Besides such reclassification being outside the powers of the FCC, ISPs being classified as common-carriers like telcos means they fall under CALEA requirements mandating law enforcement (and Homeland Security/TLAs) access and ability to intercept/decrypt all traffic (it's illegal for example to use a voice-scrambler on the US phone network as it prevents LEAs from being able to listen in).
Law enforcement already can intercept all your traffic and nothing in the NN policy forced anyone to abandon any existing security that interferes. That's another false scare argument from the right. You're taking it even farther implying it would mandate crypto backdoors, that's fucking stupid and you know it. You're not an idiot so I can only assume you're being malicious.
How 'cutting the cord' means having an ANTENNA on your roof (or at least connected to the TV), and that paying for Internet and Hulu is NOT 'cutting the cord' at all, it's just paying for a different cord.
How'd you connect your antenna to your TV without a cord?
I'm not familiar with any commuter rail besides Amtrak that has any ID policy whatsoever. NJ Transit, LIRR, Metro-North you can buy tickets in cash on the platform or on the train without being asked for a name. There's no one to even ask before boarding, and the posted rules mention nothing about conductors being allowed to ask. Not familiar with the longer haul bus operators but NJT and NYCT buses are the same. If the TSA wants to raid them I'm not sure it actually imposes any more legal requirement on you than if a cop demands identification on a public sidewalk (which they can and frequently do, and in many places can detain you if you don't have an ID while they verify the name, which you're forced to give them, but that's not a transit issue).
Trump is with him. So are a few Senators. That most aren't fits with my point, that many Republicans are reconsidering the whole party before country thing that underlies their support for Trump. You're being a bit disingenuous with the comment on timing; it's not that people suddenly came forward on their own, he was for the first time subjected to high scrutiny from national news outlets and the initial complaints were discovered only by reporters going to ask about his history. Local news for state elections just isn't looking that hard.
As for what crimes Trump committed, we can start with treason and obstruction of justice and go from there. He fired the director of the FBI for looking into whether he directly colluded with a hostile foreign government to effect the election, and admitted as much on national television*. So both those charges are clear even if there actually was no collusion with Trump himself, though believing that when there clearly was with his son and a bunch of high level campaign staff is just not realistic. (And for what it's worth, I think Clinton committed a crime too and they should be sharing the same cell, I have no love for her either, people seem to forget that some of us are principled enough to call out wrongs on their own side).
* -
"But regardless of [the] recommendation, I was going to fire Comey. Knowing there was no good time to do it!
And in fact when I decided to just do it I said to myself, I said, 'You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should've won."
The more relevant figure is profit; their profit for fiscal 2016 was $535m (and that's for the entire company, not just their PC division). So a little better but still not enough to discourage the behavior.
It's defending free speech based on the principle that money is speech and corporations are no different than any other association of people. That's where the disagreement is; it's not unreasonable to contest that one or both of those are covered by free speech. In fact that's far more reasonable than the more recent opinions of the left, which think hate speech isn't covered by free speech.
Trump is worse but he's far less competent. And his awfulness leads to lots of infighting and paralysis in the GOP. Put Pence in, and the GOP will get a lot more policies passed that screw the country (the part that's not rich at least). That's going to kill the nation a lot faster. I'm not willing to trade looking better for being worse.
Yup, don't impeach Trump, Party before Country right? At least a few Republicans seem to be reconsidering this, meanwhile Trump and the rest of the psycho part of the party are doubling down by backing Roy Moore no matter how many teenagers* he molested/dated.
But the best defense against a Trump impeachment has got to be the prospects of a President Pence. He's got all the same awful positions as Trump, but is competent enough that they'll actually get their agenda through instead of spending all their time infighting. There's gotta be at least some on the left that realize this. So ultimately I do have to agree with your point.
* - His conduct ranged from inappropriate to illegal and abhorrent, but teenagers aren't children and it's not pedophilia. Saying he's a child molester or pedophile is yet another example of how to alienate people through hyperbole, a lesson the left refuses to learn, and now it might just result in enough support to get this awful man into congress.
Nope, don't take anything anymore; not that any doctor would ever prescribe that much anymore unless it was inpatient palliative care. And do you have any idea how much that would cost if it wasn't prescribed by a doctor? I assure you I've never had enough money to afford a $1000-3000/day drug habit lol. My passion comes from not just my own experience, but all the other patients I got to know, who are now being screwed over by new policies despite never abusing their meds. It comes from knowing people who have killed themselves rather continue to live in pain after doctors turned them away thanks to new policies. It comes from all the people like me who had injuries where no other treatment helped. It comes from dead friends who got kicked out of their doctors care and died thanks to black market drugs. I can't see people trying the same old policies to reduce abuse this time with the perverse collateral damage of causing large numbers of people to live in agony or risk death from OD on the street and not advocate against it.
Damn fucking straight I'm passionate about this issue. Thousands of people are dying and countless more are being made to suffer in agony because of our ignorance about opiates, and when they're people you know you don't stay silent.
It's sad that a lot of people really think like you do though, where anyone advocating for drug policy reform just wants to get high. You'll never see the harm terrible drug policy causes until it hurts someone you care about, assuming you even have the intellect to properly attribute blame.
Of course it does. I've taken 3,000mg a day of oxycodone. 80mg can be lethal, so a daily dose that left me acting normal would have killed 37 people, and if I had tried to dose recreationally, you could easily triple that.
That study has little to do with what I was talking about, it's just saying that tolerance develops. Yeah maybe after a decade you need an actual tolerance break; that's fine.
Depending of course on the person, you can reach your tolerance quickly.
If by quickly you mean years, ok. Talking about actual ceiling tolerance to full agonists though, not reaching the arbitrary limit of the current doctor or hospital.
Last time I had to take opioids (Broken Ankle) I reached my limit while still in the hospital, to the point where I refused to take any more. I took a lot of crap from the nurses eventually a doctor coming to give me hell because I refused to use that damn machine to self administer. And as soon as I got home, I just took NSAIDS. Sorry, don't care for the nausea and sweats and constipation.
Fantastic! On the other hand, there's people who will never be able to get out of bed without a lot of opiates. (And acute pain like yours and more serious and chronic issues are entirely different things; I have no problem admitting opioids were overused for minor injuries where they weren't needed).
My whole point is that we need to develop something else that doesn't have the issues. Decreased intestinal motility is a real pain in the ass, and the depression in respiration is a real problem with people at or near their limits, and withdrawal is also an issue. I don't have an issue with the short term euphoria, but that's probably half of what gets people addicted in the first place.
There's a lot of development of opiates that don't produce tolerance and dependence, none have worked so far. Discovering a whole new class that's a complete substitute is something to hope for in centuries, not any time soon. Right now it's fundamentally impossible. The decreased intestinal motility is entirely manageable. And dangerous respiratory depression is exclusively a problem of abusing opiates, not taking them as directed. Not to mention that no, it's not a problem for people 'near their limit', since a) there is no limit (medically, policy will limit it for non-medical reasons in all but palliative care for the soon departing), and b) tolerance to respiratory depression increases, not decreases, and after a certain point, it's physically impossible to overdose on opiates alone.
Something that relieves pain without the side effects is what I'm asking for.
You might be able to avoid the tolerance and dependence, but the abuse potential is not going away since fundamentally, we don't know how to stop some pain without just cutting the whole spinal cord (and then theres pain that originates in the brain which is even tougher). But with the former, there's research ongoing. Most has failed; in the mean time, we have to work with what we've got.
Why is that horrifying? It's only dangerous if he's cut off from it. Do you think most chronic patients are high and drooling or something? Tolerance shouldn't be horrifying, it's an expected outcome which can be safely addressed with drugs that don't increase side effects with dosage when used properly. Yeah it would be nice if the opiates they're developing that don't cause tolerance pan out, in the mean time it's far less horrifying than condemning him to suffering because you don't morally approve of high-dose opiates.
To be fair there's some pretty fucking awful stuff out there regarding specific grooming methods and drugging instructions, on top of the even more awful stuff about how to not seriously injure parts that small during sex.
Please, feel free to elaborate with specifics. I'll grab my popcorn while you try and explain how a theater full of dead people are doing it wrong.
If you're referring to the specific incident where a theater full of people *did* die from opiates, they had no tolerance and first responders were not told the chemical agent used, therefore did not have enough naloxone on hand. But what I was really talking about was the development of tolerance. You can take thousands of milligrams of something like morphine or oxycodone per day (where under 100mg is potentially lethal with no tolerance), and still be acting so normal nobody could even guess you were on anything. It take years to develop that kind of tolerance, but it doesn't result in side effects that compare even to NSAIDs.
The opioid epidemic was created by Big Pharma taking the worlds largest opium den and putting it in a prescription bottle. Denying that isn't fashionable. It's fucking stupid and ignorant.
Well first of all, the DEA decides production quotas, not Big Pharma, and they could have stopped increased prescriptions any time. You know why they didn't? Because the increase was due to finally allowing people with long term chronic pain issues to get some relief. There were absolutely some issues that caused problems, I'm not denying that, but ignorance has let the pendulum swing way too far back the other way because of misinformed assholes like you. There's several myths about the 'big pharma' lie that goes along with foolish comments like yours that you certainly believe, like doctors being stupid enough to think any full agonist opioid was any less addictive than morphine; that's facially absurd. Or that abuse potential wasn't equally known.
The spike in ODs and black market activity has happened because of opioids being legally prescribed for a fuckton of ailments, which are subsidized by the government (you sure as shit aren't getting 40 doses for 5 bucks from the black market)..
This is patently false. The spike in ODs occured because massive amounts of people were kicked out of the medical system and forced to turn to the black market. The percent of ODs from opioids taken as directed is zero. The percent related to prescription opioids at all is dwarfed by fentanyl deaths, these are directly the fault of DEA policy forcing discharge and refusal of medical prescriptions.
It's obvious that profits are more important to Big Pharma and government than ethics.
And it's obvious sadomoralism is more important to you than reducing overdose deaths and helping people suffering from pain you can't even imagine. Come talk about opioid policy again when someone you love kills themselves because they can't take the pain now that doctors won't prescribe the meds that made their lives livable. People suffering in pain because of new policies outnumber people abusing their scripts by far. People like you deserve to find out first hand the kind of suffering your ignorance produces.
Opiates have far less side effects than a large majority medications even at extreme dosages. Acetaminophen toxicity is a result of DEA policy, not medical policy. The medically appropriate choice in cases of tolerance is to switch to a single-drug opioid then continue with a standard NSAID dose. You can safely take enough opiates in a day to kill a theater full of people with little ill effect. It's also factually incorrect to assert they work in only the short term. While it's true they don't work for all chronic pain conditions, there are a substantial number of conditions where opioids offer the only prospect of relief. Development of addiction (which is not dependence) is also a medical issue, and in the uncommon case it does develop in a patient, be it by accident or because it's someone predisposed to drugs, is best addressed within the medical system as well. Cutting them off to either painfully detox and live in agony, or turn to black markets, is counterproductive and is responsible for the spike in ODs.
Yeah I know it's fashionable to hate on opiates, but please know what you're talking about instead of repeating what the DEA and its mouthpiece the CDC are saying that runs counter to medical knowledge.
I've provided evidence that this person works for Mozilla several times. In fact, his posting pattern continues here. Then there's his response time. Always here immediately for FF57, never talking about anything else. No more plausible explanation offered, just calls anyone pointing it out insane.
As I understood this, it was ruled that it was subject to federal rule because it's interstate commerce. SCOTUS thinks interstate commerce includes imprisoning you for a plant you grow on your own land, legally under state law, for exclusively your own consumption. Because you growing means you didn't buy it elsewhere, and elsewhere includes potential sellers that may have bought it from another state, so it effects the market. What possible chance do you think this has under that (blatantly unconstitutional) interpretation of the commerce clause? Not a chance they'd overturn a precedent like this, it would cripple loads of government agencies to narrow the commerce clause enough that it wouldn't apply to interstate telecom networks' local holdings. We lost any hope of any meaningful restriction on federal power decades ago, and it's a one way ratchet.
At the end of the process, the agency must base its reasoning and conclusions on the rulemaking record, consisting of the comments, scientific data, expert opinions, and facts accumulated during the prerule and proposed rule stages.
That they're supposed to do that, but instead and in direct contradiction to that, while openly lying about what the facts are, are simply doing the bidding of the big telecom companies, who the chairman is very clearly a shill for, acting indisputably against the best interests of the country, is why this is a problem for democracy. I don't think anyone is claiming that the *only* problem is that they don't base their policies on the popular vote of submitted comments. But as the passage you cited suggests, that is *part* of it.
Would be interesting if true, but since the chairman repeatedly lies his ass off about objective facts, I have little confidence in anyone he would appoint to represent his agency.
Not to mention that cause of death matters. Cancer from radiation exposure isn't exactly the best way to go, and I suspect a lot of the early deaths that bring down the average will be just that (not from acute effects but by increasing the long term risk, like with the 9/11 first responders). I thought for sure my father would face a death from painful cancer after a lifetime of heavy smoking, instead he went painlessly in his sleep from heart failure. My uncle on the other hand... terrible. We definitely need to consider if these will be cancer deaths.
Flamebait, really? Long gone are the days where people could have rational arguments without just getting downmodded by crazy zealots that go 'oh, pro-gun argument, mod as troll/flamebait'. Slashdot needs to rethink its moderation system. I obviously disagree with the person I'm replying to but I respect and challenge his argument, not mod him as a troll and ignore it. Seriously, fuck this.
Well the problem with is our country has this thing where we frown on imposing grossly excessive punishments, otherwise we'd fight all crimes by just making them 25-life or execution. You'd have a very hard time getting simple encryption to qualify and not get thrown out as unconstitutional because it's insanely disproportionate to the harm inflicted. Now there's a few areas where we've got some batshit insane ideas about harm inflicted by the act vs. harm inflicted by trying to prohibit it, but I don't think using unapproved encryption is going to get there.
Those purposes no longer apply. You're not going to get through the cops, the FBI, the ATF, the national guard, the reserves, and the US military to overthrow your government. And if a foreign force gets by the world-supreme US military, no gun you carry will make a lick of difference.
You're making a fatal error in that argument, that 100% of law enforcement and the military will oppose the people. In any situation that leads to civil war, it's highly likely those in the military and law enforcement will not have unified support against civilians. With foreign invasion, that couldn't happen now... but in 40 years? 80 years? You think no world power can ever rise? Once you take away the right it's gone. The threats change, and you won't think of re-arming the population until it's too late.
Only because the bad guys also have guns. If they didn't (or had them less frequently) you wouldn't need one. There are quite a few Western countries that have had a great amount of success with those types of policies.
Well, the bad guys do have guns. Restrictions on guns only prevent law abiding citizens from owning guns. Even if you implemented a confiscation program, it would pretty much exclusively disarm law abiding citizens. The guns are here already, if you could make them all magically vanish you'd have a point, but since you can't... Other countries never had close to the number of guns we have, and it's absurd to suggest we could replicate such policies here. And this is all to speak nothing of countries that have our gun ownership rates but don't have our gun violence problem.
If you're in law enforcement or security, sure. Other than that it should be hunting and the range, because the more people walking around thinking they're Rambo, the more dangerous society gets.
Is that why the cities with the most repressive gun laws have the most gun crimes? Oh wait... But anyway, given the legitimate reasons for killing people we discussed above can't magically vanish from the Earth forever, there remains entirely legitimate reasons to own guns for the purposes of killing humans in a number of scenarios where it's legal, even if you want to go ahead and discount overthrowing the government.
Even if you think the world will never change and you can somehow disarm criminals as well, and further that hunting and target shooting aren't valid reasons to own a gun-- the *2nd amendment still exists*, no matter what you think of the reasons it does. If you want to move to amendment the constitution, more power to ya, that's the right way to go about it. It won't happen, for what I believe are legitimate grounds in perhaps the only issue where I agree with the right, but that would be the right way to go about it. Simply ignoring it sets a god awful precedent that will bite you square in the ass one day.
Encountered that situation a couple months back in NYC. An off duty detective took out his gun and beat a homeless man with it (with the barrel pointed at me 2' away, yay nypd) for yelling at him. The train was stopped and the conductor came to investigate, as they always do. The situation had ended, and they had both walked away, and it was made very clear to us that if anyone wanted the police called, the train would not be moving. We all shut up and moved on, and it went unreported. One other person got it on camera, but like me probably never reported it for fear of retaliation by the police, which is known to happen, and not worth it if no one is dead. Less intense assaults get ignored entirely, because no one wants the train held for even 5 minutes while the conductor walks back. Well not ignored, just someone calls 911 or finds a cop on a platform later, instead of hitting the emergency button and telling the conductor, who tells the operator to stop the train. It does make a difference, however, because the train personnel can radio for police directly, and stop the train so police can actually respond (they won't even try to track down a moving train), in minutes... last time I called 911 in the middle of midtown Manhattan on a subway platform, it took police 15 minutes and EMS 20, subway radio call I've never seen longer than 3-4 minutes.
Slashdot Mirror
Besides such reclassification being outside the powers of the FCC, ISPs being classified as common-carriers like telcos means they fall under CALEA requirements mandating law enforcement (and Homeland Security/TLAs) access and ability to intercept/decrypt all traffic (it's illegal for example to use a voice-scrambler on the US phone network as it prevents LEAs from being able to listen in).
Law enforcement already can intercept all your traffic and nothing in the NN policy forced anyone to abandon any existing security that interferes. That's another false scare argument from the right. You're taking it even farther implying it would mandate crypto backdoors, that's fucking stupid and you know it. You're not an idiot so I can only assume you're being malicious.
How 'cutting the cord' means having an ANTENNA on your roof (or at least connected to the TV), and that paying for Internet and Hulu is NOT 'cutting the cord' at all, it's just paying for a different cord.
How'd you connect your antenna to your TV without a cord?
I'm not familiar with any commuter rail besides Amtrak that has any ID policy whatsoever. NJ Transit, LIRR, Metro-North you can buy tickets in cash on the platform or on the train without being asked for a name. There's no one to even ask before boarding, and the posted rules mention nothing about conductors being allowed to ask. Not familiar with the longer haul bus operators but NJT and NYCT buses are the same. If the TSA wants to raid them I'm not sure it actually imposes any more legal requirement on you than if a cop demands identification on a public sidewalk (which they can and frequently do, and in many places can detain you if you don't have an ID while they verify the name, which you're forced to give them, but that's not a transit issue).
As for what crimes Trump committed, we can start with treason and obstruction of justice and go from there. He fired the director of the FBI for looking into whether he directly colluded with a hostile foreign government to effect the election, and admitted as much on national television*. So both those charges are clear even if there actually was no collusion with Trump himself, though believing that when there clearly was with his son and a bunch of high level campaign staff is just not realistic. (And for what it's worth, I think Clinton committed a crime too and they should be sharing the same cell, I have no love for her either, people seem to forget that some of us are principled enough to call out wrongs on their own side).
* -
"But regardless of [the] recommendation, I was going to fire Comey. Knowing there was no good time to do it!
And in fact when I decided to just do it I said to myself, I said, 'You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should've won."
The more relevant figure is profit; their profit for fiscal 2016 was $535m (and that's for the entire company, not just their PC division). So a little better but still not enough to discourage the behavior.
It's defending free speech based on the principle that money is speech and corporations are no different than any other association of people. That's where the disagreement is; it's not unreasonable to contest that one or both of those are covered by free speech. In fact that's far more reasonable than the more recent opinions of the left, which think hate speech isn't covered by free speech.
Trump is worse but he's far less competent. And his awfulness leads to lots of infighting and paralysis in the GOP. Put Pence in, and the GOP will get a lot more policies passed that screw the country (the part that's not rich at least). That's going to kill the nation a lot faster. I'm not willing to trade looking better for being worse.
Yup, don't impeach Trump, Party before Country right? At least a few Republicans seem to be reconsidering this, meanwhile Trump and the rest of the psycho part of the party are doubling down by backing Roy Moore no matter how many teenagers* he molested/dated.
But the best defense against a Trump impeachment has got to be the prospects of a President Pence. He's got all the same awful positions as Trump, but is competent enough that they'll actually get their agenda through instead of spending all their time infighting. There's gotta be at least some on the left that realize this. So ultimately I do have to agree with your point.
* - His conduct ranged from inappropriate to illegal and abhorrent, but teenagers aren't children and it's not pedophilia. Saying he's a child molester or pedophile is yet another example of how to alienate people through hyperbole, a lesson the left refuses to learn, and now it might just result in enough support to get this awful man into congress.
How odd. Cats you say? I always assumed you used the moose that freely roam your city streets.
Nope, don't take anything anymore; not that any doctor would ever prescribe that much anymore unless it was inpatient palliative care. And do you have any idea how much that would cost if it wasn't prescribed by a doctor? I assure you I've never had enough money to afford a $1000-3000/day drug habit lol. My passion comes from not just my own experience, but all the other patients I got to know, who are now being screwed over by new policies despite never abusing their meds. It comes from knowing people who have killed themselves rather continue to live in pain after doctors turned them away thanks to new policies. It comes from all the people like me who had injuries where no other treatment helped. It comes from dead friends who got kicked out of their doctors care and died thanks to black market drugs. I can't see people trying the same old policies to reduce abuse this time with the perverse collateral damage of causing large numbers of people to live in agony or risk death from OD on the street and not advocate against it.
Damn fucking straight I'm passionate about this issue. Thousands of people are dying and countless more are being made to suffer in agony because of our ignorance about opiates, and when they're people you know you don't stay silent.
It's sad that a lot of people really think like you do though, where anyone advocating for drug policy reform just wants to get high. You'll never see the harm terrible drug policy causes until it hurts someone you care about, assuming you even have the intellect to properly attribute blame.
You do realize that this makes no sense at all.
Of course it does. I've taken 3,000mg a day of oxycodone. 80mg can be lethal, so a daily dose that left me acting normal would have killed 37 people, and if I had tried to dose recreationally, you could easily triple that.
Take it up with these folks. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
That study has little to do with what I was talking about, it's just saying that tolerance develops. Yeah maybe after a decade you need an actual tolerance break; that's fine.
Depending of course on the person, you can reach your tolerance quickly.
If by quickly you mean years, ok. Talking about actual ceiling tolerance to full agonists though, not reaching the arbitrary limit of the current doctor or hospital.
Last time I had to take opioids (Broken Ankle) I reached my limit while still in the hospital, to the point where I refused to take any more. I took a lot of crap from the nurses eventually a doctor coming to give me hell because I refused to use that damn machine to self administer. And as soon as I got home, I just took NSAIDS. Sorry, don't care for the nausea and sweats and constipation.
Fantastic! On the other hand, there's people who will never be able to get out of bed without a lot of opiates. (And acute pain like yours and more serious and chronic issues are entirely different things; I have no problem admitting opioids were overused for minor injuries where they weren't needed).
My whole point is that we need to develop something else that doesn't have the issues. Decreased intestinal motility is a real pain in the ass, and the depression in respiration is a real problem with people at or near their limits, and withdrawal is also an issue. I don't have an issue with the short term euphoria, but that's probably half of what gets people addicted in the first place.
There's a lot of development of opiates that don't produce tolerance and dependence, none have worked so far. Discovering a whole new class that's a complete substitute is something to hope for in centuries, not any time soon. Right now it's fundamentally impossible. The decreased intestinal motility is entirely manageable. And dangerous respiratory depression is exclusively a problem of abusing opiates, not taking them as directed. Not to mention that no, it's not a problem for people 'near their limit', since a) there is no limit (medically, policy will limit it for non-medical reasons in all but palliative care for the soon departing), and b) tolerance to respiratory depression increases, not decreases, and after a certain point, it's physically impossible to overdose on opiates alone.
Something that relieves pain without the side effects is what I'm asking for.
You might be able to avoid the tolerance and dependence, but the abuse potential is not going away since fundamentally, we don't know how to stop some pain without just cutting the whole spinal cord (and then theres pain that originates in the brain which is even tougher). But with the former, there's research ongoing. Most has failed; in the mean time, we have to work with what we've got.
Why is that horrifying? It's only dangerous if he's cut off from it. Do you think most chronic patients are high and drooling or something? Tolerance shouldn't be horrifying, it's an expected outcome which can be safely addressed with drugs that don't increase side effects with dosage when used properly. Yeah it would be nice if the opiates they're developing that don't cause tolerance pan out, in the mean time it's far less horrifying than condemning him to suffering because you don't morally approve of high-dose opiates.
To be fair there's some pretty fucking awful stuff out there regarding specific grooming methods and drugging instructions, on top of the even more awful stuff about how to not seriously injure parts that small during sex.
Please, feel free to elaborate with specifics. I'll grab my popcorn while you try and explain how a theater full of dead people are doing it wrong.
If you're referring to the specific incident where a theater full of people *did* die from opiates, they had no tolerance and first responders were not told the chemical agent used, therefore did not have enough naloxone on hand. But what I was really talking about was the development of tolerance. You can take thousands of milligrams of something like morphine or oxycodone per day (where under 100mg is potentially lethal with no tolerance), and still be acting so normal nobody could even guess you were on anything. It take years to develop that kind of tolerance, but it doesn't result in side effects that compare even to NSAIDs.
The opioid epidemic was created by Big Pharma taking the worlds largest opium den and putting it in a prescription bottle. Denying that isn't fashionable. It's fucking stupid and ignorant.
Well first of all, the DEA decides production quotas, not Big Pharma, and they could have stopped increased prescriptions any time. You know why they didn't? Because the increase was due to finally allowing people with long term chronic pain issues to get some relief. There were absolutely some issues that caused problems, I'm not denying that, but ignorance has let the pendulum swing way too far back the other way because of misinformed assholes like you. There's several myths about the 'big pharma' lie that goes along with foolish comments like yours that you certainly believe, like doctors being stupid enough to think any full agonist opioid was any less addictive than morphine; that's facially absurd. Or that abuse potential wasn't equally known.
The spike in ODs and black market activity has happened because of opioids being legally prescribed for a fuckton of ailments, which are subsidized by the government (you sure as shit aren't getting 40 doses for 5 bucks from the black market)..
This is patently false. The spike in ODs occured because massive amounts of people were kicked out of the medical system and forced to turn to the black market. The percent of ODs from opioids taken as directed is zero. The percent related to prescription opioids at all is dwarfed by fentanyl deaths, these are directly the fault of DEA policy forcing discharge and refusal of medical prescriptions.
It's obvious that profits are more important to Big Pharma and government than ethics.
And it's obvious sadomoralism is more important to you than reducing overdose deaths and helping people suffering from pain you can't even imagine. Come talk about opioid policy again when someone you love kills themselves because they can't take the pain now that doctors won't prescribe the meds that made their lives livable. People suffering in pain because of new policies outnumber people abusing their scripts by far. People like you deserve to find out first hand the kind of suffering your ignorance produces.
Since all anti-drug ads are tied for the same "completely ineffective" title, I suppose it's not inaccurate.
Opiates have far less side effects than a large majority medications even at extreme dosages. Acetaminophen toxicity is a result of DEA policy, not medical policy. The medically appropriate choice in cases of tolerance is to switch to a single-drug opioid then continue with a standard NSAID dose. You can safely take enough opiates in a day to kill a theater full of people with little ill effect. It's also factually incorrect to assert they work in only the short term. While it's true they don't work for all chronic pain conditions, there are a substantial number of conditions where opioids offer the only prospect of relief. Development of addiction (which is not dependence) is also a medical issue, and in the uncommon case it does develop in a patient, be it by accident or because it's someone predisposed to drugs, is best addressed within the medical system as well. Cutting them off to either painfully detox and live in agony, or turn to black markets, is counterproductive and is responsible for the spike in ODs.
Yeah I know it's fashionable to hate on opiates, but please know what you're talking about instead of repeating what the DEA and its mouthpiece the CDC are saying that runs counter to medical knowledge.
I've provided evidence that this person works for Mozilla several times. In fact, his posting pattern continues here. Then there's his response time. Always here immediately for FF57, never talking about anything else. No more plausible explanation offered, just calls anyone pointing it out insane.
As I understood this, it was ruled that it was subject to federal rule because it's interstate commerce. SCOTUS thinks interstate commerce includes imprisoning you for a plant you grow on your own land, legally under state law, for exclusively your own consumption. Because you growing means you didn't buy it elsewhere, and elsewhere includes potential sellers that may have bought it from another state, so it effects the market. What possible chance do you think this has under that (blatantly unconstitutional) interpretation of the commerce clause? Not a chance they'd overturn a precedent like this, it would cripple loads of government agencies to narrow the commerce clause enough that it wouldn't apply to interstate telecom networks' local holdings. We lost any hope of any meaningful restriction on federal power decades ago, and it's a one way ratchet.
At the end of the process, the agency must base its reasoning and conclusions on the rulemaking record, consisting of the comments, scientific data, expert opinions, and facts accumulated during the prerule and proposed rule stages.
That they're supposed to do that, but instead and in direct contradiction to that, while openly lying about what the facts are, are simply doing the bidding of the big telecom companies, who the chairman is very clearly a shill for, acting indisputably against the best interests of the country, is why this is a problem for democracy. I don't think anyone is claiming that the *only* problem is that they don't base their policies on the popular vote of submitted comments. But as the passage you cited suggests, that is *part* of it.
Would be interesting if true, but since the chairman repeatedly lies his ass off about objective facts, I have little confidence in anyone he would appoint to represent his agency.
Not to mention that cause of death matters. Cancer from radiation exposure isn't exactly the best way to go, and I suspect a lot of the early deaths that bring down the average will be just that (not from acute effects but by increasing the long term risk, like with the 9/11 first responders). I thought for sure my father would face a death from painful cancer after a lifetime of heavy smoking, instead he went painlessly in his sleep from heart failure. My uncle on the other hand... terrible. We definitely need to consider if these will be cancer deaths.
Flamebait, really? Long gone are the days where people could have rational arguments without just getting downmodded by crazy zealots that go 'oh, pro-gun argument, mod as troll/flamebait'. Slashdot needs to rethink its moderation system. I obviously disagree with the person I'm replying to but I respect and challenge his argument, not mod him as a troll and ignore it. Seriously, fuck this.
Well the problem with is our country has this thing where we frown on imposing grossly excessive punishments, otherwise we'd fight all crimes by just making them 25-life or execution. You'd have a very hard time getting simple encryption to qualify and not get thrown out as unconstitutional because it's insanely disproportionate to the harm inflicted. Now there's a few areas where we've got some batshit insane ideas about harm inflicted by the act vs. harm inflicted by trying to prohibit it, but I don't think using unapproved encryption is going to get there.
Those purposes no longer apply. You're not going to get through the cops, the FBI, the ATF, the national guard, the reserves, and the US military to overthrow your government. And if a foreign force gets by the world-supreme US military, no gun you carry will make a lick of difference.
You're making a fatal error in that argument, that 100% of law enforcement and the military will oppose the people. In any situation that leads to civil war, it's highly likely those in the military and law enforcement will not have unified support against civilians. With foreign invasion, that couldn't happen now... but in 40 years? 80 years? You think no world power can ever rise? Once you take away the right it's gone. The threats change, and you won't think of re-arming the population until it's too late.
Only because the bad guys also have guns. If they didn't (or had them less frequently) you wouldn't need one. There are quite a few Western countries that have had a great amount of success with those types of policies.
Well, the bad guys do have guns. Restrictions on guns only prevent law abiding citizens from owning guns. Even if you implemented a confiscation program, it would pretty much exclusively disarm law abiding citizens. The guns are here already, if you could make them all magically vanish you'd have a point, but since you can't... Other countries never had close to the number of guns we have, and it's absurd to suggest we could replicate such policies here. And this is all to speak nothing of countries that have our gun ownership rates but don't have our gun violence problem.
If you're in law enforcement or security, sure. Other than that it should be hunting and the range, because the more people walking around thinking they're Rambo, the more dangerous society gets.
Is that why the cities with the most repressive gun laws have the most gun crimes? Oh wait... But anyway, given the legitimate reasons for killing people we discussed above can't magically vanish from the Earth forever, there remains entirely legitimate reasons to own guns for the purposes of killing humans in a number of scenarios where it's legal, even if you want to go ahead and discount overthrowing the government.
Even if you think the world will never change and you can somehow disarm criminals as well, and further that hunting and target shooting aren't valid reasons to own a gun-- the *2nd amendment still exists*, no matter what you think of the reasons it does. If you want to move to amendment the constitution, more power to ya, that's the right way to go about it. It won't happen, for what I believe are legitimate grounds in perhaps the only issue where I agree with the right, but that would be the right way to go about it. Simply ignoring it sets a god awful precedent that will bite you square in the ass one day.
Encountered that situation a couple months back in NYC. An off duty detective took out his gun and beat a homeless man with it (with the barrel pointed at me 2' away, yay nypd) for yelling at him. The train was stopped and the conductor came to investigate, as they always do. The situation had ended, and they had both walked away, and it was made very clear to us that if anyone wanted the police called, the train would not be moving. We all shut up and moved on, and it went unreported. One other person got it on camera, but like me probably never reported it for fear of retaliation by the police, which is known to happen, and not worth it if no one is dead. Less intense assaults get ignored entirely, because no one wants the train held for even 5 minutes while the conductor walks back. Well not ignored, just someone calls 911 or finds a cop on a platform later, instead of hitting the emergency button and telling the conductor, who tells the operator to stop the train. It does make a difference, however, because the train personnel can radio for police directly, and stop the train so police can actually respond (they won't even try to track down a moving train), in minutes... last time I called 911 in the middle of midtown Manhattan on a subway platform, it took police 15 minutes and EMS 20, subway radio call I've never seen longer than 3-4 minutes.