sheesh. She complains about a phenomenon that is caused by women (since studies for over 20 years have repeatedly and consistently shown that women simply tend not to choose to go into STEM careers in the first place), then uses that as a springboard to further complain that she doesn't get enough Federal assistance for women! I mean, come on! It's one thing to discuss the issue of "not enough women in IT" (which has been discussed to death already), and quite another to so blatantly whine about it." [Jane Q. Public, 2012-05-27]

      "... Then there are those who simply prefer to ignore the facts and treat it like some kind of giant male conspiracy. I think you can tell which side of that fence I am on." [Jane Q. Public, 2012-05-27]

      "... for every "OMG I'm offended!" pseudo-feminist out there, there is another who really, really enjoys being slobbered over as a booth babe. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2013-06-27]

      "...most women decided on careers outside of tech before they even entered high school. Based on personal preferences, not some perception (real or otherwise) of discrimination. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-04]

      "... most "feminists" I have met did not really want equality; they wanted advantage." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-04-26]

      "... men should take some responsibility for birth control (condoms or whatever), but to trick somebody in that manner and then try to hold them responsible is one of the most despicable acts I can imagine. In general I would call it worse than rape because, again in general, it will have longer and more profound, tangible effect. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2012-08-20]

      Jane seems to claim that child support payments are more profound and last longer than psychological scars, which instantly vanish after 18 years (right?). My personal reaction involved the world's smallest violin, and astonishment that a woman would make such a claim. I'm not astonished anymore, but note that equating balls with courage might offend actual

    145. Re:So....far more than guns by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Tools don't instigate anything.

      Of course they don't but that's not the point. The point is that a hand gun is an extremely effective and efficient tool, sure a person can still hang themselves or whatever but every other method takes more preparation, meaning the person has more time to change their mind. Same deal with assaults, a bullet wound is 7X more likely to kill than a stab wound. So sure, "guns don't kill people", but they do enable people to kill themselves or others in a highly efficient manner that leaves no time for second thoughts. Let's face it, that's why hand guns were invented in the first place and it is also why people who fear their fellow countrymen think guns are a useful form of self defense.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    146. Re:So....far more than guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He isn't the only person on this site that thinks you're full of shit, finds you annoying, and wishes you'd just log the hell off!

    147. Re:So....far more than guns by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Most suicide is premeditated

      Indeed and if as an adult you have never contemplated suicide then you're in a very small minority, the moment you start thinking it would be easy is when it gets dangerous. The decision to go through with it is more often than not a fleeting moment of "clarity" that comes after the feeling of absolute despair. It often does not last long enough to find a convenient bridge, train, whatever. Also throwing yourself in front of a train or jumping means you have to overcome a hard wired instinct that prevents you from doing it

      I would wager that people who buy guns to kill themselves will usually not do it on the same day they buy the gun, the delay is too long unless you do it in the store or the car park. It doesn't really matter why the gun is in the dresser, the important point is pulling a loaded gun from a dresser and squeezing the trigger easily fits into that fleeting moment and does not invoke the same level of instinctual resistance as laying on the tracks patiently waiting for the train to hit you.

      Like any powerful tool you need to weigh up the pros and cons of having a gun in your home. If you buy a gun for self defense then be aware that statistics show the gun is more likely to harm a friend than a foe and that anyone in the home may be tempted to abuse it when not "thinking straight". And if you don't think that the last bit applies to you and your family then you're so utterly immature that you shouldn't be allowed to boil water, let alone wave a hand gun around.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    148. Re: So....far more than guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did they look at the long term trend? I would think the non firearm suicide rate would drop after a while because those who would do it would have already done it with a firearm. I find it odd that just having guns accessible would double the suicide rate.

    149. Re:So....far more than guns by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      I mean, I've found out that you have been writing about me and my Slashdot comments FOR YEARS

      That's probably because you have been submitting some of the most consistently stupid reasoning on /. FOR YEARS.

    150. Re:So....far more than guns by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      find out that Jane is actually a man posing as a woman

      Does that mean he/she wins the Imitiation Game ?

    151. Re:So....far more than guns by Ries · · Score: 1

      But you have it available within seconds. If you would get a depression and thought of suicide, you would have an easy option available in the moment, if you didn't, you would properly have to get out of the house to get it and chances are higher that you would reconsider.

    152. Re:So....far more than guns by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you buy a gun for self defense then be aware that statistics show the gun is more likely to harm a friend than a foe

      It's always tempting to assume that statistics apply to everyone equally, but they just don't.

      and that anyone in the home may be tempted to abuse it when not "thinking straight". And if you don't think that the last bit applies to you and your family then you're so utterly immature that you shouldn't be allowed to boil water, let alone wave a hand gun around.

      So your basic premise is that no one is qualified to own a gun because they might misuse it, but if they don't believe that they will misuse it, they're not qualified to own a gun? This idea could be applied to literally everything, making you the ultimate arbiter (in your mind) of what it is reasonable to have. In the meantime, I suggest you remove the oven and all the knives from your house, because you might abuse them when not "thinking straight". Sell your car, as well. And then finally, your computer, because you might use Slashdot without thinking at all.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    153. Re: So....far more than guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy fucking shit. That bears being said again, with feeling.
      Holy. Fucking. Shit.

      Dude, you really, REALLY have a problem. People with such misdirected energy usually just need to get laid, but you clearly passed that stage of crazy long ago.

    154. Re: So....far more than guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Fuck me! You're still going. For crying out loud man go outside and get some fresh air. Take a walk. Pick some flowers. Kill a chicken. Whatever. Just sort your shit out before it's too late.

    155. Re:So....far more than guns by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Once every couple of years, I see a post that needs to be +6 or higher. This was one of them.

      Your words are calm, clear, rational, logical, and point out the real issue.

      Thank you for sharing.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    156. Re:So....far more than guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like yet *another* vote for moderation.

    157. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      See your entire posting history.

      Your "examples" are hilarious, and don't even support your point. Although some of them may appear to do so, on the surface. As usual, you bring things out of context and present them in the worst possible light. There is a name for that.

      But to be more specific:

      Then there are those who simply prefer to ignore the facts and treat it like some kind of giant male conspiracy. I think you can tell which side of that fence I am on.

      You know nobody like this? I do. But the comment referred to a few individuals, not an entire gender. I said nothing about "women" in general here, and did no "stereotyping".

      ... for every "OMG I'm offended!" pseudo-feminist out there, there is another who really, really enjoys being slobbered over as a booth babe.

      This is a statement of fact as demonstrated by impartial empirical statistics. It's isn't a "stereotype".

      ... men should take some responsibility for birth control (condoms or whatever), but to trick somebody in that manner and then try to hold them responsible is one of the most despicable acts I can imagine. In general I would call it worse than rape because, again in general, it will have longer and more profound, tangible effect. ...

      This was a comment about those few women who (again, it does happen... I'd like to see you deny it) have tricked men into getting them pregnant. It wasn't a "stereotype" of any kind. It was a criticism of exactly those few immoral people who do that. Pardon me, but where is the "sexist stereotype"? Did I say or even imply that all women do this? (Obvious answer: no.) You might as well try to call me out for criticizing those few women who commit murder.

      It's okay when Lonny Eachus recommends "Men On Strike" because at least he isn't pretending to be a woman telling "her" sisters that it ain't all mens' fault.

      This is a book written by a woman psychologist about social phenomena. If you have a beef about "sexual stereotypes", you'll have to talk to (and refute) here. I doubt you can do either. As for the Twitter thing, I have already asked you: you think I don't follow people on Twitter? Where would you get such an idea?

      My personal interpretation of how a woman should behave is irrelevant, because you're not a woman.

      This is the most hilarious comment yet, because this was the exact excuse you gave for your previous comment: that I was promoting "sexual stereotypes" that "offended" you.

      Yet again, you have taken my statements out of context, assigned your own interpretation to them, and tried to present your view as fact. I've had enough of your claims and distortions, which -- it appears to me -- is being done for no other reason than an attempt at character assassination. Which again I have tried to warn you about before, but you just don't get it.

      I am done with this behavior of yours that I consider to be incessant and rather outrageous harassment, and worse. You should be aware that I am looking into the feasibility of getting records subpoenaed.

    158. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      s/refute here/refute her

      I just want to repeat this point, but I should not have to: your pretense at being "offended" is not an excuse for your own errant behavior. You do not have a "right" to not be offended, but I do have certain rights.

      The only reason I did nothing about this before was because my personal position was such that I had no practical way to pursue it.

      But that has changed now.

    159. Re:So....far more than guns by Sciath · · Score: 1

      A cursory search on the web one can easily conclude that suicides are most often very solitary events. Most are done by hanging, poisoning or shooting oneself and rarely done in the presence of others. So, suicide rarely jeopardizes someone else's safety. I had an uncle in law that blew his brains out. At home by himself. To coworkers hung themselves, one jumped from an eleven story building when no one else was home or around. Other people I personally know of or are familiar with have committed or attempted suicide and every one of the instances took place while they were alone. So... I don't buy the argument that suicide is a public safety issue. But of course I'm a staunch advocate of personal choice including the natural right to take one's own life if they so choose regardless or whether or not others might conclude their mental faculties are temporarily diminished. People who kill themselves most often have contemplated the act and reasons for some time. The prohibition against suicide is a 1700 year old religious doctrine that largely evolved out of Christianity. Both the old and new testaments had nothing to say about the subject. It wasn't until the fourth century the Christian church declared suicide a sin. And that was due to the fact that followers were killing themselves to get to heaven quicker and there was no existing prohibition against it at the time. Of course that was not a practice benefiting the church because dead people don't support the church. Due to church doctrine changes since then and church influence on our existing secular laws, suicide is now frowned upon and illegal. That was not always the case. I can appreciate the idea that suicides can indirectly effect family and friends emotionally and possibly financially (unless there is a nice insurance payoff) but as far as I'm concerned no other person has the right to decide how and when another person decides to cash their ticket in and permanently reunite with the natural elements around them. Each person's existence is unique and it is not up to anyone else to make such decisions for any other right minded person, one fully capable of making decisions for themselves. And the idea that contemplating suicide makes someone legally incompetent denies the fact that some people sincerely believe death is better than their torturous existence. The decision to seek assistance or not is entirely a personal choice for no one else to dictate.

      --
      "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
    160. Re:So....far more than guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Availability of guns might be responsible for suicides with guns.
      But I'm from country where guns few and far between, and guess what: suicides happens here, and there are on the rise too. My country men use other available tools: rope, safety razor, drugs or railway's.
      I hate railway suicides the most. A single incident can disorganize commuting schedules for hours.

    161. Re:So....far more than guns by causality · · Score: 1

      Once every couple of years, I see a post that needs to be +6 or higher. This was one of them.

      Your words are calm, clear, rational, logical, and point out the real issue.

      Thank you for sharing.

      Reading your kind words is humbling, sir. You honor yourself by being one of the minority who read something like that and try to understand where it is coming from and how it could work, rather than playing the hostile audience and trying your best to tear it down because it opposes a common notion.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    162. Re:So....far more than guns by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      How hard could it be to understand that Lonny Eachus is reinforcing sexist female stereotypes by posing as a woman who's completely irrational, expects special treatment and can't keep a single thought straight in his head for more than a couple of minutes and then getting hyper-emotional when called on it?

      Very hard, apparently, judging by Jane/Lonny's hilarity. It's okay when Lonny acts out all these sexist female stereotypes as "@eachus" because at least that way people see that some men also exhibit these negative traits. In this sense, Lonny's tantrums actually fight these sexist female stereotypes. But when Lonny Eachus poses as Jane Q. Public and acts the same way, those pathological lies make all women look bad. Maybe this would be clearer if Jane hadn't ignored my first comment, so here it is again:

      This is such disingenuous bullshit that I hardly know where to begin. But I'll try: First, point out where I told a lie. Please be specific. Calling me a liar without specific proof could be construed as libel. I've warned you about this before. (But of course, in order for that to be true it would also have to be about ME, not somebody else.) ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-27]

      Very well. Let's cut the bullshit. You are Lonny Eachus, a man posing as Jane Q. Public who lies about being female. By now that's almost a dozen links where Lonny Eachus lies about his own gender. How could anyone trust Lonny Eachus to tell the truth about anything important when Lonny Eachus lies about his own gender?

      Your lame attempts to deflect attention away from your pathological lies must seem pathetic even to you. I don't need to justify [A] debunking your public civilization-paralyzing misinformation. In fact, considering the stakes, I'd have to justify ignoring it. I can't.

      Lonny Eachus's sock-puppet account "Jane Q. Public" finds [B] sock-puppet accounts to be unacceptable behavior, and piles paranoia on that irony by wrongly accusing me [D] of creating an account with a hacked name that looked exactly like Jane Q. Public. I watched that hilarious incident, but I don't know how they hacked Jane Q. Public's name when it should've already been taken. If you ever find out who did that, please let me know because I'd like to buy them a drink. And if you ever find the missing [C] in your list, please let me know.

      How funny that you're still speculating about illegal behavior, after I told you that I'm just debunking your public comments while you've quoted from illegally obtained private emails. In fact, you've even argued that up-skirt panty shots should be legal because they happen in public:

      "... Did they show you their genitals on purpose? Is she hanging out of her dress in order to give you a peek? Or are you snooping? ... if you're sitting across from someone on the bus, how can they prove they didn't intend to uncross their legs while wearing no panties; they simply slipped or forgot. (Actually, forgot shouldn't be an exception anyway because that's negligence. But it's still a lack of intent.) As for (2), let's say they flash you deliberately, you take a picture (because after all, it's public), and then later they lie about their "intent". What about the woman who has sex at a party and then when she sobers up lies because she regrets her actions? Hell, things like

    163. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1
      I am reduced to repeating these points which you just don't seem to get:

      Your lame attempts to deflect attention away from your pathological lies must seem pathetic even to you. I don't need to justify [A] debunking your public civilization-paralyzing misinformation. In fact, considering the stakes, I'd have to justify ignoring it. I can't.

      I am reduced to repeating what I have said before, because you just don't seem to get it. I don't know where your failure to understand is, but that it exists is blatantly obvious.

      The first thing I have to say is, where are these "lies" you accuse me of? I don't see any. I have certainly stated my opinion often enough. But lies? Where? POINT OUT AN ACTUAL LIE. Anywhere. You haven't done so. Explain where I have "lied" about my gender. My actual words. We're waiting, because you haven't shown any "lies" anywhere.

      Second, you don't know what a sock-puppet account is? Really? You keep accusing me of that, but it's simply false. (And I am sick and goddamned tired of your false claims about me.) I do not use sock-puppet accounts. But YOU have, and even admitted it. If you don't understand that (and apparently you still don't, for some reason that escapes me), then ask somebody what a sock puppet is, or look it up.

      Using a pseudonym, however (and my Slashdot name is obviously a pseudonym, it would have been ridiculous to deny it! I chose it precisely because it IS obvious) is perfectly acceptable behavior, and many (my guess is MOST) people on Slashdot do that. Hell, you do it yourself. So get it straight: I don't sock-puppet. But I have VERY strong evidence that you have. Evidence that I am confident would convince a court. (Not that sock-puppeting is illegal, in itself. I do not make that claim. Just that the evidence is strong.)

      How funny that you're still speculating about illegal behavior, after I told you that I'm just debunking your public comments while you've quoted from illegally obtained private emails. In fact, you've even argued that up-skirt panty shots should be legal because they happen in public:

      I don't care what you told me. Your opinion about it is irrelevant.

      while you've quoted from illegally obtained private emails

      Hahaha! You're talking about the "ClimateGate" emails? Hahahaha. If I somehow committed a wrong by quoting things other people said from information that by then had become public information, then have at it. This is just more hilarity. It hasn't even been demonstrated that they were obtained illegally. And by the time I saw any of the contents (in blog posts and news sources), they had already been made public. So any wrongdoing on my part is solely in your own mind.

      And that's another things you seem to have a hard time grasping: your opinion does not change the law.

      In fact, you've even argued that up-skirt panty shots should be legal because they happen in public:

      Yet another falsehood you try to distort to suit your purposes. I was discussing whether it WAS legal, and principles of the law. That has nothing to do with sexism. The very same argument applies EQUALLY to males and females. The fact that it was females who were already under discussion is irrelevant to the basic point I was making. And your opinion doesn't change that. This is the same crap you have tried to do to me again, and again, and again: misinterpret my statements (perhaps deliberately?) assign your "interpreted" meaning to my statements, then publicly claim that your "interpretations" is fact. All evidence says you just don't get it, because despite my warnings you have kept doing it. The real issue here is that you have been trying very hard to make that a problem for ME, and that's over the limit.

      If Lonny Eachus complained that up-skirt panty shots need to be legal because otherwise women can control your behavior and deci

    164. Re:So....far more than guns by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      So just to be clear, you're swearing on your honor that you (Jane Q. Public) are not Lonny Eachus? Jane Q. Public is placing all her credibility on her claim that Jane is a woman who isn't a man named Lonny Eachus? Please answer directly for the historical record.

    165. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      There you go again.

      Where do you see me saying anything like that? Where are the words I wrote? Where is this "lie" you claim I have stated? And more to the point, why do you care enough to publicly harass me about it? I have already shown that the reasons you gave above were either fabrications or misunderstandings... and I don't care which. That's your problem, and it is only MY problem to the extent that you have been MAKING it so.

      I neither affirm or deny. You've had your go at that before, and I have responded to it as much as I care to respond. The end.

      I have no idea why you are obsessed about this, because nobody else gives a damn, including me. The only reason I care about it at all is because you have continued to HARASS me about it, and it's far past time you stopped.

      Do you know what the word "harass" means? Because you seem to have trouble understanding a lot of other words in this exchange.

    166. Re:So....far more than guns by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      If you aren't Lonny Eachus, and are in fact a woman who isn't a man named Lonny Eachus, then you shouldn't have a problem saying that. After all, it's not like you're a pathological liar, right?

    167. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      If you aren't Lonny Eachus, and are in fact a woman who isn't a man named Lonny Eachus, then you shouldn't have a problem saying that. After all, it's not like you're a pathological liar, right?

      YES, I certainly DO have a perfectly legitimate reason to not say what my identity is, which I have REPEATED FOR YEARS to anybody here on Slashdot who asked:

      My REASON is to protect my identity from people who try stalk and harass, much like what YOU appear to be be doing.

    168. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      I have nothing more to say to you. I am tired of your outrageous behavior.

    169. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      (Added right after that last comment:)

      Yes, I do have one more thing to say to you, but that's all.

      You haven't demonstrated even ONE "lie". Not a single one.

      I think it's even more hilarious that you don't understand that *if* I did happen to be the person you claim I am, I would likely have a very good libel case against you by now.

      You should hope I'm not.

    170. Re:So....far more than guns by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      I never asked you to say what your identity is. I simply asked you to confirm what you've been saying for years, that you're a woman who can't possibly be a man named Lonny Eachus. I'm just asking you to say what your identity isn't. Should be easy, unless you're a pathological liar like Lonny Eachus.

    171. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      I simply asked you to confirm what you've been saying for years, that you're a woman who can't possibly be a man named Lonny Eachus

      Where do you claim I stated this? Where did I say ANYTHING about who I was or wasn't?

      I'm just asking you to say what your identity isn't. Should be easy, unless you're a pathological liar like Lonny Eachus.

      It's none of your damned business what my identity ISN'T, either. I'm not about to engage in a game of 20 Questions with you.

    172. Re:So....far more than guns by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      So now you're denying that you ever claimed to be a woman. Are you lying, or have you already forgotten all the links above? Haven't you noticed your pseudonym? It's supposed to tell everyone you're not a dude like Lonny Eachus. This isn't a game of 20 questions. It's just one question, repeated 20 times or more if necessary. Are you Lonny Eachus?

    173. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      So now you're denying that you ever claimed to be a woman. Are you lying, or have you already forgotten all the links above? Haven't you noticed your pseudonym? It's supposed to tell everyone you're not a dude like Lonny Eachus. This isn't a game of 20 questions. It's just one question, repeated 20 times or more if necessary.

      I affirm or deny nothing. You said I (since you are claiming that person and I are the same) am a "pathological liar". As they say in the Westerns: "Them's fightin' words." I am asking you again: what is your basis for making this statement? All we've seen so far have been rants involving what appeared to be assumptions on your part about what I meant when I wrote certain things, and not very reasonable assumptions at that. It pretty much resembled what psychologists call "the mind reading trick": you refused to accept my words at face value, and instead presumed to know that I meant something other than what my actual words said.

      You haven't shown us anything that indicates I told a lie. Not one. You have failed to demonstrate that I am a liar at all, much less a "pathological" liar.

      And a pseudonym is a pseudonym. People know what they are. My pseudonym isn't a "claim" of anything, either. You are free to infer whatever you like, but depending on what those inferences are, you may not necessarily be legally allowed to spout them in public.

      It's supposed to tell everyone you're not a dude like Lonny Eachus.

      Is he or she a dude? My dictionary says: "a man excessively concerned with his clothes, grooming, and manners." Well. I can safely say that *I* am not a dude. I guess it's up to you to decide whether someone else is.

      And since I chose that pseudonym for my own reasons, I -- only I and anyone else I might have specifically told -- know what those reasons are. Is this another attempt to read my mind? I haven't told you and I do not intend to tell you, so you do not know what my pseudonym is "supposed to" do.

      This isn't a game of 20 questions.

      I rather think it is, or something very much like one, since you were asking me who I was not. I am even less inclined to engage in a game of 7+ billion questions. Regardless of what specific game you think you're playing, from here it looks like a fishing expedition. I'm not biting.

      Are you Lonny Eachus?

      I have already answered: none of your damned business.

    174. Re:So....far more than guns by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      So when you said you're not a lesbian, you said that because you're actually a man named Lonny Eachus who couldn't possibly be a lesbian?

    175. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      So when you said you're not a lesbian, you said that because you're actually a man named Lonny Eachus who couldn't possibly be a lesbian?

      I have no obligation to give you my reasons for saying or writing anything.

      (However, will say again that I am not, in fact, a lesbian. Why not? I already said it and it's true. So what?)

      You're fishing. And the more you do, the more records I'm collecting. I won't say that it's fun, and it takes up valuable time that I would really prefer to spend working, but it's something I do feel obligated to do.

      I also have strong suspicions about why you're doing it. And let me say: I don't think you're being as smart as you think you are.

      But then, it wouldn't be the first time for that either.

    176. Re:So....far more than guns by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      So after you cheered for entrepreneurs with testicles and someone objected, you asked "who should be more offended than me?" because you couldn't imagine that actual women might be more offended than a man like Lonny Eachus who poses as a woman on the internet?

    177. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      So after you cheered for entrepreneurs with testicles and someone objected, you asked "who should be more offended than me?"

      Since you seem to be so obsessed with taking my comments out of context, let's have the whole thing:

      "Don't be silly. It's just an expression. If it were worth getting offended over, who should be more offended than me?"

      And you might construe the other person's comment as an objection. It was really just a question.

      And? So what? Who do you think should be more offended by a silly expression than me? Or do you think lots of people, or whole genders, should be "offended" by a silly expression that men and women BOTH use quite frequently?

      I'm getting really tired of this horseshit. I'm done answering your stupid questions in your stupid fishing expedition.

    178. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      ... Except to say one more thing, and then I am well and truly done:

      In my strong opinion, this is the worst case of TROLLING I have even seen on Slashdot, in my many years participating. Not least because you have done it over a period of years.

      And you know what they say about trolls.

    179. Re:So....far more than guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I went to this page:

      Link

      How is a "suicide rank" a meaningful measure? If you have 50 states, one will rank #1 and one will rank #50 (bfd). Digging deeper, we at least see the difference between #1 and #10:

      1. Alaska: 22.1 suicides per 100,000
      10. Oregon: 15.2 suicides per 100,000

      I couldn't quickly decipher from the 100+ page PDF what #50 is.

      Here is another page that attempts to take the rare, tragic event of suicide and needlessly adds contrast to universal problems:

      link

      The dark blood-red (R) states are in the category of 14.19 - 20.08.
      The light happy-white (D) states are in the category of 5.23 - 10.70.

      Consider that the two sharpest contrasts of color are divided by 14.19 (in the blood-red states) and 10.70 (in the happy-white states).

      I dare say you are a party to statistical manipulation and not helping very much.

    180. Re:So....far more than guns by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      So when you claimed that most people who bothered to look have referred to you as a gal, you weren't claiming to be a woman instead of a man named Lonny Eachus?

    181. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      So when you claimed that most people who bothered to look have referred to you as a gal, you weren't claiming to be a woman instead of a man named Lonny Eachus?

      I told you I was done answering your harassing questions, and I am. I am reading them, because I'm keeping records, but I do not intend to answer any more of them. I'm tired of your deliberately antisocial game. Talk to yourself all you like.

    182. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      I will, however, make one more comment:

      I think this exchange, and the time you are taking to dig up all these comments I've made over the years, is sufficient evidence of your creepy obsession. And I don't have to be either male or female to call it creepy, because it just plain is. It's weird, bizarre, abnormal, and apparently obsessive behavior. And if I were you I'd talk to a doctor or somebody about it.

      For posterity, let's all remember here, folks: I haven't been harassing this guy. It has all about HIS obsession with ME, and HIS incessant harassment of ME. And he's been doing it for YEARS.

      I don't harass him. In fact I don't care about him at all. I would have preferred he just leave me in peace (which I have told him, many times).

    183. Re:So....far more than guns by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      Leave you in peace so you can keep baselessly accusing scientists of fraud, while you're a man dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet?

    184. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Leave you in peace so you can keep baselessly accusing scientists of fraud, while you're a man dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet?

      This changes things.

      Pardon me? Leaving aside whether I am a man or a woman (which is literally NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, you have no legitimate reason to know), are you accusing me of "baselessly" accusing scientists of "fraud"?

      If so, would you care to back that up? So far you're about 0 for 100, so I doubt there is much chance of that. But I am curious where and when you imagine this happened.

    185. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Unless you can, I will have no choice but to consider your accusation "baseless".

    186. Re:So....far more than guns by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      Have you actually forgotten all the times you and Lonny Eachus have accused scientists of lying, or are you just waiting for my link so you can act horrified at the time I took to dig it up?

    187. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      You are the one who has been making accusations here. So: can you come up with an example of ME, Jane Q. Public, "baselessly" accusing scientists of "fraud", or not? Come on. You don't have an example, do you?

    188. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Also, a wild thought crossed my mind a little while ago. I admit it could be completely wrong. But it would explain a lot of things.

      I think you are so obsessed with proving I am somebody else because you are incapable of accepting the idea of a woman being better than you at something.

    189. Re:So....far more than guns by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      So we're clear, you just claimed to be a woman. Right?

    190. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      So we're clear, you just claimed to be a woman. Right? Reply to This Share

      That isn't what I wrote. Why do you continue to insist on distorting my clear words? My comment was about what I suspect to be your motive -- or one of your motives anyway -- for what seems to be unhealthy obsessive behavior. I didn't mention myself at all.

      So... I notice that it is many hours later now, and you still don't have an example of me "baselessly" claiming scientists had committed "fraud". Or anyone claiming such, for that matter.

      Well, here's what our little exchange says to me so far. It appears to me that:

      [A] You have a habit of quoting comments made by other people out of context, and distorting or make false claims about those comments, apparently based on personal, unfounded and apparently delusional assumptions about the writer's meaning. (Example: claiming that I am blurting "sexist stereotypes" by mentioning a book about American society written by a female PhD psychologist. And further claims of making "sexist stereotypes" by criticizing a few women who committ antisocial acts. And further yet publicly claiming repeatedly that I am a "pathological liar" when you haven't in fact been able to point out a single lie.)

      [B] You have an obsession with me that is beyond the bounds of normality, which has led you to harass me for years, and to quote me disproportionately, out of context in the manner described in [A], a great many times. Which has led me to tell you repeatedly that your behavior is not normal, is not appreciated (understatement) and is likely to do harm. But then of course I suspect that harm is exactly what you intend.

      [C] You are unable to back up these claims you make about other people with actual facts or even examples.

      It is convenient for me that you made sure these things all appear in one easy-to-find place.

    191. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      And I almost forgot:

      [D] It appears, from what you stated earlier, that you have attempted repeatedly to destroy my anonymity on Slashdot (which I have obviously intended to maintain, for reasons of my own) by linking my pseudonym with some other name. It also appears, from statements you have made, that you your attempts to ruin that anonymity and link the two names were made for the purpose of vengeance against imagined slights. All of which could also be construed as harm.

      and

      [E] Well... never mind. This one's the doozy, as they say. I'll reserve it for later.

    192. Re:So....far more than guns by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      You've made it clear that you're either a woman or a "flamer" (your words). You clearly implied you're a woman when you speculated about my motives, just like you did when you speculated about BasilBrush's motives after he independently discovered that you're a man posing as a woman on the internet: "I think this is just a pathetic macho reaction because you don't have the spine to admit you can be bested by a woman."

      If you still don't understand how your dishonesty reinforces sexist female stereotypes, read that woman's critique again:

      "... You are really pissing me off here because you are acting out the worst sexist stereotypes of women: completely irrational, expecting special treatment and unable to keep a single thought straight in your head for more than a couple of minutes and then getting hyper-emotional when called on it. You are the kind of woman who makes it that much harder for the rest of us women to be judged on our abilities instead of the same old, ugly stereotypes you've spent the day reinforcing right here. Shame on you." [Someone to Jane, 2012-09-09]

      She didn't say you're reinforcing sexist female stereotypes because you agree with a female psychologist. She noted that you're completely irrational and can't keep a single thought straight in your head. For example, you've spent years accusing scientists of lying and/or deliberately manipulating data to produce fraudulent results. And now you deny ever accusing scientists of lying and/or deliberately manipulating data to produce fraudulent results. When I've called you on dozens of your baseless accusations, you got hyper-emotional, cussing and fixating on asshole caliber.

      Here's another example:

      "if it turns out that you have made a mistake, you could be creating all kinds of trouble for yourself." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-27]

      "*if* I did happen to be the person you claim I am, I would likely have a very good libel case against you by now. You should hope I'm not." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-29]

      First you claim I should hope I haven't made a mistake, then just two days later you claim I should hope I have made a mistake? Since you can't keep a single thought straight in your head, you probably didn't notice contradicting yourself. Since you're completely irrational, you probably don't see how irrational it would be for someone to hope they couldn't use the defense of truth.

      It's okay if you act like this as Lonny Eachus because you just make men look bad, which is at least honest because you are a man. But when you pose as a woman named Jane Q. Public, your irrational tantrums make women look bad, and that's dishonest because you're actually a man. Do you really not understand this very simple point, or are you just feigning ignorance?

    193. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 0

      You've made it clear that you're either a woman or a "flamer" (your words).

      No, those aren't my words. Again you've taken them out of context and assigned your own meaning to them. Which is not acceptable. (Just FYI, though: "flamer" refers to a type of behavior, not a sexual orientation. YOU just committed an act of sexual stereotyping that many people would find offensive.)

      "I think this is just a pathetic macho reaction because you don't have the spine to admit you can be bested by a woman."

      Your interpretation of those words is of no interest to me. The actual words I wrote were a comment about you, not about me. YOU interpreted them as a claim I am female. But I am only responsible for my words. I am not responsible for YOUR skewed interpretation of them.

      I don't give a damn if you THINK I lied, or whether you have convinced yourself of that because of the way YOU have interpreted my statements. But it is not acceptable to publicly claim I am a liar when you haven't managed to demonstrate even one lie.

      Shame on you." [Someone to Jane, 2012-09-09]

      She didn't say...

      Ah. This mysterious "someone" again. Are you sure that wasn't YOU, masquerading as AC again, this time pretending to be female? You seem to place a lot of importance on "her" words. How do you know this person was female? Was it because you wanted this comment to appear to be from a female? Under the circumstances, it's not an unreasonable guess.

      If "she" appeared to be female because it was actually you pretending to be female, then you are "guilty" of doing exactly those things you have accused me of doing, which would make you a hypocrite.

      But, and this bears repeating (which I have done endlessly here): "she" was stating an opinion about my discussing an issue of my state law, which I had in fact researched prior to that time, and knew pretty well. She was "pissed off" because she was wrong and I was right. So "her" words were out of context, too, AND... her words sure seem awfully similar to your own.

      She didn't say you're reinforcing sexist female stereotypes because you agree with a female psychologist. She noted that you're completely irrational and can't keep a single thought straight in your head.

      Since THAT conversation (parent) wasn't about females at all, much less female psychologists, it seems rather bizarre of her to bring up sexism, don't you think? Unless she had some kind of obsession about the subject in relation to me. And I repeat: she was wrong. She had failed to support her point. She was wrong. She didn't have a single shred of evidence for claiming I was wrong. And she got angry and insulted me over that... exactly like you have done so many times. I would be interested to see what IP address THAT comment came from.

      Here's another example:

      ...

      First you claim I should hope I haven't made a mistake, then just two days later you claim I should hope I have made a mistake?

      Sigh. That isn't what I wrote. I will ask you again to stop distorting my words in public. I wrote: "if it turns out that you have made a mistake, you could be creating all kinds of trouble for yourself." And I did write "You should hope I'm not."

      So... what does one logically have to do with the other? You really seem to lack even basic logic skills, which is pretty bizarre for someone who presents himself is a scientists. So let's go over this, shall we?

      If you made false public claims about somebody -- anybody -- and you were wrong, you could be causing yourself a lot of trouble. This statement is obviously true, because we have laws against things like libel, harassment, and so on. Just for example.

      Now... follow along, if you can keep up, because you certainly haven

    194. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      I do see, however, that you managed to yank the conversation back to your obsession.

      I am still waiting for an example of me "baselessly" claiming scientists committed "fraud".

      I don't think you have one of those, either. Which is just more evidence that I have been right, all along.

    195. Re:So....far more than guns by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      So you deny saying that the only way a guy could describe his ass as "smooth and shapely" like you did would be if he were a "flamer" who wouldn't be in your circle of friends because flamers irritate you vastly?

      I don't know who that AC was, but I'm taking her on her word that she's actually female. That's actually another reason why your dishonesty is harmful; it'd be easier to take people at their word if pathological liars like Lonny Eachus weren't posing as women like Jane Q. Public.

      How fascinating that you deny baselessly accusing scientists of lying and/or deliberately manipulating data to produce fraudulent results. Is this because you "forgot" all your accusations, or because your Morton's demon has such a tight grip that you can't admit your accusations were baseless?

    196. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      So you deny saying that the only way a guy could describe his ass as "smooth and shapely" like you did would be if he were a "flamer" who wouldn't be in your circle of friends because flamers irritate you vastly?

      Jesus Christ, you actually seem to be DENSE! I have already explained this. Is English your third language or something?

      My words stand on their own. The word "flamers" refers to a type of SOCIAL BEHAVIOR. It is not a sexual orientation. I even mentioned something to that effect in the thread I was commenting in at the time.

      And YOUR attempt in this exchange to equate "flamer" with a sexual orientation IS A SEXIST STEREOTYPE THAT MANY PEOPLE WOULD FIND OFFENSIVE. A lot. I know people, anyway, who would certainly be offended by it.

      And yet again, you yank my words out of context, stick them together in a way I did not, and try to apply your own bizarre version of reality to them.

      Your insistence on taking things out of context and trying to distort them -- which by now it is beginning to seem you are not capable of NOT doing -- is not my problem. Except to the extent that you have deliberately been trying to make it a problem for me, that is.

      How fascinating that you deny baselessly accusing scientists of lying and/or deliberately manipulating data to produce fraudulent results. Is this because you "forgot" all your accusations, or because your Morton's demon has such a tight grip that you can't admit your accusations were baseless?

      How fascinating that you still haven't managed to produce a single example of me actually doing this. (Or demonstrated the truth of any of your other claims, for that matter. You're 0 for whatever, now. I've stopped counting.) Is that because you "forgot" where they were? Or is it -- I daresay vastly more likely -- that this is just another "baseless accusation" of the type YOU appear to have been making?

      For example: earlier, I linked to the article on trolls because it is evident to anybody familiar with "social media" that what you have been doing is trolling, in the extreme. I doubt such a third party would have any trouble at all recognizing that.

      But your linking to an article on "young Earthers" is completely -- yet again -- out of context and has nothing at all to do with me. I am not a "young earther", or a "creationist", or anything of the sort, nor do I ever recall defending their positions, at any time in my life.

      But knowing you, I suspect that you're going to try yet another non-sequitur ad-hominem on me, just as you have so many times before.

    197. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      How fascinating that you deny baselessly accusing scientists of lying and/or deliberately manipulating data to produce fraudulent results. Is this because you "forgot" all your accusations, or because your Morton's demon has such a tight grip that you can't admit your accusations were baseless?

      And just so we're clear, I will tell you in plain terms that your attempt to associate my name with Young Earth Creationists is offensive in the extreme. We have discussed this issue before and I do not support their ideas, their methods, or their cause, as I made clear then.

      And you knew that, yet you tried to associate my name with them again anyway. I have no choice but to believe that was a deliberately malicious act.

    198. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      How fascinating that you deny baselessly accusing scientists of lying and/or deliberately manipulating data to produce fraudulent results. Is this because you "forgot" all your accusations, or because your Morton's demon [talkorigins.org] has such a tight grip that you can't admit your accusations were baseless?

      And just to be even more clear: by "deliberately malicious act" I mean I have no choice but to believe it was an attempt to besmirch my character by trying to publicly associate me with ideas that you know very well -- because I told you before -- I do not believe or support in any way.

      But then, let's be honest. I have very good reason to believe that "besmirching my character" has been your intent all along.

    199. Re:So....far more than guns by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      You've made it clear that you're either a woman or a "flamer" (your words). [Dumb Scientist]

      Here I contrasted "flamer" with "woman" so it refers to gender, not sexual orientation.

      "flamer" refers to a type of behavior, not a sexual orientation. YOU just committed an act of sexual stereotyping that many people would find offensive. [Jane Q. Public]

      But hey, why not accuse an imaginary voice in your head of committing an offensive act of sexual stereotyping?

      So you deny saying that the only way a guy could describe his ass as "smooth and shapely" like you did would be if he were a "flamer" who wouldn't be in your circle of friends because flamers irritate you vastly? [Dumb Scientist]

      Again I connected "flamer" to "guy" so it refers to gender, not sexual orientation. Which, again, I never mentioned. But you did. Repeatedly.

      The word "flamers" refers to a type of SOCIAL BEHAVIOR. It is not a sexual orientation. I even mentioned something to that effect in the thread I was commenting in at the time. And YOUR attempt in this exchange to equate "flamer" with a sexual orientation IS A SEXIST STEREOTYPE THAT MANY PEOPLE WOULD FIND OFFENSIVE. A lot. I know people, anyway, who would certainly be offended by it. [Jane Q. Public]

      You're right to be offended at the imaginary voice in your head. A lot.

    200. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Here I contrasted "flamer" with "woman" so it refers to gender, not sexual orientation.

      Since it is neither one, but a type of behavior, you are still wrong to do so. And it is just as offensive to equate that kind of behavior as to associate it with a sexual orientation. Score: 0.

    201. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Typographical error.

      If you are "contrasting" it with women, then you are equating it with men.

      It is just as generally offensive to equate that kind of obnoxious behavior with a gender as to associate it with a sexual orientation. WTF? Have you no morals at all? Will you say any old offensive thing just to try to make me look bad?

    202. Re:So....far more than guns by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      Since it is neither one, but a type of behavior, you are still wrong to do so. And it is just as offensive to equate that kind of behavior as to associate it with a sexual orientation. Score: 0.

      As you've said, it's a type of behavior exhibited by guys who describe their ass as smooth and shapely. Contrasted with Jane Q. Public, who describes her ass as smooth and shapely and thus isn't vastly irritating because she's a woman. Right, Lonny Eachus?

    203. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      You're right to be offended at the imaginary voice in your head. A lot.

      Another example of your seeming inability to quote someone without distorting their words. Do you see me claiming anywhere that your comment offended me? What I said was that it was an offensive stereotype, not that it offended me, particularly, since I was not the one being stereotyped. I think. Kind of hard to tell, actually, since you have now conflated behavior with gender with sexual orientation, and I don't know what the hell you mean anymore.

      Let's make no mistake, though: I AM offended by your behavior here, and some of the things you have tried to claim are facts about me, or things I have said. But not about that.

      Though maybe I should be, since if you can be offended on behalf of an entire gender, then so can I.

    204. Re:So....far more than guns by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      Kind of hard to tell, actually, since you have now conflated behavior with gender with sexual orientation, and I don't know what the hell you mean anymore.

      Jane, I just carefully showed you that I never mentioned sexual orientation. That was just the imaginary voice in your head. Since you contrasted flamers with women (who'd be in your circle of friends even if they refer to their asses as smooth and shapely) I used your meaning to contrast flamers with women. I'm saying you've obviously been claiming to be a woman for years. Why not just admit it, unless you're a man named Lonny Eachus?

    205. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      it's a type of behavior exhibited by guys who describe their ass as smooth and shapely.

      It can be. Are you claiming that it is exclusive to guys? I certainly did not claim that. Are you attempting yet another offensive sexist stereotype? Or is it the same one again? So have conflated so many things together, I just don't know what you mean.

      Contrasted with Jane Q. Public, who describes her ass as smooth and shapely and thus isn't vastly irritating because she's a woman. Right, Lonny Eachus?

      Yet again, that isn't what I said. I mean, that one wasn't even close to anything I actually said or meant. My own sentences have been thrown away and replaced by different words and meaning... yet you continue to attribute them to me. And I am confused, or rather you seem to be. In one breath you accuse me of being a woman, and in the next you accuse me of being a man. You don't even know what you are saying anymore.

      And I repeat: I am done playing this game with you. I am not going to respond to it again. I have said the things I felt I was compelled to say in self defense. (Which would not have been necessary, had it not been for your obsessive and outrageous attacks on my character.)

      And you STILL haven't come up with any examples of me "baselessly" accusing scientists of "fraud".

      So I am done here. Unless any of that changes, I'm gone from this discussion. Talk to yourself all you like.

      Except, of course, you're not REALLY talking to yourself, are you? You're talking to the whole public internet. And you have known that all along, yes? Isn't that the whole point of what you are doing?

    206. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Jane, I just carefully showed you that I never mentioned sexual orientation.

      What is wrong with you? Why do you think it matters whether you are referring to a sexual orientation or an entire gender? That doesn't change the fact that it is sexist stereotyping. Or don't you know what "sexist" means?

      Sheesh. Go back to school, take logic 101.

    207. Re:So....far more than guns by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      In one breath you accuse me of being a woman, and in the next you accuse me of being a man. You don't even know what you are saying anymore.

      Don't be coy. I've always been saying that you're a pathological liar named Lonny Eachus who poses as a woman named Jane Q. Public. Again, I agree with the AC that you're making all women look bad in the process because Jane is completely irrational, expects special treatment and can't keep a single thought straight in his head for more than a couple of minutes and then getting hyper-emotional when called on it. Please find it in your heart to stop lying, Lonny Eachus.

    208. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Don't be coy. I've always been saying that you're a pathological liar named Lonny Eachus who poses as a woman named Jane Q. Public. Again, I agree with the AC that you're making all women look bad in the process because Jane is completely irrational, expects special treatment and can't keep a single thought straight in his head for more than a couple of minutes and then getting hyper-emotional when called on it. Please find it in your heart to stop lying, Lonny Eachus.

      And this is why I am done here. You haven't demonstrated a single lie. So how do you conclude that I am a "pathological liar"?

      You keep making the same claims, and arguing (incorrectly) about them different ways, and you still haven't made your case.

      Let's be very clear: for whatever reason (I would say obsessive reason because *I* think that's obvious, but I'll leave it up to others to decide), you have decided to intentionally try to damage my reputation and character in a public forum. I don't know what your real reasons are, but I don't believe your stated reasons to be genuine. Not that it really matters. What matters is results: you have made claims about be that simply are not true, and which could damage my character and reputation, without any real evidence to support them. And you have made those claims in public, repeatedly, with what I sincerely believe to be malicious intent, with the knowledge that they not just might but would almost certainly be seen by others.

      I could go on, but I won't.

      If you don't see that you seem to be determined to step hip-deep in a puddle of shit that you worked hard to create yourself, and that I have warned you about it for years now, then what happens later is not my responsibility. You have only yourself to blame.

    209. Re:So....far more than guns by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      What happens later won't be your responsibility because Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar and a coward posing as Jane Q. Public who won't do anything. So obviously not your responsibility.

    210. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Exactly the reply I expected. I guess nobody can say you aren't consistent. Or maybe "predictable" is a better word.

    211. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1
      Just to end this exchange where it probably should end (other than, that is, before you even started it), I will remind you that the things I have been saying about your behavior are not just my opinion:

      JQP: try not to let him get to you too much; while he likely does reside in the US where he could face lawsuits/fines/jailtime/ostracization/severely limited job pool for the stuff he's written (if it is indeed the same guy)...

    212. Re:So....far more than guns by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      And once again, you are distorting my comment, which was an admission that I did not know the answer, and characterizing it instead as some kind of denial. You have deserved this at least a hundred times: fuck off, until you figure out how to actually have a discussion with someone rather than insulting them and claiming they said something they didn't. You sorely lack social skills, man. I mean the minimum kind needed to have a rational debate. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-08]

      Given the content of your reply, I am going to give you some credit for relevance. But I do so only very cautiously, in light of your past behavior. I say up front: if you have science to present, then present it. Facts and figures, with references. Otherwise, you have nothing to say to me. I have been very tolerant, and even so I do not like you, or your behavior, or your methods. But if you can produce real science, I will look at it. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-09]

      Charming, as usual. It's strange that you ask for real science to support the "alarmist" fact that humans caused the rise in CO2 because we're burning carbon to release CO2 faster than the warming oceans can outgas their dissolved CO2. Is anyone we know of disputing that? Is it even part of the "debate"?

      "Humans releases more gas then can be absorbed in the same time period as the release." [geekoid]

      Yes, we know that. Nobody I know of is disputing that. It's not even part of the debate. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-05-09]

      The misinformation campaign masquerading as a "debate" certainly does include people disputing the fact that humans caused the ~40% increase in CO2 since the Industrial Revolution.

      "Do you also believe that atmospheric co2 levels reaching 400 ppm isn't an [anthropogenic] effect?" [tolkienfan]

      Why would I believe anything like that? Have you seen me anywhere claiming that I do? Don't be ridiculous. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-05-27]

      Since Jane asked:

      What you've done is proven that CO2 levels may be rising. You haven't proven what has caused those rises. Correlation doesn't equal causation. ... [Archangel Michael, 2010-12-31]

      Agree with Archangel Michael. Human-caused CO2 is about 0.28% of the total. Even if the oceans are getting significantly more acidic or not, it's pretty damned hard to pin that on human activity. Not only is it not "case closed", it's "what case?" [Jane Q. Public, 2010-12-31]

      Jane agrees with Michael's claim that we don't know what caused CO2 levels to rise. Jane's "0.28%" meme disputes the fact that simple accounting (

    213. Re:So....far more than guns by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 11:37

      I see your habit of attempting self-aggrandizement at the expense of others hasn’t changed over time. I also find it amusing how (your 06/24 comment for example) you continue to use methods of argument such as trying to use the very set of data being disputed as proof of itself. I would like to clarify another point: my comments that you characterize as “complaining” are nothing of the sort. I simply pointed out where your behavior was out of line, and apparently INTENDED to irritate and aggravate. I have no need to “complain” when all is said and done, others will decide. But I did have reason to point it out.

      Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 12:22

      In reply to the “notification” you claim to have made, here were your exact words. Which you could easily have quoted yourself, but I’ve noticed that you like to hide things behind links when you could easily quote them yourself but from what I’ve seen you only do that when you think it’s in your favor:

      Hmm.. okay. Well, anyway, it’s been interesting. Just FYI, I’ll be linking to your comments and quoting them when I finally get around to writing a blog article about my experiences debating climate change with the general public. It’s usually helpful to see opposing points of view, and so far your posts are among the most educated and polite of those taking your position.

      Interesting here that you mention writing “an article” about “educated and polite” comments. But nowhere did you mention entire sections of your blog devoted to ripping my comments out of context without informing me at the time, then “arguing” with them here when I don’t even know they exist to rebut. Interesting also that you say you casually mentioned this “long before” ever doing it, but then didn’t see fit to properly notify me when you actually did it. (Until much later, that is.)

      Do you honestly expect me to daily search your page to make sure you haven’t created yet another mischaracterization of my words?

      Here is a practice that I have noticed on your blog, which makes it very difficult for someone to responsibly rebut many things you say: it’s a maze of links to links (some of which go in circles) that often make it difficult for anyone to see the full exchange. I do credit you with (often) linking to an actual exchange, but even then you link to a part of it, not the whole thing. On the surface, you appear to be giving the nod to opposing viewpoints, but the reality is that you link when you feel like it and quote when you feel like it in such a way as to skew the impression in your favor.

      That’s not a “complaint”, it’s merely yet another observation about how much of your behavior has been, in my opinion, far short of professional.

      It is also quite evident that time has supported many of the arguments I made to you in earlier years. For some reason, it appears to me that this has made you angry.

      Thanks for the quote, but clicking on the copying link shows that I already quoted it almost two years ago. That next comment even shows that I properly notified Jane on 2009-07-20 at 1:40AM, which was a few hours after I posted this article. Maybe Jane’s observing that a few hours is “much later” to a mayfly. I get it: we should treasure every hour we have. That’s very Zen. Thanks Jane!

      My statement that “your posts are among the m

    214. Re:So....far more than guns by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 13:06

      And yet again, you neglect to post the comment to which you were replying:

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5334673&cid=47334247

      but I have to say I am glad you did link to that exchange. because in that exchange you make it abundantly clear that your beef with me is PERSONAL. And apparently quite obsessive.

      Which makes any pretense of objectivity about me on this blog appear to be a pathetic joke.

      Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 12:57

      I just love how above you juxtapose something I wrote one day right next to things I wrote 2 and 3 years later, both in a different forum and in different contexts, in a blog post you wrote another year after that, and appear to be trying to present it as some kind of coordinated “misinformation” campaign.

      You do post the dates, but you present these things in a manner that suggests I would still make the same argument if asked today. But of course the only place that 3- or 4-year-old arguments of mine can easily be found anywhere these days are right here on your blog. One might almost think you have some kind of fetish about me. Just an impression I get.

      Do you honestly think people don’t learn over time? If so, how did you get your degree if you didn’t learn something over 3-4 years? (Actually I’m wondering about that one anyway, given the nature of these little “speeches” of yours.) And I’m not even going to go into into the context thing again except to point out that you have thoroughly mixed and conflated them, improperly.

      The important part here is: yet again you demonstrate your habit of “arguing” here on your personal blog with something someone else said years ago, in a different forum and about which they might have changed their minds (or they might have even learned something in the interim). And you (apparently deliberately) juxtapose them with more recent statements about something else, giving the impression that the various comments somehow go together, in some context that you have purely invented.

      I see no way to interpret this as anything but yet another attempt at self-aggrandizement at the expense of your victims.

      Here’s another little “gem”:

      “(Ed. note: This comment was copied from here.)”

      You copied it from another quote of YOURS which was quoting me. Which again does contain a link, but again, you are forcing people to follow links to links to see the actual exchange, when you could have just linked to it directly.

      What is your motive for doing this? When I pointed it out to you before, you complained about time, blog space, etc. but that doesn’t explain why you seem to have done it pretty much whenever it makes you look better, but not at other times.

      Most of these observations about what I consider to be grossly unprofessional behavior are not new. I have mentioned them to you before at various times. I have seen no noticeable improvement.

      Do you honestly think people don’t learn over time?

      I honestly think people define "learning" differently. For instance, you became educated by repeating "Steven Goddard's" accusations that scientists were somehow fraudulently manipulating temperature data to argue that the globe isn't warming, after saying only totally uninformed idiots with "half a brain" hurl those baseless accusations. Here's another example where I have seen no noticeable improvement:

      "Carbon Pollution" is nothing more than a FICTION created

    215. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      I honestly think people define "learning" differently. For instance, you became educated by repeating "Steven Goddard's" accusations that scientists were somehow fraudulently manipulating temperature data to argue that the globe isn't warming, after saying only totally uninformed idiots with "half a brain" hurl those baseless accusations. Here's another example where I have seen no noticeable improvement:

      Since NCDC has already admitted not only that some of "Steven Goddard's" criticisms were known and that they "intended" to "fix" them at some undefinable time in the future, this is a completely specious argument. Note also that any claims of "fraud" were quoting Heller, not my own words. You should follow current events. You might learn something.

      Jane and Lonny Eachus's conspiracy theory ignores all the evidence showing that our carbon pollution is responsible for ~200% of the rise in atmospheric CO2. Let's review:

      One reason nobody talks about oxygen pollution is that atmospheric oxygen is decreasing. Why? CO2 outgassed from the oceans comes out as complete CO2 molecules, so that doesnâ(TM)t decrease atmospheric oxygen. But burning carbon uses up oxygen.

      At WUWT, Ferdinand Engelbeen cites TAR Fig 3.4 (p206) which plots atmospheric O2 vs. CO2 from 1990-2000. If the rise in CO2 were due to ocean outgassing (or volcanoes) the line would be horizontal because O2 wouldnâ(TM)t decrease. If 100% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 were due to burning carbon, the line would point down at a 45 degree angle because each added CO2 molecule removes an O2 molecule from the atmosphere.

      I have responded to this elsewhere. You fail to distinguish between carbon anc CO2, which I have repeatedly told you was my whole point. Except for the special case of fine particulates (more on that below), carbon is simply NOT normally a pollutant.

      "Carbon pollution" is a politically-driven loaded phrase INTENDED TO sway public opinion, for clear and obvious political reasons. NOT a "conspiracy", that was YOUR word used elsewhere, not my own.

      The reason carbon particulates in the atmosphere are a special case is that just about ANYTHING that is turned into fine particulates and spewed into the atmosphere can be considered a pollutant. So there is absolutely nothing unusual about carbon in that regard, and removes any justification for singling it out as a pollutant.

      I'll repeat what I asked you elsewhere: do you deny that elemental or molecular carbon, versus CO2, are different things? Yes or no?

      Again you make a specious argument that has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Apparently for no reason other than to try to make me look bad. Whether CO2 is due to burning carbonaceous materials is completely irrelevant to the point I was making. It is a straw-man, nothing more. And a pretty ridiculous one, at that.

      That's why I asked if you'd retract your misinformation and acknowledge that our carbon emissions are responsible for the CO2 rise, rather than dismissing it as disingenuous. If not, will you at least acknowledge that many people you know of have disputed this fact, including you and Lonny Eachus? I'm trying to see if you're actually learning, rather than backsliding like with the warming you're now denying.

      Loaded statement. I do not retract my comment, because it was honest and true. It was not "misinformation", it was correct in both a scientific and common-sense context.

      I have been trying to see if YOU'RE learning, about how to have a logical argument without straw-man, insults, ad-hominem, taking others' commen

    216. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Addendum to the above:

      You have made it abundantly clear that you are incapable of maintaining "D4" arguments yourself, either here or on your blog. And in the last few days you have utterly demolished any pretense you might have of scientific objectivity... by your own clear words.

      It is far past time for you to go away. In fact that time was years ago. You are making a fool of yourself AND making that a problem for me at the same time.

    217. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 0

      I am also going to point out here that the problem with USHCN data which was pointed out by "Steven Goddard" is not just some little inconsequential little blip or artifact. It is a serious problem with the quality of data we have been receiving for years from USHCN.

      Their comment that they "intended" to "fix" it at some undefined in the future is outrageously insufficient. They have admitted that they knew of a genuine problem affecting the quality of their data, for some time, and did not make that information known to others. That is inexcusable in circumstances such as these.

      Heller showed that at least in one case, improperly "infilling" data led to a difference of 1.35 degrees C. That's an astounding failure on the part of NCDC.

    218. Re:So....far more than guns by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Heller showed that at least in one case, improperly "infilling" data led to a difference of 1.35 degrees C. That's an astounding failure on the part of NCDC.

      Correction: that discrepancy might not have been found by Heller, but he reported it, and it was the same improper "infilling" of data which caused it.

    219. Re:So....far more than guns by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      Since Jane asked to be notified, I'm also posting this comment here.

      Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 15:17

      Thanks for the quote, but clicking on the copying link shows that I already quoted it almost two years ago. That next comment even shows that I properly notified Jane on 2009-07-20 at 1:40AM, which was a few hours after I posted this article.

      First, my quote was from the original source, not from your blog. I, for one, prefer not to post quotes of quotes of quotes. As for the notification, that was 5 years ago, or close enough. How often have you notified me since, that you have been posting ONGOING diatribes containing my comments out of context? I’ve come here to look every couple of years or so, but your comments elsewhere have gotten rather extreme, so I decided to look again.

      My statement that “your posts are among the most educated and polite of those taking your position” is a scathing criticism of climate contrarians, not a compliment. I don’t expect you to daily search my page, because, as I’ve told you, I’m posting my comments as replies to your most recent Slashdot comment to make a frozen public copy, and to give you a chance to respond on neutral ground.

      No, you told me (see quote above) that you were writing “a blog article” (which is generally understood to be a one-time thing, because of the word ARTICLE), not a years-long one-sided “debate”. And I will remind you that long ago I retracted any permission to so use my words. I am simply not obligated to come to your site to defend myself from your distortions.

      I am quite familiar with the fair use doctrine, and what it says about publicly available material. But I will remind you also what that name means. Not all forms of “use” are fair game.

      Which of the arguments you made earlier have been supported by time?

      I do not intend to get into an argument about it here. I made an observation. If you disagree, you disagree.

      Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 15:26

      I will also point out that your claim to the effect that you are “freezing comments in time” is pretty obviously disingenuous. The vast majority of comments of mine that you have used still exist in original form and could easily be referenced in their entirety, rather than cherry-picked fragments.

      The excuse you make is not justification for repeatedly presenting my own comments in a manner that is obviously intended to reflect meanings or nuances that were not intended when I wrote them. I have mentioned this to you many times now.

      First you claimed I hadn't notified you until after this article was posted, which you felt was "somewhat unethical". After I linked and quoted my notification, you didn't retract your suggestion that I'm "somewhat unethical". Instead, you complained about the way I quoted my notification.

      Then you claimed I hadn't notified you after I wrote this article until "much later" when I'd actually notified you within a few hours. Will you retract your claim, or is "much later" actually defined as a few hours in Janeland?

      Now you're claiming I don't notify you each time I write a comment debunking your misinformation. But again, I'd been posting my comments as replies to your most recent Slashdot comment. At least, I did until you

    220. Re:So....far more than guns by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      This comment was also posted here.

      ... are you accusing me of "baselessly" accusing scientists of "fraud"? If so, would you care to back that up? So far you're about 0 for 100, so I doubt there is much chance of that. But I am curious where and when you imagine this happened. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-30]

      ... can you come up with an example of ME, Jane Q. Public, "baselessly" accusing scientists of "fraud", or not? Come on. You don't have an example, do you? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-30]

      ... you still don't have an example of me "baselessly" claiming scientists had committed "fraud". Or anyone claiming such, for that matter. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-30]

      ... I am still waiting for an example of me "baselessly" claiming scientists committed "fraud". I don't think you have one of those, either. Which is just more evidence that I have been right, all along. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-30]

      ... How fascinating that you still haven't managed to produce a single example of me actually doing this. (Or demonstrated the truth of any of your other claims, for that matter. You're 0 for whatever, now. I've stopped counting.) Is that because you "forgot" where they were? Or is it -- I daresay vastly more likely -- that this is just another "baseless accusation" of the type YOU appear to have been making? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-30]

      "This "study" specifically searched for "global warming". It's self-selecting, i.e., LYING with statistics. Don't lie. And if the "science" were near as solid as they claim, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO lie about it, as they consistently have." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-01-29]

      "... I know about quite a bit of dishonest "science" going on in the "global warming" ranks. Including, just for one example, that bogus "97%" claim made recently. It's such statistical garbage that the guys who put it forward should have any license to practice "science" revoked." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-20]

    221. Re:So....far more than guns by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      This comment was also posted here.

      "... publicly reported "statistics" that are so distorted one might even be justified in calling them fraudulent, like the bogus "97% consensus" claim." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-23]

      "... in fact it is a relatively small, rather incestuous group who try to lie with statistics to "prove" their cause to the populace, by doing things like cherry-picking papers in order to claim a bogus "97% consensus"." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

      "... that bullshit "97% consensus" claim made recently. ... the survey purporting to show that "97%" was a BS parody of responsible statistics. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

      "News for you Climate Alarmists. Not only is "97% Consensus” proved false, but even "vast majority” is bullshit. I’m tired of the bullshit." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-13]

      "... "vast majority” is just another lie. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the... http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/thats-... Why do they lie? When you do responsible science, you don’t have to lie about it. But the "97% consensus” is actually a BULLSHIT lie." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-29]

      "I am not inclined to accept the word of SkepticalScience. Their credibility was rather damaged recently when they attempted to pass off that “97%” nonsense as truth, when it was actually such a heap of statistical garbage that a middle-schooler could refute it. That’s putting it mildly. They have demonstrated that they are not committed to honestly presenting their own statistics, so I am perfectly justified in distrusting their comments about the mathematics of others." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

      "... how about the recent "97%" claim by the people at SkepticalScience? It was dirt simple to show that it was nothing but statistical bullshit. Why would an organization representing responsible scientists lie to people? ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-06]

      "Bogus climate science: "Enron would blush at such fraud." http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/one..." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-28]

      "I'm tempted, but I won't say "CO2 warming" is actually "fraudulent" science, because I don't have proof. There is LOTS of evidence, though." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-07]

      "What "climate scientists" say about "deniers" actually describes themselves.
      - driven by politics & money
      - denies genuine science
      Hell, people, they've been CAUGHT lying about it. They're the "deniers"."
      [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]

      "Such consistency almost never happen in real science. So one reasonable explanation would be fraud. Be skeptical!!! pic.twitter.com/EFvXgKCdTH" [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-18]

      "In case you haven't noticed, the global warming scam is by far the biggest scientific/government fraud ever perpe

    222. Re:So....far more than guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just stumbled on this thread - you're wrong. Your bias is that they bought the gun for the purpose of killing themselves, and we can't know that. Some did. Some killed themselves accidentally. Some because they feared their own murder, and it came true. Some just were unlucky. At least a few made it known they had bought a weapon, and directly caused their own death when someone else decided to take them out first.

  2. I'll.... by Danzigism · · Score: 5, Funny

    Drink to that.

    --
    *plays the Apogee theme song music*
    1. Re:I'll.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I wonder if the study included drunken fatal events/stunts that started with the phrase "Hey y'all, check this out"

    2. Re:I'll.... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 3, Funny

      I wonder if the study included drunken fatal events/stunts that started with the phrase "Hey y'all, check this out"

      No, no, no.

      It's "hold my beer and watch this!"

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  3. real justice based entirely on mercy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    judge as we would wish to be judged? 'they lay down their arms, stand hand in hand & gaze up into the heavens..... see you there

  4. Double-dash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    -- is your friend. This "exploit" has long been known, and most commands have addressed it. Not news.

  5. So What by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't care if you drink yourself to an early grave.
    I don't care if you smoke yourself to an early grave.
    I don't care if you eat yourself to an early grave.

    This is all about more gov control, taxes, regulation to protect us from ourselves.

    1. Re:So What by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure why your lack of concern of serious public health issues matters more than anyone elses' concern. If premature deaths actually just affected the person responsible, it would be a more tacitly agreeable position. But the reality we face is one where people depend on each other, drunk drivers kill other people, and many people aren't fully aware of the consequences.

      Those are all reasons to be interested in alcohol at a policy level. Outright prohibition has problems that are pretty well understood, but pretending that's what's on the table from these data is dishonest.

    2. Re:So What by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

      No, antisocial people are the first to set buses on fire. You meant to say asocial, but this has nothing to do with that. He's also not saying anything about how things should be run other than implicitly wanting the government to leave him alone. No paradox here, it's live and let live.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    3. Re:So What by gnick · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "I don't care if you live or die" is fundamentally different than "I won't try to force my perception of healthy living on you".

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    4. Re:So What by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      also, when people die preventable deaths we all pay a lot of money. think of the costs of liver transplants. you think that wino is paying out of pocket for it? no, it's either coming from his insurance or a public program, and in either case the cost is spread over the rest of us. multiply by a million. also, note that the summary says that alcohol is the leading cause of death for people in the prime of their lives. you know what I call them? breadwinners. and when the breadwinner dies who do you think pays for the families? for some of them, you and I. Another word for breadwinners - people who drive the economy. i don't know the math for how much money it causes us because the economy takes a hit because you're siphoning off productive people like this.

      so yeah, we all have a vested interest in combatting preventable disease. this has nothing to do with any moral or ethical or busybodyness judgments. no man is an economic island, and we are all interconnected. I fail to see why somebody else should steal money out of my pocket.

    5. Re:So What by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Let's just make the libertarian case against this argument, because I believe I can do so, and deconstruct it without resorting to a strawman.

      The argument is that people should be made to be more of economic islands, by never taking care of anyone for them. That is to say, let them die without that liver unless they pay for it.

      The problem with this idea is that this kind of lack of empathy for others' suffering isn't natural any more than the communist ideal of no greed is natural.

    6. Re:So What by causality · · Score: 1

      I don't care if you drink yourself to an early grave. I don't care if you smoke yourself to an early grave. I don't care if you eat yourself to an early grave.

      "I don't care if you live or die..."

      This is all about more gov control, taxes, regulation to protect us from ourselves.

      "...but I do think you should listen to my opinion."

      Well, at least you gave us fair warning! Antisocial people are, paradoxically, the first to give their opinion on how the world should be run.

      There's nothing more profoundly anti-social than trying to control other people and force them to live only the way that you want them to.

      GP has the right idea. "I don't care if you ... " means "I don't care to force my will on you". If you want advice from someone, you're free to ask.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    7. Re:So What by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      Fuck empathy. If you want to be an island, you have to buy your way out. Otherwise, I'm going to take reasonable measures to save your life, because I'm not a monster. And if you're going to put me on the hook for your well being, you better not waste my money.

    8. Re:So What by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      Also, a little gratitude would be nice for me being your benefactor.

    9. Re:So What by losfromla · · Score: 1

      I'll drink to that!

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    10. Re:So What by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't care if you drink yourself to an early grave.

      Just make sure your drunken idiocy doesn't take any of the rest of us with you

      I don't care if you smoke yourself to an early grave.

      As long as you don't make me breathe your carcinogenic fumes

      I don't care if you eat yourself to an early grave.

      And I'd really prefer if you didn't ask my insurance premiums to pay for your health care

      Sure, they all look like foolish ways for a person to harm himself, but it turns out they have externalities. Diabetes, for example: direct, lifetime health care costs associated with diabetes are around $85,000-100,000, and the incidence of diabetes is around 8.5%. That means your diabetes costs me $8000. Eat all you want, just don't expect me to pay for it.

    11. Re:So What by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Let's just make the libertarian case against this argument, because I believe I can do so, and deconstruct it without resorting to a strawman. The argument is that people should be made to be more of economic islands, by never taking care of anyone for them. That is to say, let them die without that liver unless they pay for it.

      Well, you failed, because that is not the libertarian argument, it's a straw man, especially the "economic islands" part. Libertarian ideas require and encourage greater social interaction among people, not less. It also makes use of empathy for others', it doesn't ignore it, but rather values it as a better motivator than coercion (higher levels of confiscation of the fruits of labor by force).

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    12. Re:So What by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

      I don't care if you drink yourself to an early grave.
      I don't care if you smoke yourself to an early grave.
      I don't care if you eat yourself to an early grave.

      "I don't care if you live or die..."

      This is all about more gov control, taxes, regulation to protect us from ourselves.

      "...but I do think you should listen to my opinion."

      Well, at least you gave us fair warning! Antisocial people are, paradoxically, the first to give their opinion on how the world should be run.

      There's nothing more profoundly anti-social than trying to control other people and force them to live only the way that you want them to.

      Perhaps you've just heard of this thing called society. It has been all about conforming to social norms with punishments for doing tabboo things for thousands of years now. The only real changes have been what is a norm and what is a tabboo.

    13. Re:So What by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't care if you smoke yourself to an early grave.

      As long as you don't make me breathe your carcinogenic fumes

      Turn your car off and start walking then.

    14. Re:So What by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      The way to prevent death by drunk drivers is to fix zoning so that bars can be found within walking (or staggering) distance of where people live.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    15. Re:So What by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't care if you drink yourself to an early grave.
      I don't care if you smoke yourself to an early grave.
      I don't care if you eat yourself to an early grave.

      This is all about more gov control, taxes, regulation to protect us from ourselves.

      Being born is the #1 cause of death. I'm pretty sure if we mandated forced sterilization at birth we would eliminate the causes of death within one generation.

    16. Re:So What by strikethree · · Score: 1

      "I don't care if you live or die" is fundamentally different than "I won't try to force my perception of healthy living on you".

      Yes. So... what?

      Do you really expect everyone to care about everyone? Yes, we should all treat each other decently; however, I (and nobody else that I know) could possibly care for someone they have not met. Millions of people are suffering incredibly or dying all of the time. I would be a spiritual and emotional mess if I were to actually care directly.

      Otherwise, they are not fundamentally different. "I do not care" directly translates to "I will not try to force".

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    17. Re:So What by causality · · Score: 1

      I don't care if you drink yourself to an early grave. I don't care if you smoke yourself to an early grave. I don't care if you eat yourself to an early grave.

      "I don't care if you live or die..."

      This is all about more gov control, taxes, regulation to protect us from ourselves.

      "...but I do think you should listen to my opinion."

      Well, at least you gave us fair warning! Antisocial people are, paradoxically, the first to give their opinion on how the world should be run.

      There's nothing more profoundly anti-social than trying to control other people and force them to live only the way that you want them to.

      Perhaps you've just heard of this thing called society. It has been all about conforming to social norms with punishments for doing tabboo things for thousands of years now. The only real changes have been what is a norm and what is a tabboo.

      Rather than patronizingly talking down to me like this, try to understand where I'm coming from. I'm not talking about crimes that have victims here, like robbery and murder. Preventing those is legitimately within the purpose of having a government and a society. I'm talking about the wrong of trying to dictate lifestyles, of trying to micromanage the way others live based not on crimes but on approval. It's not terribly different from dictating to people what they may read, listen to, watch, and discuss.

      American tyranny is what they call a soft tyranny. It's not so much jack-booted thugs waving guns around, demanding compliance. That's hard tyranny. Soft tyranny is when you no longer treat adult people like responsible adults because "you know what's good for them". The only way to have a healthy, long-term viable society is to expect adults to be responsible, to make their own decisions in any instance that does not involve a crime with a victim, and then (importantly) to accept the consequences of those decisions. Any effort to circumvent this will eventually destroy the very society itself.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    18. Re:So What by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, a little gratitude would be nice for me being your benefactor.

      People tend to show more gratitude for those things they actually asked for.

    19. Re:So What by gnick · · Score: 1

      "I do not care" directly translates to "I will not try to force".

      Really? I can honestly say that I don't care if you want to eat a fat-laden meal when you get home from work today instead of a healthy salad. I hope that goes both ways - 'Cuz I might want one too. And if I catch somebody smoking a cigarette, I probably won't be the guy with a squirt gun wetting it out.

      Did you proof-read your post? I won't force you to retract it, but really I don't much care. Try again.

      Otherwise, they are not fundamentally different. "I do not care" directly translates to "I will not try to force".

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    20. Re:So What by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

      Rather than patronizingly talking down to me like this, try to understand where I'm coming from. I'm not talking about crimes that have victims here, like robbery and murder. Preventing those is legitimately within the purpose of having a government and a society. I'm talking about the wrong of trying to dictate lifestyles, of trying to micromanage the way others live based not on crimes but on approval. It's not terribly different from dictating to people what they may read, listen to, watch, and discuss.

      I still hold by my position that society has been trying to dictate the way people live their lives for thousands of years not based solely on crimes with victims but by a persons behavior as well. Etiquette, morality, traditional gender roles, fraternal groups, religious organizations. There have always been groups of people that pressure others to conform. People on the outside are treated poorly. I'm not saying that this is how things should be.

      Your comment said trying to control other people's lives was profoundly anti-social. I'm telling you this is the essence of what social organization is. The best you can do is find a social group that has similar beliefs and behaviors to your own.

  6. Reinstate the Prohibition by WormholeFiend · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It works so well with currently illegal drugs.

    1. Re:Reinstate the Prohibition by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      and yet, zero deaths due to 'overdosing' (impossible in practical terms) from taking teh pot (sic).

      one is still (federally) illegal and the other advertises freely on print and broadcast media.

      I often wonder if we are living in opposite-land, given that our logic is in reverse.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    2. Re:Reinstate the Prohibition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they reinstate Prohibition I raise taxes to 90% in the US in retaliation...

    3. Re:Reinstate the Prohibition by retchdog · · Score: 2, Interesting

      a lot of the alcohol deaths were due to impairment, not outright overdose. as pot becomes more overt, these numbers will increase too, as they already have in Colorado.

      i do agree with your point, and i'm quite sure that pot is still notably safer, but we'll be seeing more and more articles like this on cannabis.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    4. Re:Reinstate the Prohibition by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      the articles on pot will be biased beyond all belief. the US won't admit that they were wrong, all along. never admit you were wrong: that's the government's motto. plus, there is too much money involved in arresting people, jailing them (for-profit jails!) and stealing their assets in immoral property grabs.

      there will be more car crashes due to mothers yelling at their kids in the back seat, cell phone use and inattentive drivers (not stoned) than pot users, but I do expect lots of SPIN trying to convince us of how evil the devil weed is.

      just don't believe it. its all lies.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    5. Re:Reinstate the Prohibition by Threni · · Score: 1

      Well, they'll start on about alcohol like they do with smoking. Plain packaging, not having people drink on tv, ban on commercials etc etc.

    6. Re:Reinstate the Prohibition by retchdog · · Score: 2

      well, yeah, i agree with you, i'm just commenting that this is going to happen.

      and it's not all lies. that's the definition of spin: it's a careful 'interpretation' of truth. the lack of a fast objective test for marijuana impairment is a real problem, as is the synergistic effect of pot and alcohol (anecdote: the one and only time i ever blacked out was the one and only time i mixed (relatively modest) amounts of the two).

      these problems don't justify criminalization in and of themselves (imho), but it's not "all lies." that's just your spin on it.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    7. Re:Reinstate the Prohibition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      zero deaths due to 'overdosing' (impossible in practical terms) from taking teh pot (sic).

      Right, just deaths from marijuana poisoning. Which is totally different from overdosing on marijuana.

      Stupid stoners.

    8. Re:Reinstate the Prohibition by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      It's part of the fascination with alcohol that the US has. It's a very adult thing--so adult you have to be 21 to do it. We don't drink because the booze is good; we drink because boooooooooze and drooooooonk so cool!!!!

      Pennsylvania did a study to show that European-style alcohol legislation increases alcoholism. You're an alcoholic if you have 2 drinks in 1 day more than once a week, by the way. In Europe, where 16 year olds can buy beer and parents can order alcohol for their 14 year olds, everyone is alcoholics. I mean they drink a beer with lunch and dinner a couple times a week, they're total boozers.

    9. Re:Reinstate the Prohibition by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Have they? The only thing I'm aware of happening on a big scale are newbies eating large amounts of edibles not realizing their potency and then losing control. Basically a matter of not having a proper dosage and labeling system.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    10. Re:Reinstate the Prohibition by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 0

      You are stupid. Marijuana has always been legal in Colorado and Washington. It was only the interference of nasty Europeans that created such problems. The US has also never had a death penalty, and never wrongfully arrested anyone, and has less crime than everywhere and lower unemployment and fewer poor people.

    11. Re:Reinstate the Prohibition by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      there will be more car crashes due to mothers yelling at their kids in the back seat, cell phone use and inattentive drivers (not stoned) than pot users, but I do expect lots of SPIN trying to convince us of how evil the devil weed is.

      just don't believe it. its all lies.

      studies have shown that mothers with children in the car are the safest drivers, because they drive conservatively and are very aware of surroundings. try again.

    12. Re:Reinstate the Prohibition by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Not to worry, we're going to see the downsides of freely available marijuana in the near term. Hint: concentrating the very potent strains available today (for example, brownies, hash oil or whatever the hell they're calling it these days) can induce a psychosis in some folks. Psychotic folks do dangerous / stupid things.

      Is it anywhere near the extent of alcohol related harms? Nope. But don't pretend that ANY drug is harmless.

      "Poison is in everything, and no thing is without poison.
      The dosage makes it either a poison or a remedy."

      Paracelsus, 1700's I believe.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    13. Re:Reinstate the Prohibition by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

      I believe edibles and "concentrate" like wax and honey oil are a totally different ball park. They will certainly fuck you up way past functional with very little (with strong edibles)

    14. Re:Reinstate the Prohibition by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

      Source?

    15. Re:Reinstate the Prohibition by retchdog · · Score: 2

      http://www.nbcnews.com/health/...

      admittedly, it's retrospective (they are finding more marijuana metabolites in dead drivers than before), but Bayes' formula suggests validity of the inference. p(pot|dead)=p(dead|pot)*p(pot)/p(dead). legalization will definitely increase p(pot), and it might decrease p(dead|pot) in the long run as people and social norms adapt. but as you said, there are a lot of newbs out for now.

      part of the problem is that marijuana intoxication is harder to screen for; this is a good thing in some ways (it's probably intrinsically safer, since they pass the field test at higher rates), but it makes deterrence harder.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    16. Re:Reinstate the Prohibition by losfromla · · Score: 1

      marijuana poisoning? Is there such a thing? Definitely not by smoking, you'd pass out before you could, so maybe from ingestion? Would it be similar to leaf poisoning from eating too many tree leaves?
      Seriously though, from what I know, you can OD on it if you eat it (properly prepared) due to the delay time from ingestion to onset of symptoms. What happens is people don't know that it is coming and so keep eating the brownies and end up eating way too many. I have not heard of this actually happening but theoretically it is possible.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    17. Re:Reinstate the Prohibition by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

      Another thing that makes getting accurate numbers harder is that marijuana metabolites stay in the system much longer. With current methods, it's not an indication of being stoned when they wrecked so much as it an indication that they've been stoned within a week.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    18. Re:Reinstate the Prohibition by retchdog · · Score: 1

      yeah, that's fair enough. the formula leaves out whether pot really increases fatalities, which is the actual point of interest; oops. if pot use uniformly increases by 3x, then even with no effect it would be detected 3x as often among the dead.

      it seems intuitively reasonable that it would cause some accidents, but good numbers are not forthcoming.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    19. Re:Reinstate the Prohibition by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      the lack of a fast objective test for marijuana impairment is a real problem

      No, it isn't. The fast objective test for marijuana impairment is the same as the fast objective test for alcohol impairment. What the cops are moaning about is the lack of a fast objective test for marijuana (Well, THC) levels, which is completely irrelevant because there is no evidence whatsoever either that marijuana impairs driving ability (many drivers actually tested better under the influence) nor as a result is there any amount in your system which can be considered an unsafe driving threshold. So in fact, the lack of blah blah blah is not even a thing which is a problem at all, and the thing the cops are actually complaining about (way to fail to understand the argument!) is also not a problem.

      as is the synergistic effect of pot and alcohol

      Alcohol being the problem, of course. And luckily, you can test for it. And the "synergistic" effect is actually just that THC is a vasodilator, and it causes more bloodflow which causes alcohol to be pumped through the system more — which will show up on a breathalyzer test. IOW, this is also a non-issue.

      these problems don't justify criminalization in and of themselves (imho), but it's not "all lies."

      No, it's mostly lies, and the rest is misdirection.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    20. Re:Reinstate the Prohibition by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Not going to disagree, but that's the only really clear trend I have heard about. Someone else cited that they found marijuana metabolites in the systems of drivers in accidents more often, but said metabolites have long half-lives, so it doesn't indicate driving while stoned.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    21. Re:Reinstate the Prohibition by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      which is completely irrelevant because there is no evidence whatsoever either that marijuana impairs driving ability

      Selected effects from Erowid (hardly a pro-prohibition source) which impact one's ability to operate machinery:

      * slowness (slow driving, talking)
      * interruption of linear memory; difficulty following a train of thought
      * time sense altered (for example, cars seem like they are moving too fast); time dilation and compression are common at higher doses
      * dizziness, confusion
      * clumsiness, loss of coordination at high doses

      One would think that we could agree that people should have full control of their faculties when operating heavy machinery. Personally, I wasted three years of my life smoking weed, I know first hand what the effects are, and I don't care to share the roadways with a bunch of stoned drivers. If you need THC so badly you can't stay sober while operating your automobile you've got a problem and need to seek help.

      As an aside, I really hate people who have to argue in favor of marijuana by dismissing the known negative effects. You can't just say "Let people be responsible for their own choices", you have to dismiss the negative effects of recreational drug use. Perhaps that's a logical reaction to 75 years of lying from the other side, but it still seems intentionally dishonest to me.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    22. Re:Reinstate the Prohibition by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      You don't OD on it in the classical sense that it kills you. You can OD on it to the point that you suffer very negative effects, particularly if you eat it. For a novice user the effects would be very overwhelming. Hell, even for a regular user the effects wouldn't be pleasant. Maureen Dowd wrote about this recently.

      Consuming too much of any substance sucks. I only have first hand experience with THC, alcohol, and caffeine. Of the three I've found the caffeine overdose to be the worst experience, defining overdose here as "consuming more than I should", not "consuming so much my health is in danger".

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    23. Re:Reinstate the Prohibition by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      But don't pretend that ANY drug is harmless.

      They have to pretend it's harmless, the same way the most rabid elements of the pro-choice crowd have to tell themselves "It's just a lump of cells."

      Very few people are capable of simply leaving the argument at "It's your body, you're responsible for the choices you make." They have to go further and pretend that lighting a plant on fire and inhaling the smoke into your lungs is somehow good for you. As though walking around stoned all the time is somehow a benefit to yourself and society.

      The best explanation I ever heard of pot came from a South Park episode: "Well, Stan, the truth is marijuana probably isn't gonna make you kill people, and it most likely isn't gonna fund terrorism, but, well son, pot makes you feel fine with being bored, and it's when you're bored that you should be learning some new skill or discovering some new science or being creative. If you smoke pot you may grow up to find out that you aren't good at anything."

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    24. Re:Reinstate the Prohibition by retchdog · · Score: 1

      well, i guess an ideal field test would be a perfect VR driving simulator! it's possible that it's easy to pass the current alcohol field test while just as impaired for actual driving. i really don't know. at any rate, it seems a priori to be a concern of some degree.

      as Shakrai said already, it would be amazing indeed if pot somehow had no detrimental effects at all on driving. it's possible, i guess, but it seems very unlikely. i'm sure some people are helped by pot, but i doubt that they are representative.

      i doubt that pot's only synergistic effect is as a vasodilator, but it seems easy to test. know of any studies?

      and, yes, it is mostly lies. we agree on that anyway.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    25. Re:Reinstate the Prohibition by retchdog · · Score: 1

      It's the usual "biased skeptic" routine of disingenuous agnosticism.

      The other side does it too with e-cigarettes. According to them, we need extensive blank-slate studies of the effects of e-cigarette inhalation, even though we know all of the ingredients (glycerin, propylene glycol, flavorings/colorants, nicotine) and have studied the hell out of each of them already.

      It's the same here. Even though marijuana slows reaction time and impairs judgment (except for my stoner friends who all told me that they totally drive better when they're high), we haven't specifically studied its effect on driving, so hey, we can't really say anything at all, and you can't use the precautionary principle because that's tantamount to communism (when did this become a thing, anyway?).

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    26. Re:Reinstate the Prohibition by losfromla · · Score: 1

      Well, then I'll count you on the side that argues that one can't OD on it.

      If we go down the path you are suggesting as a definition of OD then one could OD on eating lettuce. How about we agree to stick to the classical definition unless there is a clear and compelling reason for doing otherwise?

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    27. Re:Reinstate the Prohibition by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

      Really only if you consider eating too much and not being able to handle the intense high ODing on it. I generally consider an overdose to be a life threatening situation, as in actually life threatening, not that you believe you're dying.

      Really, this problem wouldn't be so bad if people didn't consume normal brownies in massive quantities. If you just ate a normal amount of the pot brownies you'd be less likely to have this issue.

    28. Re:Reinstate the Prohibition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and now it appears perhaps they'll be going after alcohol.

      Why do so many people make such a baseless leap from a study saying something has bad effects to the government ban is imminent?

    29. Re:Reinstate the Prohibition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the US won't admit that they were wrong, all along. never admit you were wrong: that's the government's motto

      It's also the motto of a lot of idiot conservatives who always accuse $popular_not_conservative_politician of "apologizing for America" even though he or she hasn't done any such thing. Or, put another way, there's a not insignificant number of idiots out there who never want our country to admit to any mistakes ever, even when we make them. I damn well want somebody to apologize for a screwup when one happens.

      You're right, though. They've never admitted Prohibition was a mistake. The best you'll get out of a politician on that one is that it didn't work. Then of course they ignore the absolute stark reality of some other kind of banning of stuff that people want which also doesn't work, and they refuse to admit that the enforcement causes more misery, family breakups, and other such lovely consequences than addiction ever would or could.

    30. Re:Reinstate the Prohibition by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      as Shakrai said already, it would be amazing indeed if pot somehow had no detrimental effects at all on driving.

      If Americans paid any fucking attention normally, it probably would have. But since they only do when they're under the influence of something, it actually made quite a selection of the survey group better. Unlike alcohol, it doesn't make you feel like you can do things you can't.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    31. Re:Reinstate the Prohibition by cmdr_tofu · · Score: 1

      Do you have a citation for this study? I'm anti alcohol, but I think this is pretty low bar for alcoholism. When I think of alcoholism, I think of intermittent-to-regular out of control (like more than 4 drinks) drinking.

    32. Re:Reinstate the Prohibition by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Their argument holds zero water with me. We haven't specifically studied the effect of Ambien on driving, but common sense says it's an extremely foolish idea to consume a depressant prior to operating heavy machinery. THC doesn't neatly fall into the depressant category, but it does have well known depressant effects, and it's beyond absurd to condone driving under the influence.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    33. Re:Reinstate the Prohibition by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Not on hand. It was something I came across years ago when I was reviewing English alcohol laws. The Pennsylvania government research group that performed the study really did claim you're an alcoholic if you drink 2 drinks in 1 day more than 1 day per week.

  7. Risk. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This falls on deaf ears.

    In the meantime, we're spending trillions on the War on Terrorism. Hundreds of billions on the War on Drugs - alcohol NOT included. Lots and lots of bickering about gun control.

    And in the meantime, you're probably gonna die from heart disease, cancer, some complications from obesity or alcohol.

    Oh wait, terrorists and Mexican drug lords don't have lobbyists in Washington, DC.

    my bad.

    1. Re:Risk. by Immerman · · Score: 2

      Of *course* the drug lords have lobbyists in DC, they just don't announce themselves. Move the stuff off the black market and profits fall through the floor. Even with all the attempts at restricting production the price of pot in Colorado and other (semi)-legalized states is falling.

      Given the fact that prohibition doesn't actually work and never has (we can't even keep drugs out of *prisons*, how could we possibly keep them out of a free society?), there are only two rational reasons to attempt it:
      (1) Police empowerment - nothing like a mandate to fight an unwinnable war on an ill-defined subset of the general population to provide an excuse for ever-increasing funding and the erosion of civil rights.
      (2) Bolstering the black market. And as a bonus since they're operating outside the law in an extremely lucrative market, the merchants have incentive to resort to violence among themselves and with the authorities, further bolstering (1).

      Take your pick. Historically both outcomes are the only major results of any prohibition attempt in a free society.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  8. Butt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They tell me than drinking is good for me. Whom do I believe now? Flip a coin? Go with the more drinking? Go with less? Tell me slashdot fruends. What shall I do now?

    1. Re:Butt by Immerman · · Score: 1

      From your level of reading comprehension I'd say you've had plenty already. *Excessive* drinking increases your risk of imminent death. Meanwhile most of the health benefits have been associated with consumption in the ~1 drink per day range. I think traumatic injury/surgery recovery is the only situation where I've heard of high levels of intoxication being potentially helpful.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    2. Re:Butt by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      The reality is that our bodies react in a number of different ways to a number of different chemicals, so the healthy choice would depend on a number of factors, and your overall long term well being is an even more complicated matter, since it's often dependent upon relationships with others, employment, etc.. If you skip breakfast to make a meeting that grants you a better paying job with more free time, it's probably a net win.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  9. It's a matter of perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I mean, it's probably better that I die from drinking than other people die from murder.

  10. 1 in 10 adult deaths by XanC · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1 in 10 deaths, huh? That's a bold statement considering the huge qualifications on it:
    * 22-64 years old
    * preventable

    So the actual number is much less than 1 in 10, not much more as the summary says.

    1. Re:1 in 10 adult deaths by pr0fessor · · Score: 3, Informative

      I once told a professor that he should change the title of his statistics course to "lying with numbers made fun".

      Often times people will cut down a sample or leave out important information in a summary just to promote a point, it's disingenuous.

    2. Re:1 in 10 adult deaths by Yakasha · · Score: 1

      What do Law, Statistics, and Amelia Badelia all have in common?
      lack of context.

    3. Re:1 in 10 adult deaths by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics'

      Mark Twain (or Benjamin Disraeli or somebody else)

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:1 in 10 adult deaths by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 1

      This is not so surprising. In his book Freakonomics, Stephen Levitt used econometric techniques (statistics for economists) to show that the most dangerous mode of transportation was not flying, driving, or riding a bicycle, it was walking while drunk.

      Fact is, drunk people tend to do stupid things, like walking out in the middle of the road without looking.

      Why is it 1 in 10? Well, accidental death in 22-64 year olds is not particularly common. And natural causes, even less so.

    5. Re:1 in 10 adult deaths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You know what I thought when I say that headline? I thought, "Wow, 90% of deaths aren't caused by alcohol!" See, the glass isn't 1/10 empty. It's 9/10 full!

      Party on, dude!

    6. Re:1 in 10 adult deaths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, let's see here:

      "22-64 years old", i.e. the person died before making it to a ripe old age. Unless you're a soulless monster, that's kind of tragic.
      "preventable", i.e. not the kind that's unavoidable. I'm not sure why anyone would worry about things that, by definition, are unpreventable.

      So, yes, the sample is restricted. Bravo for being educated enough to know that. However, the sample is restricted in an intelligent way to bring the relevant facts to the forefront and yet you treat that as a problem. So, basically, you are a well-educated dolt and so are the people who modded you up.

    7. Re:1 in 10 adult deaths by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      Preventable deaths of adults is the kind of death we should care about because

      * While we like kids, they're already pretty good at not dying.
      * While we like old people, they've lived a long life and are going to die comparatively soon anyway.
      * Non-preventable deaths are hardly productive to focus on.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
  11. Died in the saddle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There's something to be said for passing away while doing something you love.

  12. Self Medication by Virtucon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Having had an alcoholic step dad and grandfather I can say there's many reasons that people drink. Mostly it's one because they want to and if they don't have alcohol they'll use something else smoking, drugs whatever may be available. Alcohol allows people to self medicate and avoid things in life or help to forget things in life, like the fact that their lives didn't turn out as planned. For others it's just an activity because others are doing it around them and they can't stop because they get addicted to it.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    1. Re:Self Medication by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same things can be said for junkies and people who lash out in violence. I'm failing to see your point here.

    2. Re:Self Medication by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      Antidepressants bother me also, sure there may be times when they are useful for reasons that make sense. If your wife cheats on you with your best friend and then takes the car and the house in the divorce... chances are pills won't help.

    3. Re:Self Medication by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Self-medication with alcohol can be useful, though. I found out a long while back that consuming 1 ounce of liquor (rum, whiskey, brandy) every 2-3 days fixed my clinical depression. I took to occasionally sipping a shot of whiskey out of a sniffer over 3-4 hours, or drinking a beer or two now and then. Didn't need to booze out on it, and it really did last days.

      The baseline behavior was a severe downward spiral of emotion in reaction to any negative emotion stemming from a failed expectation or a trivial mistake. The corrected behavior was minor upset bounded to the degree of the original stimulus, with no avalanche effect. I decided 2-3 beers a week was probably safer than Zoloft or such, so did that for a while.

    4. Re:Self Medication by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      Actually psychologists call drinking a form of self-medication. Again, having gone through this with my step dad I'm pretty familiar with all of the patterns. Also since your not probably a Paleo Sociologist I doubt you probably knew to any degree with our fore-bearers did, which was probably took things out in an aggressive manner like destroying a village or raping a few women. If you can't find your vice one way you'll find it another.

      There are substances, alcohol being one of them, that are addictive and by their nature make it difficult to quit. The fact is because it's accessible and legal there's little control other than having the money to buy it. Cigarettes are the same way and although I've never had the habit I have an 86 year old father who has smoked since he was 12, and despite having died on the way to the hospital for cardiac arrest and being resuscitated he still smokes at least one pack a day. That after having a quad bypass. I've lost two uncles, one aunt and a couple of cousins to lung cancer yet I never saw any of them stop and say "wait I shouldn't smoke" nope, they kept on doing it so it wasn't a matter of will power alone and any substance with an addictive property will get some portion of the population hooked.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    5. Re:Self Medication by Thinking+Tom · · Score: 1

      I know someone who is in pain all the time because of damage they did to their bodies while doing work on their house. They drink more to numb the pain. I'm not saying it's a great medication, but it does have medicinal properties.

    6. Re:Self Medication by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're lucky your depression responded to one drink; the typical progression of using alcohol to self-treat severe clinical depression is to start drinking and not stop until it gives way, which usually coincides with losing consciousness. It's just not very efficacious on average. Neither are benzodiazepines, but that doesn't stop supposedly rational and non-depressed doctors from prescribing them.

      Oddly enough, there is some anecdotal evidence that relatively-small doses of partial opioid agonists can *dramatically* reverse severe treatment-resistent depression, and there were a few articles in Current Drug Targets investigating delta opioid receptor agonism as a more effective drug-based strategy for treating depression.

      One of these days, the US is going to look back in horror at how it made criminals out of what should have been patients, I guarantee it.

    7. Re:Self Medication by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      addictive? Everything, apparently, except pot, is "addictive" ... bullshit. I get drunk routinely. I enjoy it. I also routinely go cold turkey for 6-8 months, as do ALL of my coworkers and employees. Yes, I'm in the military, and we deploy. There are people with mental health problems who find them much worse when they can't self medicate, but there are no "addicts". Your claim that it's "addictive" is just bullshit. There are things that are addictive. Nicotine is. Opiods are. Alcohol is not. Complete horseshit. Stop it.

    8. Re:Self Medication by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But we continue to spend billions of dollars and millions of otherwise-innocent lives on the prohibitionist crusade against relatively-harmless plants, while tobacco addiction (an actually-harmful proven-carcinogenic plant) and alcohol addiction run rampant. We strive to criminalize possession of leaves, cannabis, less-harmful opium substitutes, "not seriously addictive" stimulants (per the WHO) used primarily by those of middle-eastern descent, and even poppy plants growing in a suburban garden to the same degree as heroin and methamphetamine, ensuring that the only thing available through the black market will be the most concentrated and harmful, and have the most overdose potential. We pack commonly-used prescription opioid painkillers with acetaminophen, puritanically damning people who are "weak-willed" enough to become dependent to three days of agonizing death from acetaminophen-induced liver failure.

      US drug policy is a large-scale humanitarian disaster.

    9. Re:Self Medication by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      My father just couldn't not drink. He would always come up with an excuse to consume alcohol, even if he had access to other drugs, even though he knew that he could not handle even a single drink without going out of control. The last excuse was the belief that vodka and IIRC garlic would clear arteries, or something like that. He asserted that it was working for his mother, who was also on a bunch of prescription drugs at the time so there's no knowing. Then he drove over here one day, and smashed my gate down with a borrowed 4x4.

      There's different levels of alcoholic.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:Self Medication by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They did use drugs. Chewing on leaves, eating fermented fruit, and even eating mushrooms. Use of psychoactive substances by early humans is well-researched and the evidence is documented. The difference is, there wasn't a DEA there to put them in a cage and tell the whole world what a shitty criminal they were, so they tended to continue living their lives normally.

      Medication is used not just to treat the cause of diseases, but also the symptoms. Most drugs of abuse are also invaluable medications; dose and duration of use are the only difference between therapeutic use and "poison".

      Black and white thinking like yours is what got us in to this incredibly expensive and utterly ruinous "war on drugs" in the first place.

    11. Re:Self Medication by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      I don't buy the smoking/drugs thing because hundreds of years ago (much less thousands) they didn't have pills or pot. And they didn't chew on mushrooms, either.

      Google "laudanum"...people have been using various botanical based recreational drugs for millenia.

      Khat in the middle east, Coca in South America, Opium, Marijuana, alcohol. They've been around a looong time.

    12. Re:Self Medication by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough, there is some anecdotal evidence that relatively-small doses of partial opioid agonists can *dramatically* reverse severe treatment-resistent depression,

      Oh? which ones?

    13. Re:Self Medication by Guy+From+V · · Score: 1

      I believe that might be kratom.

    14. Re:Self Medication by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      Reason A can, and does turn into reason B.

      That is, chronic exposure leads to physiological dependence.

      "Self-medicating" is fine for a month or two, but during that time one should seek a psychiatrist who can prescribe something to replace that "escapism" need. Hopefully.

      If one does find a good advisor, and one follows the advice and prescriptions, normalcy and acceptance can soon follow. (Soon being within the scale of a human life-span, maybe 5 years.)

      Hang in there! It will get better.

  13. Nice to Know What We're Worth by mugetsu37 · · Score: 2

    From the text: "And those premature deaths cost the United States $224 billion a year, the report found, or $1.90 a drink."

    1. Re:Nice to Know What We're Worth by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      Look, if you genuinely believe, as our society tacitly does, that free market economics works, it's implicitly the case that you can put a number on a human life.

      We're extremely averse to doing that in verbal speech, but in terms of how we design our economy to work, it's implicitly assumed people are doing that constantly. I'm not even trying to condemn that fact, just suggest it should be acknowledged as a reality of how we conduct ourselves.

    2. Re:Nice to Know What We're Worth by Justpin · · Score: 1

      Free markets as a concept work. The problem is free markets don't actually exist any that do exist quickly stop become free markets. Hell Hong Kong which is reputed to be ruthlessly capitalist which only got a min wage this year, with virtually non existent taxes for the everyday man still has a lot of non freemarket policies, like maximum of 65% APR on any sort of loan, people have gone to prison for 150% APR loans, they have lots of social housing and free up to college undergrad education.

    3. Re:Nice to Know What We're Worth by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I think we should put numbers on human lives more often, by averting our eyes to it we look away from the human cost of financial crimes and inequities.

      For example the average American will generate 2-4 million in their lifetime and will get to keep about half of it (before they pay taxes on that half). Keep that in mind.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    4. Re:Nice to Know What We're Worth by Immerman · · Score: 2

      The free market has nothing to do with it - any society which institutes non-free policies to preserve life has to face the fact that the things you can do to reduce non-age related deaths greatly outstrip your ability to fund them. Faced with that fact you really have no option but to assign a dollar value to a life if you want to make rational policy decisions.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    5. Re:Nice to Know What We're Worth by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Not to get too deep into alternate economic philosophies that are not my own, but not all systems actually use pricing as a tool. Sure, there are still resources, and they're still expended, but those aren't necessarily quantified in the same manner.

    6. Re:Nice to Know What We're Worth by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      My calculations place the value of a human life at roughly 14% of all personal income in the economy. That's the bottom of the optimal range for UBI, which eliminates poverty while standing up to (and lessening the impact of) economic downturns and not causing hyperinflation. The optimal range appears to be 14%-15%, and I usually call the 15% number for simplicity. The viable range seems to be 11%-20%, but I'm uncertain of that--less certain about the higher end, particularly. Too high causes irreparable economic damage, and the natural adjustments are destabilizing; at the low end, the natural adjustments are stabilizing, but there's a lower bound where it simply doesn't work at all anymore.

      But nobody wants to listen to me. The current trendy solution to all poverty is to tax the living shit out of the rich and give it all to the poor.

    7. Re:Nice to Know What We're Worth by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Capitalism works better without a minimum wage. If you need a minimum wage, your system is broken and not stable, and the minimum wage isn't helping. It's like voluntary health insurance: just hire more employees working half as many hours, and don't pay for that shit. Minimum wage? Automatic burger makers, self-checkouts, and just ride your employees' asses to make them do more work in less time with fewer people.

    8. Re:Nice to Know What We're Worth by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Generates, or receives as income?

      Capitalism is an inefficient system. It costs a hell of a lot, and affords greater mobility than other systems. Rich economies can handle that, while poorer economies are better off with feudalism.

      In feudalism, serfs retain 25%-70% of their productive output--a large variation over history and geography. Barons provide protection for the serfs, as well as other meaningful services; in modern times, a barony would likely include medical research and treatment, so as to protect the baron's investment and allow for higher tithes: if you invest 5% of production to reduce the needs of your serfs by 15%, you can tax them 15% more and make out 10% richer. This represents an increase in wealth, rather than a moving of wealth as with securities investment. Carried out, we would assume the tithes would increase as much as possible without harming the serfs and the productive work they do.

      Modern capitalism is different. Your employer provides you roughly 9% of your productive output as a salary. Taxes are taken from this 9% to pay for protection (police, military) and services (roads, etc.). A capitalistic barony would take so much taxes if it didn't harm the serfs, eventually making capitalism a much better option.

      The difference is wealth. Poor nations with few natural resources need to pool their efforts to survive, which makes feudalism a more viable system. Wealthy nations are much better off with capitalism. Selecting the wrong system actively reduces human rights. Feudalism in Burkina Faso would improve human access to food, clean water, and shelter, because now the capital value is in the people working the land, and their welfare is critical for profit. By contrast, Feudalism in America would only serve to revoke many of our freedoms without improving our welfare.

      Are you sure people only produce $2-$4 million of wealth in their lives?

    9. Re:Nice to Know What We're Worth by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      9%? Do you have a source for that?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    10. Re:Nice to Know What We're Worth by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Nope. I worked it out long ago by computing the amount of profit businesses make, and then sum-dividing wages from that. So if you make $1,000 of revenue with $910 of expenses (raw materials, services, wages, etc.) and pay $10 in wages, you have $90 of profit. Take that $90 plus $10 in wages and you have $100 as the useful output of workers. That $10 in wages is what you pay the workers, so $10/$100 = 10%.

      I went looking up some big business profit numbers (Ford, WalMart, etc. make good studies) and the amount they pay out in wages (on their balance sheets), and then added the wages in and divided them by the whole profit+wages figure. Turns out you keep 9% of what you provide, on average.

      In a wealthy economy, this form of economics provides a lot of value. Capitalism gives us freedom of choice, mobility, innovation, and a whole host of other things. It also gives us many problems, but so do other systems; some of those problems are implementation details, and actually easy to correct (if we scrap our current welfare system, I have a much better one I've worked out...). Very poor economies can't deal with capitalism at all, and won't be so hot on a more appropriate system either, but they're better off on something that fits better.

      It's kind of like how poor people who have to stretch their money and still frequently go hungry shouldn't be stretching their money on crab and lobster, but rich people can have all the caviar and private yachts and hot captain's deck blow job babes they want. Capitalism is that private yacht full of caviar and endless bikini bjs.

    11. Re:Nice to Know What We're Worth by Justpin · · Score: 1

      I don't know about that, it is probably a difference of philosophies, while UK and US see bottom line Asian corporates don't (when they hire western CEOs the company often goes to hell). Anyway I've noticed in Asia it is generally a want to keep people in jobs. People with jobs have money, money which is spent after all employees are consumers too. It's strange things like platform guards (lots of them) at trainstations, fully staffed counters at banks. Even people holding up signs when a block of concrete would suffice. Japan reputed to be techno country of the world is surprising backwards outside Tokyo, fax machines still exist and there is heavy bureaucracy everywhere things like booking tickets online is rare, no no they'd rather have a person do it. Similar with self service checkouts, I'm not sure I've ever seen one in Asia, nor have I seen self serve petrol either though granted I haven't driven a whole lot in Asia.

    12. Re:Nice to Know What We're Worth by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I don't find your number unbelievable, but it's very different from those I've seen before. Interesting post.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    13. Re:Nice to Know What We're Worth by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Minimum wage is supposed to provide for a basic standard of living. It is a voluntary system in which employer can find ways to employ fewer employees. Minimum wage also allows employers to highlight that a higher authority has dictated the value of low-skill labor, providing strong negotiating power to keep such wages low regardless of the work involved.

      If we eliminate our welfare system--retirement (social security, government pensions), family and food security (food stamps, WIC, HUD housing assistance), unemployment, and a few other low-hanging fruit, but excepting medicare and medicaid (due to complex economic impact)--and replace it with a universal basic income set on a flat tax of 15% of all personal income (welfare currently represents 25% of personal income), everyone would be able to afford very basic housing and access to all basic needs. No one goes homeless, no one goes hungry.

      Under such a system, your employment decision is between NOT working and living in a shitty apartment somewhat bigger than an RV (224sqft, with 6x9 bedroom and 10x9 sitting room, is my baseline), or working some hours for some pay. That whole employment thing is a costly impact on quality of life, but a doubling of your income--about $5/hr for a 40 hour week today on the numbers I've given--would bring your quality of life up sharply. The return diminishes as your income grows--$5000/year to $15000/year is big, but $150,000/year to $160,000/year is negligible--so the incentive to work is highest for the unemployed, but so is the power to not work if the terms (wage) are bad.

      With no minimum wage, a very basic job is worth your time. Running a cash register in an air conditioned room is comfortable and non-taxing, and not worth much--enough to improve your quality of life considering the time you lose to employment. Manual labor in hazardous, hot, sweaty, dirty, distressing, uncomfortable conditions will not be tolerated without additional wages to offset the misery of your work. Minimum wage would establish that such a job--doable by any odd moron--is worth the same as running the cash machine at McDonalds, or perhaps very little more. Lack of minimum wage gives no reference and no guidance, so employers must convince each individual that the wages are somehow fair without appealing to a higher authority.

    14. Re:Nice to Know What We're Worth by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      They may or may not be accurate. It wasn't a very scientific study, and I can think of a few better ways to do it.

    15. Re:Nice to Know What We're Worth by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      The Feds and State governments get a lot of revenue from Alcohol taxes. They don't have an interest in curtailing its consumption.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    16. Re:Nice to Know What We're Worth by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Faced with that fact you really have no option but to assign a dollar value to a life if you want to make rational policy decisions.

      That's really just not true. You will have to assign a dollar value to the loss of a life, but that's not the same as assigning a dollar value to a life; it's just what it actually costs you. It's not like you're going to put your residents up for sale at that price. You can also measure dollars spent per life saved, it's sort of like the difference between miles per gallon and gallons per mile, where the former tells you how far you can go and the latter tells you how much fuel you're using getting there. Both basically give you the same information, but they're still different things.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:Nice to Know What We're Worth by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      But nobody wants to listen to me. The current trendy solution to all poverty is to tax the living shit out of the rich and give it all to the poor.

      Nobody is doing that. They're only taking the shit out of the middle class. The actual rich pay no taxes on the majority of their income, because they have purchased tax laws which say that their classes of income (like capital gains) are taxed differently, and they can evade those taxes through a variety of means.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    18. Re:Nice to Know What We're Worth by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      They're not doing that, but that's what keeps getting raised. People want the rich to "pay their fair share", which I'm all for; but what people want is for us to tax the rich more than the not-rich, ranging from a reasonable step up (which I don't have a strong argument against, as I have no argument against a graduated tax system per se) to just taxing the living fuck out of them in every way (92% income tax above $1M/year, 90% inheritance tax, jack up capital gains tax, charge them property tax on investments, huge property tax on private yachts and jets, etc.). That's what Occupy Wall Street was about, in part. It was about a lot of things.

      I don't believe that the rich are the fundamental source of welfare. While I have no argument against a graduated tax system per se, I do argue against a graduated UBI tax, as it becomes sensitive to income distribution and thus becomes less stable. With that in mind, the UBI system I propose has no minimum wage and, due to the dynamic this combination causes, would self-adjust for taxes on the poor by simple matter of value proposition. In short: because $10/hr is now $5/hr due to flat taxes applying higher taxes to your $10/hr wage, you're not going to consider $10/hr worth what it was when the tax system was graduated and $10/hr was $8/hr. You're going to want $16/hr for the same job.

      Flat income tax: not essential for my proposal, not even important, not addressed at all. Impact of a flat income tax on the poor is reduced or eliminated; exact impact is not known because I don't care to work it out, because it's irrelevant, as a basic standard of living is established even for those who have zero income, and so the goals of my system are accomplished. The mode of general income tax is not a threat to this system, nor does it have an impact, and so it is a decoupled issue not worth my immediate concern, so I take no position on it.

    19. Re:Nice to Know What We're Worth by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Your numbers are completely ficticious and way out of line with reality. What real business has a profit number that is 11X its labor cost? Think of a business like Google - almost all of it's expense is labor. Unless Google's net profit margin is above 50% (and it is not) the employees are keeping more of their 'value' than the company is.

      If your numbers were in any way true, there would be no need for companies to control labor costs - they make up less than 9% of the cost. Any cost-cutting measures that targetted something other than labor would be far more effective than targetting labor costs.

    20. Re:Nice to Know What We're Worth by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      They're not doing that, but that's what keeps getting raised. People want the rich to "pay their fair share", which I'm all for; but what people want is for us to tax the rich more than the not-rich,

      Yes, a graduated system of taxation is fair both because the rich derive more benefit from the system, and because the poor spend more of their income on necessities. The alternative is to have to fix it with exceptions, rebates, refunds, et cetera, when none of that is necessary with proper graduation.

      While I have no argument against a graduated tax system per se,

      Then why complain about taxing the rich more than the non-rich?

      I don't believe that the rich are the fundamental source of welfare.

      How else are they going to be motivated to stop buying laws that lead eventually to a dumber electorate? Answer, only if they pay for the mandates of the laws which they buy.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    21. Re:Nice to Know What We're Worth by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      INteresting, I'm not sure I agree without, but that is very interesting. You do know, of course, that Richard Nixon was in favor of a National Minimal Income...though IIRC you had to work to get it. Basically what we now call EIC was the pilot program....never fully implemented.

    22. Re:Nice to Know What We're Worth by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      The actual rich pay no taxes on the majority of their income, because they have purchased tax laws which say that their classes of income (like capital gains) are taxed differently, and they can evade those taxes through a variety of means.

      The rich have lower tax rates now than they ever did and they STILL think they're paying too much. If you ever watch mad men you'll remember Harry talking about the top rate being over 90 percent (which even left-wing me thinks was excessive) But then again we had an economic boom, not withstanding the various social inequalities going on. Kennedy dropped that to the high 60's (67% IIRC) which is what I think it should be now..and isn't...what is it, 35%?

    23. Re:Nice to Know What We're Worth by russotto · · Score: 1

      From the text: "And those premature deaths cost the United States $224 billion a year, the report found, or $1.90 a drink."

      That's a lie, as it turns out. The study they reference finds a $1.90/drink figure for all effects attributed to excessive drinking, not premature deaths. The lion's share of the cost was "lost productivity", to which I reply "It was mine to lose, I'm not your slave. Bartender, another drink."

    24. Re:Nice to Know What We're Worth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, if you genuinely believe, as our society tacitly does, that free market economics works, it's implicitly the case that you can put a number on a human life.

      All insurance companies do this. Its just not public.

    25. Re:Nice to Know What We're Worth by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1
      You completely ignored this quote:

      to just taxing the living fuck out of them in every way (92% income tax above $1M/year, 90% inheritance tax,...)

      People have advocated that. We actually had that in Reagan's years.

      The alternative is to have to fix it with exceptions, rebates, refunds, et cetera, when none of that is necessary with proper graduation.

      I did point out that a flat tax may be more viable in my proposed system. I haven't done the full analysis because it's irrelevant (it's fixable later if a flat tax is better, and it has zero impact on the stability and performance of the system I want implemented), so I take little position on graduated versus flat taxes outside of finding a "tax the rich for everything" strategy retarded.

      FWIW, a partial analysis indicates that a flat tax *may* be better in my system in general, as it would encourage higher salaries and resist the impact of inflation. The reason I don't argue much for it is because the effect is strongest at the lower end (i.e. the basic labor jobs), and can potentially be of no impact to the middle class (i.e. they get taxed more, but don't get the luxury of higher salaries), while not necessarily causing a reduction in prices or a control on inflation. It could either cause greater inflation or cause lesser inflation--another aspect I haven't worked out a firm disposition on. This lacking information also indicates the same effects may occur in general--that higher taxes on the businesses in particular (rich folk salary and compensation is actually negligible) lead to higher costs, thus evening it out by rolling the taxes over to the consumer. This indicates a possible flaw in the basic graduated tax system theory, which I haven't explored and thus haven't decided if it exists at all.

      In short, that particular aspect is complex, and I've done the analysis enough to figure out I don't need to worry about it for the major goals of reforming the welfare system. If it can be improved, it can be improved later, without destabilizing the stuff I'm trying to fix now; I'll worry about actually understanding it when I want to meddle with it.

    26. Re:Nice to Know What We're Worth by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Yes, but I'm trying to decouple living from working. I don't care to decouple *income* from working; and I damn sure don't want to decouple living *comfortably* from working. I'm not in the business of supplying entitlements to people--you don't deserve a large house, four kids, two cars, prime rib eye every night, flat panel TVs, Jos. A. Bank suits, and XBoxes just for being alive--but I do believe that homelessness and starvation of single individuals and couples is economically harmful.

      You cannot decouple this concept from the concept of your time being worth something, and thus your life. A 40 hour work week means 40 hours each week devoted to earning income; if you can live without that, your life has so much open time for so many pursuits. That's a lot of value. Fortunately, small amounts of money hold large amounts of value when you are poor, so it's not like I'm going to teach the poor that they deserve $35/hr; $5/hr will be a massive step up, and it's up to the people--who have no coercion to work because they will have food to eat and a place to sleep even if they don't work--to decide if that step up is worth 40 hours per week. If it's not... McDonalds may have to pay $6/hr, or $7.50/hr.

      Notice that the current minimum wage is $7.25/hr. With UBI as proposed currently totaling out to roughly $5.78/hr minus 10% in taxes (i.e. if your wage were $5.78/hr, you'd get what I propose as UBI), only an extra $1.47/hr brings you to the current minimum wage. But current minimum wage predicates on current market conditions--on housing as small as a 500sqft studio for $500/mo, not a 224sqft sub-studio for $300/mo--and on compensation only if you work, not if you're simply at home. $1.47/hr will not compensate you for 100% of your work, and you have no absolute need for it, and it will not improve your life; nobody will work for that.

      That's what I want. Not working, you have a place to sleep, shower, receive mail, prepare and eat food--food which you can afford--and run as far away from when you're not doing these things, because damn that's a tiny shit hole. Working, your employer better compensate you enough to escape that or otherwise buy a better quality of life, or you just quit your job. Work-to-live is not in my interest, nor is it in the nation's: we decided that when we created a dozen welfare systems to support people who aren't working.

    27. Re:Nice to Know What We're Worth by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Non-labor costs are often fixed. There's a reason we make everything out of plastic instead of metal nowadays, and good reason we use cheap-grade plastic instead of high-grade composite, polypropylene, and so on as appropriate. I have a bisphenol-S "BPA-Free" polycarbonate blender on my desk right now, because glass and rigid polypropylene are more expensive than polycarbonate (which is less durable, and also toxic).

      I'm doing better research with the BLS now. Will develop new numbers.

    28. Re:Nice to Know What We're Worth by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Make sure your new numbers are at least plausible, unlike your old numbers.

      Lets use your example of Ford. Ford had an EBITDA of around $16B last year. According to your numbers, the labor force only made about 10% of that, or $1.6B dollars. Assume that all value paid to the employees is in the form of cash (no benefits at all). Ford employs around 224,000 people. By your calculation, the average Ford employee made only $7142 last year. Does that sound even remotely possible to you? All those union production workers, engineers, designers, equipment techs, IT personnel, management, etc made on average $7142, with no benefits at all. You are off by at least a factor of 10, which means the employees keep at LEAST 50% of the value they produce, and often quite a bit more than that.

  14. prime of life / working age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "One of the issues with alcohol that is particularly tragic is the extent to which it gets people in the prime of their lives."

    No, not the prime of their lives, this study looked at *working-age adults.* The years when most people have to slave away the irreplaceable hours of their lives to enrich their employers and landlords. Being a slave is unpleasant and it leads to alcohol and tobacco use.

    1. Re:prime of life / working age by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Well what else would you do in the prime of your life? Spend all day drinking and having sex?

  15. Double-dash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    -- is your friend. This "exploit" has long been known, and most commands have addressed it. Not news.

    Guess who drank one too many...

  16. 1000s innocent infants dying daily from starvation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    100% preventable.. no one is ciphering any ratios

  17. "drinking" eh? by TheCarp · · Score: 0

    1 in 10? That seems high. But here is the thing, alcohol is a carbohydrate and a good amount of the damage it does is really not all that different from fructose. That being the case, it makes sense that with increasing sugar intake, those also drinking a lot of alcohol would tend to get hit the hardest.

    Both cause diabetes. Both cause heart disease. Both damage the liver.

    http://www.thesuperherobody.co...

    Seems like the drinkers are our canaries in this coal mine.

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    1. Re:"drinking" eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alcohol is a lot worse than fructose; it's yeast crap, poison, toxic, it intoxicates, strains the liver to destruction in the effort to rid the body of it, Better off avoided altogether I would say.

    2. Re:"drinking" eh? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      But here is the thing, alcohol is a carbohydrate and a good amount of the damage it does is really not all that different from fructose.

      Incorrect. The physical damage from alcohol is due to two factors: direct toxic effect of the alcohol, mostly on various bits of the nervous system and aldehyde and ketone formation with subsequent liver damage. Alcohol does contribute to calorie intake but this is only a modestly important part of the disease.

      You can keep you sugar bogey man bottled up for now.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:"drinking" eh? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      You do know the chemical pathways of fructose in the body is almost identical to alcohol right? Especially in the liver.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  18. article headline sucks ass by epine · · Score: 5, Insightful

    CDC: 1 In 10 Adult Deaths In US Caused By Excessive Drinking

    This does not deserve to live on Oprah, much less Slashdot. Not on Fox News, not on Rush Limbaugh, not on Howard Stern, not on Jerry Springer. On its own, exactly as it stands, it would set a new standard for outright stupidity in any legal jurisdiction that has yet to legislate pi = 3.

    Oh, but wait, there's a footnote: preventable deaths among working-aged adult Americans. THAT'S NOT FUCKING FINE PRINT. My credibility circuit assigned six zeros (0.00000% chance of being true) before I managed to read the next line.

    In all the many long years I've been here, I can not recall a single story headline that revolts me to this degree. I was reading recently Fire and Ashes: Success and Failure in Politics by Michael Ignatieff. At some point during his election campaign he said something stupid about the Middle East. His campaign manager pulled him aside and explained to him: "Politicians have nine lives. You just burned eight."

    I have a finite amount of all-caps to expend on Slashdot outrage. I just burned 80% of my lifetime supply. Next time I resort to all-caps, I'll never post here again.

    1. Re:article headline sucks ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as infants aren't drinking themselves to death, none of this is believable!

      HURGHA HUHR DUHRRR PREVENTALB DEAFS!!

      It's not saying 1 in 10 adults are killed by alcohol. It's saying "If you are drinking age, and die before you retire, it's a 10% chance alcohol did it to you, and it could have been prevented" Read it more slowly next time without fusing the statistics together in your head.

      Holy shit, talk about a tempest in a teapot.

    2. Re:article headline sucks ass by Dan+East · · Score: 1

      I just burned 80% of my lifetime supply

      8 of 9 lives is 0.8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888889% Just sensing the irony as you complained about rounding pi down to 3.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    3. Re:article headline sucks ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just the start of another temperance movement. We all know how well the last one worked out. You should take the time to study the data from the conclusions of second hand smoking.

      Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits
      -Mark Twain.

    4. Re:article headline sucks ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I had mod points, I would give you all of them. The sad part is, the statistic is alarming enough even when giving all the proper facts and context. When slashdot intentionally leaves out important information, it takes away credibility from something that should concern us either way.

  19. Weed still impairs you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If a dude drinks a pint of Jack and then drives his car into a tree then it appears that this study attributes his death to his consumption of alcohol.
    Just as many dudes will probably smoke some weed and drive their car into a tree (maybe slightly less, because a few will be stuck at the last stop light waiting for it to turn green).

    1. Re:Weed still impairs you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is bullshit, impairment exists, and that is the point, but, to equate it to alcohol impairment is naive.

    2. Re:Weed still impairs you by gnick · · Score: 1

      Both studies illustrate the same problem and it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see the solution.

      Ban trees.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    3. Re:Weed still impairs you by OutOnARock · · Score: 1

      I think you meant ...."waiting at the last STOP SIGN waiting for it to turn green...."

      I miss George Carlin

  20. Leading cause of preventable death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The leading cause preventable of death in the U.S. is abortion; about 800,000 per year. Nobody wants to recognize it, however.

    1. Re:Leading cause of preventable death by Bruinwar · · Score: 1

      Legal or not, abortions will always happen. Making it illegal would likely cause the abortion rate to rise. Plus make it less expensive. Maybe preventing unwanted pregnancies would be the best way to avoid abortions.

      --
      SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT
    2. Re:Leading cause of preventable death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe preventing unwanted pregnancies

      Contraceptives are already available for free in France in every pharmacies. Short of sending a policeman to every house every day to ensure teenage girls take their contraceptive, what more can we do?

    3. Re:Leading cause of preventable death by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      I have to question that number. There are roughly 112 million Americans aged 18 to 44, which is a good enough approximation for childbearing year. If half of those are women, that's 56 million women.

      There are 4 million babies born in the US, that means there are 52 million women not having a baby in a given year.

      You're suggesting that roughly 2% of eligible American women are getting pregnant, deciding they don't want to be, and having abortions every year? Or that nearly 20% of all American pregnancies are terminated?

      I'm probably wasting time responding to an offtopic post by an AC, but that number just doesn't make any sense to me.

    4. Re:Leading cause of preventable death by dietsip · · Score: 1

      Its the low number reported by the CDC as not all states report theirs to the CDC http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/previe...

    5. Re:Leading cause of preventable death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does not make sense but the CDC has stats on this as well. In 2010 they report 228 abortions per 1000 live births.

      Citation: http://www.cdc.gov/reproductiv...

    6. Re:Leading cause of preventable death by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      Apparently I stand corrected, but that's still a crazy number. Going back to the famous quote, "Nobody went broke underestimating the stupidity of the average person," I am astounded that there are that many unwanted pregnancies. Are people really that completely incapable of managing birth control?

    7. Re:Leading cause of preventable death by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      The leading cause preventable of death in the U.S. is abortion; about 800,000 per year. Nobody wants to recognize it, however.

      That's only true of people who define things the way you do -- others might say that it causes zero deaths (of people). And in case you're wondering, if you are in the former category you are a worse person than any of the people who allowed Nazi Germany to carry out the Holocaust.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  21. Misleading Headline by timrod · · Score: 1

    The headline implies that alcohol is the sole killer of 1 in 10 adult deaths, but that's just not true. It's 1 in 10 preventable deaths, which is a subset of all deaths that occur. In reality, alcohol probably accounts for 10% of all adult deaths.

    Also, they tracked things like car accidents and homicides, which are not deaths caused by alcohol - they're deaths caused by the laws of physics. The only real deaths that can be directly attributed to alcohol are things like alcohol poisoning, cirrhosis of the liver, some forms of liver cancer, and a few other diseases directly related to the consumption of alcohol.

    A better headline would've been "CDC: Alcohol contributes to 10% of preventable adult deaths in the US"

    1. Re:Misleading Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The headline implies that alcohol is the sole killer of 1 in 10 adult deaths, but that's just not true...In reality, alcohol probably accounts for 10% of all adult deaths.

      1 in 10 = 10%, genius.

    2. Re:Misleading Headline by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      100% of preventable deaths are caused by poor decisions. We should outlaw decision making!

    3. Re:Misleading Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incorrect. It is 1 in 10 adult deaths. PREVENTABLE has nothing to do with the 1 in 10. PREVENTABLE has to do with the "4th leading cause" statistic.

      Fucking hell, you idiots, get it together. Can you read two sentences?

    4. Re:Misleading Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The headline is correct.
      You're wrong.

      Sorry that you are unable to read two sentences without fucking everything up.

  22. Prohibiton, Come Back! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...all is forgiven.
    Seriously though, scary to read about the SWAT raids on the stoners while the boozers are slowly killing themselves with impunity.

  23. Degrees of separation? by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

    Dying of AIDS-related illness is a pretty big stretch. So, you get drunk, have unprotected sex and contract HIV, which attacks your immune system, and you die of an opportunistic virus. That seems to have enough factors involved that putting it on alcohol is an enormous stretch.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  24. S-s-synthehol? by Ken_g6 · · Score: 1
    --
    (T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
  25. The question begs by Dishwasha · · Score: 1

    Would deaths of working-age adults go UP (particularly suicides) if they weren't drinking all the time?

  26. A few drinks of alcohol .NE. couple of dubes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A few drinks of alcohol and you are drunk. Motor skills & reaction time affected, etc. But pot is a very different story.

    A decade back I worked a labor job for a plumbing company.

    My co-workers were all big pot heads. So much so that my saying "no thanks" to it at work branded me as a "possible narc". Anyway, one thing I noticed about my stoned co-workers? It never affected their performance. Driving? No complaints. Precision in doing their job? They were all generally better at it than I was, regardless of their current or average THC levels.

    It was a real eye opener for me. Ever since that experience, and despite not having used pot for over 30 years (and not caring for it when I did try it), I have become "pro pot". In that there is truly no reason to be "anti pot".

    But of course drug companies, I mean their paid shills, will disagree.

    1. Re:A few drinks of alcohol .NE. couple of dubes by retchdog · · Score: 0

      so you respond to a strawman with a few personal anecdotes. maybe you should use some of that performance-enhancing marijuana before you read slashdot.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
  27. No Such Thing by maz2331 · · Score: 1

    There is no such thing as a "preventable death", at least until we develop some form of immortality. It can only be delayed or accelerated, and the cause can be shifted. Everyone is going to die at some point in time.

    1. Re:No Such Thing by Vegan+Cyclist · · Score: 1

      Sure there is - for example, you can prevent death from being in an airplane crash by never boarding a plane. That risk is eliminated, not "delayed or accelerated". Smoking-related diseases can be prevented by not smoking, and avoiding exposure to smoke. In the same manner alcohol-related deaths can be prevented by not consuming alcohol.

    2. Re:No Such Thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Preventable death" is a specific medical term.
      Here's a clue for you: Words have more than one meaning.
      Break out of that retarded Sheldon Cooper impersonation and become a real person.

    3. Re:No Such Thing by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      Break out of that retarded Sheldon Cooper impersonation and become a real person.

      That would make a great sig....but there are too many Sheldon's on Slashdot.

  28. The map is curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The highest percentages of alcohol related deaths are in Rocky Mountain States. Is the takeaway here that if you're drunk, make sure you are on flat ground?

  29. The root cause for slashdotters. by nimbius · · Score: 4, Funny

    The high mortality rate due to drinking amongst slashdotters can be directly attributed to physical and emotional abuse. Oracle, Microsoft, and SAP have ushered millions of nerds into an early grave from alcohol poisoning alone. the longterm effects of say, A peoplesoft migration however are much more destructive as theyre often worsened by the invisible culprit of change management. Taking a look at the youth of today, gateways like SCRUM and devops mean that not only are our future hackers drinking more at an early age, theyre forced to undergo gruelling "stand up" meetings that require then to concentrate all their effort into their creamy, underdeveloped legs to keep them aloft. the agony of being away from their natural habitat, the herman miller chair, coupled with the verbal and emotional abuse from phrases like swim-lanes and synergy amount to nothing short of an epidemic in IT.

    but you can take action to stop this. IT workers thrive in an environment of nerf, far away from their natural predator the project manager. warmed slices of pizza pie and refreshing caffeinated nectars are what can keep this endangered species of young codelings healthy and free from substance abuse. The presence of the rare git-push neckbeard, or in some collectives a majestic greyhair vax longbeard have confirmed that excessive drinking is in fact no longer a problem in many dimly lit, cool climate colonies.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:The root cause for slashdotters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol, that is great stuff!

    2. Re:The root cause for slashdotters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You say that as a joke but generally the worse the shop the more alcoholics there are, at least in my experience.

      I worked at a place that gradually turned into a slave pit over the course of 5 years or so. You could graph the decrease in morale and increase in substance abuse.

      There was one little pub across the street that I think our dev staff may have saved. I mean we'd work 10-14 hours, go to the pub, drink our dinner, go home and repeat every day for weeks on end (and I do mean every day, once in a while someone would crash but it would be random). The place started out as a run down kind of back alley tavern but by the end was a busy night spot.

      I left that place after getting fed up and went to a consulting shop, at first it was great, then they sold off the company to some capital investment group and things really went to shit and again, all the devs (some managers too) got on the sauce.

      The place I work at now is really good and I can't even think about the last time I had a beer was (couple of weeks ago, maybe?) I look back to where I was a decade ago and shake my head, no wonder I barely remember the 00s

  30. Sure, but . . . by SaroDarksbane · · Score: 5, Funny

    But how many births are caused by excessive drinking?

    1. Re:Sure, but . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100% of births result in death

    2. Re:Sure, but . . . by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That's not a but... the last thing we need is a bunch of fetal alcohol borderline cases peopling our planet. And sadly, it's really not unusual for peoples' kids to come out of drunken debauchery.

      People, if you must have a kid, and you get knocked up that way, cancel it and start another job. You didn't care enough about a possible child to make a good one, don't start pretending you care about some supposed precious life now.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Sure, but . . . by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      Assuming it's just one night of drinking, the alcohol will have left the mother's system before the fertilized egg is implanted, possibly even before the egg is actually fertilized.

      Funny aside: I knew a gal named after a wine varietal, because a bottle of that type of wine had led to her conception.

    4. Re:Sure, but . . . by swillden · · Score: 1

      That's not a but... the last thing we need is a bunch of fetal alcohol borderline cases peopling our planet.

      I don't think the mother being drunk during conception can cause fetal alcohol syndrome. However, FAS is a real, serious problem, and it's clearly caused by excessive drinking, and not counted in this 1 in 10 statistic.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    5. Re:Sure, but . . . by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Assuming it's just one night of drinking, the alcohol will have left the mother's system before the fertilized egg is implanted, possibly even before the egg is actually fertilized.

      Well, I guess what we need now is some statistics on binge drinking and pregnancy. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that most pregnancies due to binge drinking are to people who are regular binge drinkers, only drinking to excess. Maybe not every night, but quite possibly every weekend. (Been there, done that, didn't make any babies doing it.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  31. Dear government by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    Dear Government,
              Thank you for informing us. I'm glad you're doing research and informing the public. That's your job. Now please go the hell away. You have an unfortunate tendency to find data like this and then use it to try and control my life. If I chose to drink despite this warning, that's my choice.

  32. Solve root cause of Excessive Drinking first... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How about looking closer at the root cause of excessive drinking? (Mainly, that life fucking sucks shit.) Try fixing that first before restricting alcohol further, or whatever they are trying to accomplish. Failing to do that will ensure the "alcohol problems" will just go elsewhere.

  33. we'll see if this cures my ten-year Slashdot habit by epine · · Score: 1


    @namespace url(http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml);
    @-moz-document domain("slashdot.org") {
    div, p, h1, span, table, footer, header {
          display: none !important;
    }
    body:after {
        content: 'CDC: 1 In 10 Adult Deaths In US Caused By Excessive Drinking';
        color: #FF0000;
        display: block;
        text-align: center;
        font-size: 1.5vmax;
    }
    }

  34. This is stupid, not "tragic" by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    Please, stop calling everything that's unhappy a "TRAGEDY". Do you even know what the word means?

    Don't want to die of this? Stop drinking. Not rocket science.

    For the majority of cases, obesity is not a tragedy, neither are drug-use deaths, nor AIDS-related deaths nor is DRINKING YOURSELF TO DEATH.

    All of them are 95% or more self-inflicted. Pathetic? Yes. Sad? Yes, probably, at the very least on a personal level. But tragic? No. Tragedy implies some sort of impersonal force, or a fate one can't fight against. It entirely absolves people of their own responsibility.

    Stop trying to milk sympathy from the general public for entirely avoidable results of peoples' life choices.

    If you *do* believe this is tragedy, then you deny people their very basic humanity - their right to make choices for themselves, and suffer/enjoy those consequences. The moment you dismiss peoples' right to make their own important choices, you're logically condoning everything from compulsory abortion (or denial of same) to arranged marriages.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:This is stupid, not "tragic" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Stop trying to milk sympathy from the general public for entirely avoidable results of peoples' life choices."

      Ahh, but that's the sticking point of addiction. For alcoholics and other addicts, the ability to choose is gone...

    2. Re:This is stupid, not "tragic" by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Please, stop calling everything that's unhappy a "TRAGEDY". Do you even know what the word means?

      Sad is when someone gets drunk and kills themself. Tragedy is when someone gets drunk and kills someone else. Irony is when someone gets drunk, tries to run over someone else, and drives off a cliff. I think that about covers it...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:This is stupid, not "tragic" by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      But the destructive/addictive behavior was likely their choice to START with (& considering that most addictions aren't "instant", it involved repeatedly performing the behavior).

      I haven't read a lot of stories about people held down and forced to drink alcohol until they became raging alcoholics, have you?

      Their ability to choose may be gone...because THEY gave it away.

      --
      -Styopa
    4. Re:This is stupid, not "tragic" by dl_sledding · · Score: 1

      LOL... Nice and concise. Well put.

  35. Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not sure why your lack of concern of serious public health issues matters more than anyone elses' concern. If premature deaths actually just affected the person responsible, it would be a more tacitly agreeable position. But the reality we face is one where people depend on each other, drunk drivers kill other people, and many people aren't fully aware of the consequences.

    Those are all reasons to be interested in alcohol at a policy level. Outright prohibition has problems that are pretty well understood, but pretending that's what's on the table from these data is dishonest.

    It is unreasonable to aim public policy at reducing the effects of one type of harm (drinking) while actively refusing to consider public policy for reducing the effects of a different type of harm (self-hurting) that results in, literally, an order of magnitude more deaths.

    A society that refuses to improve mental health treatment while pushing prohibition is nothing more than Puritanical religionists. Keep your religion out of my government!

    1. Re:Priorities by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      The very article we're discussing raises the probability that alcohol is the single biggest cause of preventable premature deaths. So I'm not sure what "different type" of harm is being dismissed, and by whom, but your allegation that it's an order of magnitude more deaths is simply contrary to the information presented.

    2. Re:Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The very article we're discussing raises the probability that alcohol is the single biggest cause of preventable premature deaths. So I'm not sure what "different type" of harm is being dismissed, and by whom, but your allegation that it's an order of magnitude more deaths is simply contrary to the information presented.

      Dunno what you consider a "preventable premature" death, but I think suicide is pretty much the definitive example. The CDC says suicide is in the top 10 causes (of ALL types) of death in the US, drinking-related liver disease doesn't make that list.

      The CDC's figures for liver disease deaths do not separate cirrhosis from other causes of liver disease.

    3. Re:Priorities by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      >The CDC's figures for liver disease deaths do not separate cirrhosis from other causes of liver disease.

      Like sugar and grains.
      http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov...

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    4. Re:Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The very article we're discussing raises the probability that alcohol is the single biggest cause of preventable premature deaths. So I'm not sure what "different type" of harm is being dismissed, and by whom, but your allegation that it's an order of magnitude more deaths is simply contrary to the information presented.

      Wrong, being born is without question the single biggest cause of preventable premature deaths. If more people opted for birth control and/or surgical sterilization there would be far less premature deaths in the world.

    5. Re:Priorities by CaptnZilog · · Score: 1

      >The CDC's figures for liver disease deaths do not separate cirrhosis from other causes of liver disease.

      Like sugar and grains.
      http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov...

      Sugar: The Bitter Truth

  36. abortion by Thinking+Tom · · Score: 1

    The leading cause preventable of death in the U.S. is abortion; about 800,000 per year. Nobody wants to recognize it, however.

    A very good point. It is probably legitimate not to include it in lists as the leading cause, because a large portion of the population does not believe it is death. However, it should be either the first item with a prominent footnote, or listed in a footnote to the first item.

  37. Alcohol-related "accident"? by Ichijo · · Score: 1

    alcohol-related events, like car accidents

    That's self-contradictory. Here's a quote from the New York Police Department:

    "There's no criminality," an NYPD spokesman told Metro. "That's why they call it an accident."

    An alcohol-related car crash involves criminality and therefore cannot be an accident, logically speaking, if those who enforce the law are to be believed.

    --
    Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    1. Re:Alcohol-related "accident"? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      An alcohol-related car crash involves criminality and therefore cannot be an accident, logically speaking, if those who enforce the law are to be believed.

      Well, that sentence evaluates false, and therefore an alcohol-related car crash can still be an accident. Cops will say any bullshit that justifies their jackbootery.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  38. Hold my beer while I... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is why I always ask someone to hold my drink before I attempt something dangerous. I would hate to end up as another one of those drinking death statistics.

  39. Drinking and stress by phorm · · Score: 1

    Contributing factor yes, but how about the reason behind drinking. What causes people to turn to alcohol?

    Some people are easily addicted, but for others it's often a mental trauma or stress of some sort. So, what about the effects of stress? What about the effects of over-working? Didn't a previous article just mention how much overtime Americans put in?

    Alcohol is a factor, but frankly, that's on top of all the stupid shit that drives people to drink. It's also part culturally because it's considered an "adult" way to unwind. Personally for me the drinks are an addendum to gaming or various other activities I do to burn off stress.

    I personally enjoy a couple (yes, that's two) rum and cokes after dinner on weekends. The only time I drink more would be if I have guests. However, I know lots of people that burn through that 50-60+hr work week - they've got nothing to do at home - and they hit the clubs or bar to get out and unwind. Those venues of course are primarily drinking establishments, so many of those people end up drinking as well.

    I'm certainly not saying that drinking is good. I'm saying that people drink because of a variety of reasons that already contribute to bodily degeneration and ill health effects. It's more than likely the alcohol is a contributing factor, but often these stats are like MADD where they consider alcohol to be a contributing factor in a crash even when somebody drank at 9am and drove at 10pm, or if the driver is transporting drunk *passengers*.

    Per the article: "Those causes of death also included falls; homicides; poisoning that involved pills or other substances along with alcohol; and suicides."
    Drunk driving or motor impairment is probably easily tracable back to alcohol. But you've also got poisoning from multiple sources that just happen to include alcohol, and suicides which are probably spawned from the same reason that people drink, but not necessarily because of it...

  40. Data mining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Larry suggests data mining to reduce the #deaths. See next article

  41. Worse Problem Than Stated by JimSadler · · Score: 0

    Toss in the lives lost by murderers who were drunk or were drunk when they were murdered. Toss in the number of convicts whose lives effectively ended by felony convictions caused by drink. Then toss in the people who die from alcohol but not from excessive use of alcohol. Much like tobacco it is not always the heavy user or long time user that gets sick from use. Combine the totals with the number of people ruined and killed by the use of dope of various types or the incorrect use of prescription or over the counter medications and one can easily draw the conclusion that substance abuse is our worst social problem and even our greatest threat to national security as well. How many convicts does it take to bankrupt a nation? How many welfare recipients did not do well in life because of things like dropping out of school in order to take dope or get drunk? And here it is again, one more huge issue that resists any sane solutions.

  42. Yes, alcohol is a real problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Statistics be damned...

    Drinking myself many times, I attribute beer for still being alive. Wine and hard Liquor gives me a hang over, beer not so much. A few times I've really abused beer or drank it non-stop many times, I'm luckier than most (or imagine so) I can quit at certain points in the cycle and need to catch them as they come by, (they are predictable).

    To justify, a beer drinker drinks much more than a Whiskey/Wine drinker due to their alcohol content, so a beer drinker gets drunk faster and drinks longer if they drink other than beer.

    Drinking alcohol also causes poor nutrition (Second in the list), hell food dilutes alcohol, the exception are the Russians who drink all the time; so eat specific foods to prevent getting drunk (or so I've read).

    The above doesn't say much other than drinking alcohol is a very dangerous habit, you should look around at what problems alcohol has caused in history, portrayed in movies and real life and avoid it. I see a lot of wisdom in the prohibition, but alcohol's call is louder than common sense.

    Being kinda old my advise from over the ages, is take care of your teeth, don't drink alcohol, only do Ambien when you have someone to stop you from doing stupid stuff when you sleep walk, and support Marijuana, if for nothing else for the tax's it will bring your state.

    I only wish I could write well, making this post louder on the effects and dangers of alcohol, to not only yourself but those around you.

  43. Guns vs alcohol by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Typically those killed by guns are not the gun owner itself, where as those killed by alcohol, soda and the like is are the drinkers themselves.

    First off, the clear majority of deaths by firearms in the US are suicides. The CDC statistics on this are unambiguous. While not every suicide by gun is by the gun owner a large percentage of these suicides are by the person who owns the gun. Furthermore a death by firearm is still a death by firearm. Does it really matter who the gun owner is? If someone else drives a car and kills someone with it, it isn't really very important that the driver wasn't the owner. Same with a firearm. Someone is dead and a firearm was involved.

    Second, plenty of deaths relating to alcohol are due to things like drunk driving accidents. In a huge percentage of these cases the person killed was not the person drinking but it still is a death related to alcohol use. Like before, someone is dead and alcohol was involved.

  44. circular definitions... by schlachter · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't you say that anyone who dies from drinking was drinking excessively. It's the extreme case definition of excessive.

    --
    My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
  45. Natural selection? by Charcharodon · · Score: 1
    What I took from the article was that 1 in 10 adults self select for removal from the gene pool.

    .....is that really a bad thing?

    1. Re:Natural selection? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really, as long as they are removing themselves and not innocent bystanders, passengers or other drivers.

  46. Inconvenence by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Blaming firearms for suicide is blaming firearms for mental illness.

    It's not about blaming the firearm specifically but it cannot be reasonably argued that firearm do not in many cases facilitate the suicide. Firearms are very efficient tools and their primary purpose is as a weapon. Many suicides are impulsive actions by someone in distress. (there is plenty of evidence on this - look it up) If you want to die, a firearm is a relatively efficient way to do it. There is ample evidence that if the means of suicide is sufficiently inconvenient then a percentage of them will get through the moment of distress. Sometimes people just need a long enough window that they can get help. If the suicide tool is very efficient then the chances of them surviving to get help are reduced.

    The simple way to put it is that a suicidal person may still kill themselves but some of them will be saved if the means of suicide are sufficiently inconvenient. Not all but a statistically significant number. Guns don't make people suicidal but they can make carrying out the deed easier.

  47. Off topic but I have to ask by Sedated2000 · · Score: 1

    I realize this is off-topic but I have to ask. Are some of the slashot ads now spawning malware tabs? This is a brand new install of windows with full A/V and firewall, clean install of firefox with no plugins. I know the ads are bad (some play audio now without permission), but one appears to be spawning multiple windows to fake updates for firefox or installs for malicious plugins. On a tech news site. This never used to happen before. I apologize for the post, but this is just ridiculous.

  48. Lives saved? by starless · · Score: 1

    There are certainly deaths/years of life lost caused by excessive drinking.
    But on the other hand, there are health benefits of moderate drinking.

    There's some presentation of health benefits/problems on the Mayo Clinic web site:
    http://www.mayoclinic.org/heal...

    So, one question would be: how may years of life for the entire population are lost from excessive drinking, how many years
    of life for the entire population are gained from moderate drinking? And how can moderate drinking be encouraged while
    decreasing excessive drinking?
    In general terms it appears that Russian men are very adversely affected by drinking (life expectancy ~64), and French women's long
    life expectancies (~85) are helped by their moderate drinking.
    But culture in general can be very hard to change!

  49. All the ideological responses are depressing by bledri · · Score: 1

    Time to rename this site "News for People with Knee Jerk Ideological Reactions While Patting Themselves on the Back Just Like Every Other Site on the Internet." God forbid we study the human condition and try to learn for fear that The Big Bad Government will use that information in a way we don't agree with.

    --
    Some privacy policy Slashdot.
  50. Re:Alcohol is an excuse, not a cause. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    People die in accidents because the car comes to a sudden stop. The car comes to a sudden stop due to an impact. An impact happens because of a misjudgement by the driver. And that driver's misjudgement could happen a lot more easily because of...alcohol!

    If it doesn't make sense to you, you're probably too drunk. I know I'm nowhere near drunk enough for your argument to make sense to me!

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  51. Double Dipping by DarthVain · · Score: 2

    It is all about the details and perspective really. It is usually really hard for people to understand what is going on behind the numbers as opposed to simply taking the values at face value. There is always the cause VS causality issue as well.

    Didn't read the actual article (bc frankly I don't care that much), but I did read the abstract. My thoughts are this: So those deaths that were found to be attributable to alcohol, most of them are not "direct" but rather "attributed". So technically the alcohol didn't kill, the abrupt stopping of the car into a tree did (or the blunt trauma caused by said tree really). Not only that, but many of these "causes" are more like "contributed to" rather than attributed to. That is more like a percentage, not a whole. Not to mention how far down the cause train do you want to go... what caused the drinking, depression? What caused the depression, impotence? So on and etc... Now on all those things, car crash, liver problems, etc... that single death is counted exactly how many times? Then you take those extrapolated values and compare them to population data? Laughable. If however your went through your numbers and made decisions based on some threshold or determined tolerance, to count the one death to exactly one and only one issue, then removed those values from all other counts, and then compared it to population data, it would be somewhat meaningful. Otherwise all you are saying is booze is associated with a bunch of stuff that can kill you, which pretty much everyone knows already.

    I recently had a similar issue doing analysis for a client. Where statistically values fell into more than one camp. If you add them all up, you are going to get a number much larger than your actual population. In that instance, I suggested evaluating each individual point by a set agreed upon criteria, which would put it into one particular bucket and not multiple buckets. In this manner you can produce meaningful statistics and can include in your analysis the cravat of exactly how you arrived at your values, which is verifiable, repeatable, and defensible. However doing that is a lot of work and computation, though I saw a lot of letters after the names of people doing that research, so perhaps I should assume they also looked at this.... somehow I doubt it however.

  52. Zero! by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    You obviously have never done any real excessive drinking. It's nature's contraceptive!

    Unless you are a girl... then it is probably something like 100% give or take a few percentage points (easily attributed to error). :)

  53. Accidents caused by alcohol? by morgauxo · · Score: 1

    I don't trust any statistics about percentages of accidents that are caused by alcohol though. My understanding is that if there is an accident and if anyone involved in the accident has any measurable alcohol in their system then it gets counted. Even with a thoroughly drunk person you can't PROVE that the accident wouldn't have happened anyway.

    Don't get me wrong. I think drunk driving is a problem and people caught doing it SHOULD be punished severly. I just don't trust the police investigating accidents to come up with truly un-biased opinions of wether each and ever accident was caused by alcohol or just coincidental.

    1. Re:Accidents caused by alcohol? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      This is true. More importantly, they don't count the non-accident journeys that did involve drink.

      It could be that drunk people driving take more care to compensate.

      Until you test for the null hypothesis, you know nothing.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  54. I suppose it would be out of the question ... by Rambo+Tribble · · Score: 2

    ... to raise a glass in honor of the departed?

  55. Eat shit potheads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Love seeing how the pro-dope line "Marijuana is safer than alcohol" doesn't hold up when alcohol is so fucking terrible for you.

    They'll have to come up with a new lie to mislead the public with. I wonder what misdirection or measure of relative danger they'll use next.

  56. Common Denominator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one will ever understand the underlying cause when they can't even admit where the problem truly lies: With the people.

    Specifically: Angry, unstable, depressed and / or possibly in a bad place in life sorts of people. Other countries have just as many guns and booze as we do, yet a fraction of the problems. Reason ? They're probably a lot happier than the average American citizen is. Hell, just turn on the news. Americans are bombarded with nothing but BAD news 24 / 7. Shitty economy, non-stop wars / conflicts, government corruption, drones, domestic spying, hell. . . the list goes on and on and ON.

    Guns and alcohol are tools, nothing more. By themselves they do nothing. Add people into the equation and all hell breaks loose. Why this is so difficult for many to understand is beyond my ability to explain.

  57. feeding the trolls again ? by Archfeld · · Score: 1

    you make good points but you are wasting them and your effort feeding the trolls.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  58. Interesting by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    to note the furor of the drinking crowd is much the same as it is with the gun crowd when folks start talking about means to limit their consumption of it.

    The fact that alcohol causes quite a bit of death should come as no shock to anyone. The fact that it causes MORE death than the favorite target of activists ( firearms ) these days isn't much of a shock either. What puzzles me is why folks continue to go after one with such ferocity and not the other ? Why is one such a popular icon of EVIL, while the other does even more damage ? ( Don't even get me started about heart disease, medical mistakes and the real scary killers of us all these days )

    When was the last time you heard ANYONE speak of banning alcohol, certain types / amounts of alcohol, or alcohol in scary looking bottles ? Any Congressional bills getting drafted on the matter ? Demonstrations by folks with signs ? Anything ?

    *crickets*

    Exactly.

    1. Re:Interesting by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      When was the last time you heard ANYONE speak of banning alcohol, certain types / amounts of alcohol, or alcohol in scary looking bottles ?

      Well, 2 years ago. Still pops up every election however, so I imagine it will this time. Fortunately, last election we finally changed some of the anti-alcohol laws

      There are still dry counties in the US. Heck, there are a lot of places, even whole states, in the US that ban alcohol sales on Sunday.

      Most of these are in the South. But if you want a six-pack in Pennsylvania, you still have to order it "to-go" from a bar, and pay bar prices.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  59. Mystery Antecedent by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    This is all about more gov control, taxes, regulation to protect us from ourselves.

    Sorry, I clicked the links but I think I might have missed an important part of one them. Could someone please tell me what the word "this" in the above quotation refers to? What is about more government control, taxes and regulations?

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  60. ghey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A man posing as a woman? Well the most likely reason for that would be he's gay (but he won't admit that). Being gay though isn't a problem, it's the know-it-all attitude and the constant doubling down of the bullshit he spews that makes him insufferable. And obviously the dude has no real job though he often claims to. What job pays this guy to sit around all day posting to /.? No one doing any kind of real work can post the number of comments "Jane" does. The most likely reason for that would be he's "disabled" and sucking off the government teat all day but again won't admit that. Especially since he tows the republitard line- hypocrisy is a trademark of such people.

  61. Figures lie and liars figure by cyanman · · Score: 1

    The cited study count two factors:
    >Alcohol attributable deaths(AAD) 28.5 per 100,000 population
    >Years of potential life lost (YPLL) 823 per 100,000 population
    Thats like 3% of the 10% that maybe actually died directly from an alcohol related cause.

    My first question is what constitutes AAD? I could find no definition but given that this appears to be a study mainly directed at demonizing alcohol, use I'll make my own assumption that it is alcohol poisoning, drunk driving accidents, accidental deaths which alcohol is mentioned etc.

    YPLL? Heck this is even a more vague category. Most likely overall longevity among drinkers compared to non drinkers. Not related directly to drinking, but hey you died so it counts. Got hit by a bus stone sober crossing the street, but you were a drinker? You still add to the YPLL total just like the guy with liver failure.

    Then to take it one more step removed. The Alzheimer's research folks are now claiming that about 1/3 of deaths in senior citizens are Alzheimer related. John Doe died of heart failure, but they also want to count it as Alzheimer's. Why? Because John had Alzheimer's. Not that the condition had any direct causal relationship, he had it, so we can count it in our total. Cancer folks do the same, along with a whole host of other groups pushing for awareness and funding. If you add them up I would not be surprised if they add up to 300% of deaths caused by one thing or another.

    If you have cancer, drink alcohol and have Alzheimer's, does that count as a triple word score?

  62. I'll drink to that! by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    Hic.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  63. Re:good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If there were zero positive sides to drinking, nobody would drink. You moron.

  64. Life kills you ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The big takeaway from all this is that our life expectancy is now 40% higher than it was century ago.

    What used to kill us in droves (viruses, microbes and infections) doesn't any more, little numbers like famine and disease are no longer so prevalent, and we now get old enough to wear the body down ... and get diseases based on organ failure, high blood pressure, cancer and other natural attrition due to the increased years. The bottom line appears to be that our cells will divide a maximum of 50 times, that the telomeres at the end of the gene disappear with each mitosis, that errors in gene transcription increasingly occur with each new cell division ... and that we get grey hair or lose it, wrinkles and skin blemishes whether we like it or not.

    Now we're spending all our money on 'curing' old people's diseases ... which is a bit of a tragedy IMHO ... and railing against those vices (booze, tobacco, sex, drugs etc etc) that make the world a more tolerable place for those who realise life isn't a permanent state-of-affairs.

    Talk about pissing our money up against a a wall.

    Personally, I'd rather worry about things I have some control over ... but maybe that's just me.

  65. This reminds me... by Albert71292 · · Score: 1

    I'm out of bourbon. Headin' out to the store, brb!

    --
    "A Bird In The Hand Will Poop On Your Wrist"-Benny Hill,1982
  66. Cheers! by CHIT2ME · · Score: 0

    I'll drink to that!!! If they want this statistic to drop, just legalize pot!

    --
    My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!
  67. Are you a heavy drinker? by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    Used to be if a man drank over 21 drinks a week, he's a heavy drinker. About 14 for women. Now it's 8 a week for women, 15 for men.

    http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/faq...

    Some say - don't drink at all.

  68. Medical Alcohol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A clear solution to this problem .

  69. Hepamerz pill by NewYork · · Score: 1

    I'd recommend you to take a http://www.lunatus-me.com/abou... pill before consuming alcohol

    1. Re:Hepamerz pill by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Alcohol only causes liver damage in high concentration. If your liver can process the alcohol in reasonable effort, it's not harmful. If your liver has to expend excess effort and incur a lot of stress to process alcohol, it's harmful. It's like putting load on your bones: they hold up, until the load is so heavy they crack, then break.

  70. 10 out of 10 deaths caused by heart failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Technically true. How it gets to that stage can have many influences but death is all ultimately caused by births, which are also preventable.

  71. In Soviet Russia ... vodka loves people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > CDC: 1 In 10 Adult Deaths In US Caused By Excessive Drinking

    Pravda: 6 in 10 Adult Deaths in Soviet Russia Caused By Excessive Drinking

    By the way, of those 6 people four are men and two are women. Thus, out of 10 average russians only 1 men and 3 women depart for non-vodkatic reasons, such as deportation to copper mines in the siberian Gulag or a headshot in the Katyn forest...