In case you've missed it, we've had plenty of articles on drugs (alcohol is a drug), distillation (chemistry) and taxation (cue the innumerable posts on taxation, etc.). This fits right in.
Well, Freud was batshit insane, so take whatever he says with a grain of salt. But if you start to put together the costs to treat alcohol and tobacco related illness, they absolutely dwarf moneys spent on the other drugs. Now, saying that, it's a harder comparison to make since the 'harder' drugs are illegal and costly putting many of the addicts in a position to create societal harm (robbery, theft, etc). But MVAs due to drunks costs quite a bit of money as well. Back and forth....
It's probably not going to get anyone very far by stating 'my drug is worse than your drug' - I think the bottom line is that a) people will use them no matter what legal prohibitions are thrown in their way and b) we as a society have to come up with a reasonable balance between personal liberty, social costs and straight financial costs. The 'War on Drugs' turns out to be an unreasonable way to solve this problem.
True, but again, it's highly regulated and there are defense mechanisms - all of which are incompletely understood. And I'm not so sure that this is a good idea as the mechanisms used to disseminate the genes to the target organisms are going to have to look rather virus like as it's unlikely you're going to try to catch every Cane Toad in the swamp to give them a shot.
And viruses have lots of ways of getting around defense mechanisms.
Yeah, just imagine. A micropayment system that worked. 25 cents for a video? 10 cents? 2 cents? I'd go for that in a heartbeat. Sure, have a choice - look at the ads or pay up. I suppose that some smart marketing folks have actually looked at this and decided it 's not worth it, but I for one would welcome our new micropayment overlords.
To me that implied all species. Obviously that isn't the case.
That's likely true and the journalists are being sloppy. At least the authors of TFA plan to use this to target a particular type of critter (eg an invasive species, a pathogen). The modified organisms could spread throughout an ecosystem, but not infect everything in sight.
We have plenty of oil left. What we don't have is very much cheap oil. That interesting point at least allows the concept of market driven forces. Once oil is too expensive, then there will be more of a reason to switch. To be completely fair (which will never happen) we do need to cut back on the subsidies we give the fossil fuel industry. Adding differing subsidies to the mix isn't such a bright idea, but it is politically expedient.
You are over generalizing. There has been, and likely will be, a market for high quality entertainment - both written word, movies, music. A problem is that this market isn't especially large nor lucrative.
The big money is in mediocre crap. Always has been.
What the Internet has done is to throw everything together into a large fungible pool of confusion. And the big actors are well financed corps, not individual artists. Just like always.
It always has been a struggle for an artist of whatever stripe to make a living (at least while they're alive). There are the high profile exceptions, but the majority of artists don't make big bucks.
Heroin is somewhat different in that a heroin addict, while under the influence, isn't 'good' for much of anything in a societal sense, a nicotine addict could be programming the Next Big Thing while lighting up, but the dangerous effects of heroin are mostly due to it's illegal status. Injection (the most 'efficient' way to get high) is very dangerous as is the social and physical milieu surrounding an addict's lifestyle.
Smoking tobacco is also a pretty dangerous delivery method. Neither drug, by itself, is as toxic as alcohol (or the entertaining and common mixture of tylenol and alcohol).
So, one needs to be careful about how these stats are figured. It's easy to compare apples and oranges.
My major point is that 'recreational' (as opposed to therapeutic) drug use is never 'good' for you but that society needs to balance a number of harms both to it's individuals and as an aggregate. Criminalization seems to be the worst answer of all.
As for legalizing highly addictive drugs like cocaine and heroin, I don't see how decriminalizing them good possibly be a good idea. d
It may not be a 'good' idea. It may simply be less bad that keeping them criminalized. Addiction is a medical diagnosis and it makes more sense to keep it in the medical sphere than the criminal one. Being addicted to anything is bad for you (that's inherent in the term). The consequences of that addiction can be modified by decriminalizing the drug (but keeping it regulated). Nobody but nobody is suggesting that we just drop cocaine packets from the sky. Well, perhaps a few folks might like that.....
The addiction rate for these drugs is 2.5 to 3 times that of alcohol. Heroin, etc. are dangerous and they weren't just banned because of moralizers.
Citation please. Nicotine is generally considered to be more addictive than anything else. Ask the Vietnam vet who has managed to get off of heroin but still smokes cigarettes.
And yes, the drugs WERE banned because of problems (or at least perceived problems). However, it is absolutely clear that the criminal justice system hasn't done a very good job of solving those problems and has arguably created bigger problems than the drugs themselves.
How about this? Marijuana (that stuff in the joint over there) is a DEA Schedule I drug - 'high potential for harm, no accepted medical use'. Marinol (concentrated THC, one of the major active ingredients in the joint) is a Schedule III drug (like low dose Vicodin*, Tylenol with codeine and a bunch of other minor pharmaceuticals).
Don't expect logic or rational thinking here. It simply not allowed.
*Yeah, I know, it's going to move 'up' to Schedule II soon
Whoops. Just no. Alcohol and tobacco have higher social costs than all of the other drugs put together. Way higher.
Now, whether or not you see that as an inevitable effect of homo industrialalis being the undeveloped, unevolved, barely conscious pond scum that they are or a reason to clamp down on alcohol and tobacco depends on your personal philosophy but don't go making unsubstantiated statements like that.
But it is the same forces in play. The limitations of the physics (and thus chemistry and thus biology) that drive structure and function of DNA, protein, etc limit the possible ways that nature can create ways to solve evolutionary problems. So whether it is a photon sensing system or pads on lizard, given the toolkit that nature (yeah, I'm anthropomorphizing a bit, sorry) has, it uses it in a similar fashion to get to a desired end result.
That, and the insistence of having Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Kansas and a whole Imperial crapload of miles between the population centers. (Sorry, Denver, you don't really count.)
Slashdot Mirror
In case you've missed it, we've had plenty of articles on drugs (alcohol is a drug), distillation (chemistry) and taxation (cue the innumerable posts on taxation, etc.). This fits right in.
Stifle yourself.
That's right. He was an early eco-terrorist, spreading invasive species throughout the country.
Interesting. Didn't realize the VC were into Heinlein.
Well, Freud was batshit insane, so take whatever he says with a grain of salt. But if you start to put together the costs to treat alcohol and tobacco related illness, they absolutely dwarf moneys spent on the other drugs. Now, saying that, it's a harder comparison to make since the 'harder' drugs are illegal and costly putting many of the addicts in a position to create societal harm (robbery, theft, etc). But MVAs due to drunks costs quite a bit of money as well. Back and forth ....
It's probably not going to get anyone very far by stating 'my drug is worse than your drug' - I think the bottom line is that a) people will use them no matter what legal prohibitions are thrown in their way and b) we as a society have to come up with a reasonable balance between personal liberty, social costs and straight financial costs. The 'War on Drugs' turns out to be an unreasonable way to solve this problem.
True, but again, it's highly regulated and there are defense mechanisms - all of which are incompletely understood. And I'm not so sure that this is a good idea as the mechanisms used to disseminate the genes to the target organisms are going to have to look rather virus like as it's unlikely you're going to try to catch every Cane Toad in the swamp to give them a shot.
And viruses have lots of ways of getting around defense mechanisms.
Whatcouldpossiblygowrong?
Yeah, just imagine. A micropayment system that worked. 25 cents for a video? 10 cents? 2 cents? I'd go for that in a heartbeat. Sure, have a choice - look at the ads or pay up. I suppose that some smart marketing folks have actually looked at this and decided it 's not worth it, but I for one would welcome our new micropayment overlords.
To me that implied all species. Obviously that isn't the case.
That's likely true and the journalists are being sloppy. At least the authors of TFA plan to use this to target a particular type of critter (eg an invasive species, a pathogen). The modified organisms could spread throughout an ecosystem, but not infect everything in sight.
Except this isn't the FDA - it's the DEA who has it's own incoherent and opaque methodology to determine which class a drug or chemical falls into.
We have plenty of oil left. What we don't have is very much cheap oil. That interesting point at least allows the concept of market driven forces. Once oil is too expensive, then there will be more of a reason to switch. To be completely fair (which will never happen) we do need to cut back on the subsidies we give the fossil fuel industry. Adding differing subsidies to the mix isn't such a bright idea, but it is politically expedient.
You are over generalizing. There has been, and likely will be, a market for high quality entertainment - both written word, movies, music. A problem is that this market isn't especially large nor lucrative.
The big money is in mediocre crap. Always has been.
What the Internet has done is to throw everything together into a large fungible pool of confusion. And the big actors are well financed corps, not individual artists. Just like always.
It always has been a struggle for an artist of whatever stripe to make a living (at least while they're alive). There are the high profile exceptions, but the majority of artists don't make big bucks.
Heroin is somewhat different in that a heroin addict, while under the influence, isn't 'good' for much of anything in a societal sense, a nicotine addict could be programming the Next Big Thing while lighting up, but the dangerous effects of heroin are mostly due to it's illegal status. Injection (the most 'efficient' way to get high) is very dangerous as is the social and physical milieu surrounding an addict's lifestyle.
Smoking tobacco is also a pretty dangerous delivery method. Neither drug, by itself, is as toxic as alcohol (or the entertaining and common mixture of tylenol and alcohol).
So, one needs to be careful about how these stats are figured. It's easy to compare apples and oranges.
My major point is that 'recreational' (as opposed to therapeutic) drug use is never 'good' for you but that society needs to balance a number of harms both to it's individuals and as an aggregate. Criminalization seems to be the worst answer of all.
How do wigs work in 1/6th gravity?
For a quick introduction to this concept, pick up a copy of Neal Stephanson's Confusion.
As for legalizing highly addictive drugs like cocaine and heroin, I don't see how decriminalizing them good possibly be a good idea. d
It may not be a 'good' idea. It may simply be less bad that keeping them criminalized. Addiction is a medical diagnosis and it makes more sense to keep it in the medical sphere than the criminal one. Being addicted to anything is bad for you (that's inherent in the term). The consequences of that addiction can be modified by decriminalizing the drug (but keeping it regulated). Nobody but nobody is suggesting that we just drop cocaine packets from the sky. Well, perhaps a few folks might like that.....
The addiction rate for these drugs is 2.5 to 3 times that of alcohol. Heroin, etc. are dangerous and they weren't just banned because of moralizers.
Citation please. Nicotine is generally considered to be more addictive than anything else. Ask the Vietnam vet who has managed to get off of heroin but still smokes cigarettes.
And yes, the drugs WERE banned because of problems (or at least perceived problems). However, it is absolutely clear that the criminal justice system hasn't done a very good job of solving those problems and has arguably created bigger problems than the drugs themselves.
How about this? Marijuana (that stuff in the joint over there) is a DEA Schedule I drug - 'high potential for harm, no accepted medical use'. Marinol (concentrated THC, one of the major active ingredients in the joint) is a Schedule III drug (like low dose Vicodin*, Tylenol with codeine and a bunch of other minor pharmaceuticals).
Don't expect logic or rational thinking here. It simply not allowed.
*Yeah, I know, it's going to move 'up' to Schedule II soon
Whoops. Just no. Alcohol and tobacco have higher social costs than all of the other drugs put together. Way higher.
Now, whether or not you see that as an inevitable effect of homo industrialalis being the undeveloped, unevolved, barely conscious pond scum that they are or a reason to clamp down on alcohol and tobacco depends on your personal philosophy but don't go making unsubstantiated statements like that.
There are no 'heavier' drugs than that pair.
Talk to the Colombians and Mexicans to see how well that particular strategy has worked out
Syphilis.
Close. No cigar.
But it is the same forces in play. The limitations of the physics (and thus chemistry and thus biology) that drive structure and function of DNA, protein, etc limit the possible ways that nature can create ways to solve evolutionary problems. So whether it is a photon sensing system or pads on lizard, given the toolkit that nature (yeah, I'm anthropomorphizing a bit, sorry) has, it uses it in a similar fashion to get to a desired end result.
I think you meant to say:
"the remaining 279 samples were shipped to the Department of Homeland Security for safekeeping"
What could possibly go wrong?
Hell, I don't even know what we're talking about.
Almost, but not quite, entirely unlike Dark Matter.
a pretty good case of 'user pays'.
More than 99% of road wear is caused by heavy trucks. Once again, humans subsidize businesses.
OK, I'll bite. If you don't want humans to subsidize business, who are you suggesting? Cats? Aliens?
That, and the insistence of having Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Kansas and a whole Imperial crapload of miles between the population centers. (Sorry, Denver, you don't really count.)
And he is not very fond of Butler Indiana either, and he would have gotten the hell out of there as soon as possible too.
What do you think he was doing? Not everybody had the panache to leave on a jet powered train. He gets serious points.