> You make some valid points, but it's quite > unfair to paint pharmacists as just > "pill counters".
In one sense you are right. It DOES take alot of training and knowledge to be a pharmacist.
However...the basic job these days is of a pill counter. Most drugs come either pressed or in pre-measured caps. Most users never ask any questions.
In effect their job is to look at ascript, read it (which can be a feat in itself) and then count out the pills. For 90% of customers a trained monkey could do it.
However...yes...they are required to have a great deal of knowledge.
Of course I admit...I am thinking of Consumer Pharmacists at the local drug store. In hospitals things are quite different. In hospitals there is much closer interaction and a pharmacist would have to actually do work beyond counting.
> I'd also include some restrictions on narcotics > and other addictive drugs for all the usual > reasons, it's generally agreed for example that > heroin abuse causes social problems.
Mostly only by people who don't read studies.
In switzerland a heroin trial took place where several users were allowed to purchase the drug at a reasonable price (ie about what it would be without prohibition inflating the price) and use it in a safe area (obviously letteing them take it with them to the street is out of the question because of legal climate etc)
What happend?
within a few weeks these users no longer needed to rely on illegal sources of income at all. They all became otherwise normal productive members of society.
Interesstingly you may hear that the study was a failure. Several groups have said it was, because they were still using heroin. These groups all neglect the fact that the study was NOT about finding ways to end addiction but rather to study whether addicts could lead normal lives if prohibition wasn't in effect. (basically)
>> No, North Korea is what happens to communism >> over time
> Er, no. Communist countries start out this way. > Russia post-1917 was a very ugly place.
Well there are lots of differnt types of communism and socialism. I have yet to see a large scale "Communist" country that actually espouses communist ideals in any way shape or form (beyond paying lip service to them)
In truth...Lennin and Stalin were much more close to fascists than Communists. They just called themselves communist because it was popular at the time (and perhaps at one point they even believed it)
As a socialist, and possibly a communist (I am not that far philosophically developed to call myself a communist...I am certainly an anarcho-socialist) I am apaulled at the misconceptions about socialism and communism that I see going around. Much of it is the fault of people like Stalin who were major world leaders and called themselves communist... but were not.
Communism calls for an end to separation of classes (actually socialism in general tends to) however Lennin and Stalin, and all communist leaders that I have seen follow them, have created even worst class division than before. They created a working class that was basically everyone...then a small elite "ruling class" that sat above everyone.
> It's true that people should take responsibility > for their actions. However, there's a limit > to how much self-education you can expect > someone to do.
Perhaps you don't understand our argument?
Noone has argued that doctors and pharmacists are not needed. The argument is that we, as human beings, should be allowed to legally obtain and consume any chemical we wish to consume.
This is not to say that EVERY person SHOULD do so. It is simply to say that those who wish to do so should be allowed to do so.
Even if the prescription system were gone, most people would still go to doctors, they will still get some recomendation for a certain drug.
The only change we are asking for, is that those who believe they are qualified to not go that route, be allowed to not go that route.
> The FDA, IIRC, is made up of appointed > officials, not elected ones, making it > a bit harder to corrupt with money.
Not true. How does being apointed make a person less greedy? Its true it makes them possibly more suited to the job (having been selected not by popularity contest but by selection based on qualifications) but...once there... them dead green presidents look mighty sweet no matter how you got your job.
This is offtopic but...since you ar ehaving trouble...
Whenever I have the need (or desire) to look up info on a drug I use the "Physicains Desk Reference". I have it available from a web page due to some complex circumstances...however its behind a firewall and there is no way for me to tell you how to access it.
I am sure it must be available in book form or elsewhere. It is actually several differnt resources together.
It has all sorts of info. Contraindications, average dose, half life, overdose dangers and treatment, tetragen status. even has some cases for some situations.
Its truely a great reference, I highly recomend it for anyone who wishes to self medicate (or check up on the doctor)
> It's easy to generalize a story, thus making > pretty much any topic that fits in that > generalization "on-topic."
Very true...and topics tend to wander in these types of discussion.
However.,..as was stated...its the same system. I am against this move by the FDA not because it is the internet but simply because the "Controlled Substances Act" (which is what all prescriptions are based on) is horribly flawed IMO and that it needs to be gotten rid of completely not extended.
> My brother-in-law just spent Christmas Eve > driving around town to various crack houses > looking for his adolescent neices father.
My deepest condolences. that is a horrible way to spend the holidays but...
have you ever thought that prohibition might just be part of the problem?
Studies have been done (not in the US, it would NEVER be allowed) where drug addicts were given a safe and REASONABLY PRICED supply of drugs.
What happend?
They started living and functioning as ordinary human beings. They still were addicts. They still used their drugs. However, they started to live normal lives.
Thats not to say there is no problem. Hell Alcohol is legal and I know people who do the SAME thing as your relative do, but with bottles of booze. However, can you imagine what the life of an alcoholic would be if the cheapest bottle of booze was $150? or it was $15/shot?
Prohibition drives up prices. Not only that but with hugely inflated profits, and users having no real recource for redress og grievences, most drugs sold are adulturated with other chemicals (cocaine users are regularly exposed to levels of benzene...mostly thanks to US efforts to limit export of the proper solvents that should be used to countries like columbia)
Prohibition also brings in the criminal element. Drugs don't "breed crime". Look at alcohol. As soon as it was made illegal in the early part of this century, many of the problems we see today with drug prohibition arose.
You can't get drugs without being in contact with some criminal element, just like in the 20s. It is how men like Al Capone got rich. The murder rate in 1930 was so large...that after prohibition ended...it wasn't till the height of drug prohibition in the 1980s that it peaked that high again.
> So by this I assume that you do not support > statutes for things like "disturbing the peace"?
Well...ok disturbing the peace. I was kind of thinking off alone in the middle of a feild where noone is around.
> One could argue that allowing a pharmacy to > operate negligently or illegally is, in fact, > "endangering others."
Yes one could argue that. Howevr that same argument could be applied to sales of tobbacco or even alcohol. Should we require prescriptions for those too? perhaps ban the sale of them?
>>Why is it any of your buisness if they run a >>brothel? > So I guess then that you are also opposed to > anti-prostitution legislation, and various > zoning laws
Yes I am. Granted I agree that they should not be able to build a coal processing plant next door to a residental area, I see nothing wrong with a brothel. As long as they keep quiet, why not? Its been shown that crime and other problems associated with prostitution are more a product of the fact it is illegal and not a legitimate buisness than anything else.
> I can't really tell if you're trying to have a > legitimate argument here or if you're just > trying to be annoying.
A little of both. I am firmly against the idea that the government should have any say in what people can or can not do in the privacy of their own home, or with other consenting adults (ie using drugs, paying for sex).
> If you really have such a beef about these laws, > perhaps you should try writing to your local > legislature. I sincerely doubt these things will > ever be legalized,
I have written them. Also...why not have them legalized? They have not been illegal very long. The "War on Drugs" has been killing this country for years.
When alcohol was made illegal, men like Al Capone ruled. They made their money off alcohol and branched into illegal gambling and other things. Now that other drugs are illegal...almost all of the same things happend. Drug lords got rich, ganges like the bloods formed. Murder rate skyrocketed.
Prohibition decreases supply. Demand stays the same. Prices skyrocket. Thus profit for selling goes up. In this way prohibition FUELS the black market.
In the end all you have is that people who want to peacefully use drugs in the privacy of their own homes need to spend alot more money to do it, and risk being arrested. All for a peacefull consensual act.
> Seriously, why the fsck can't someone be opposed > to government cartel protection and still > recongnize that experts are still required.
Its good to hear the voice of reason.
I would like to state for the record...I do know a good deal more about drugs than "Average Joe Citizen", I have some access (due to previous employment and friends related to medical institutions) to informtation not everyone has at their fingertips.
I am against prescriptions (as I previously said). When I get sick...I go see my fsck'n doctor if my treatment doesn't clear it up or at least show major improvement in 3 days. (or if the symptoms are inconsistant with things I am fammilair with)
I have no problem with getting expert advice. I love the idea that its there. However...even then... Doctor gives me a script? I check it out no matter what it is. I look up the contraindications and side effects myself before I start taking it.
> If I lie and say that I don't have a heart > problem because I want Viagra, it's my own damn > fault when I die.
Exactly. Just as it would be the pharmacies fault if they lied about what the drug was. Look at it this way...pharmacies WANT buisness. If they tell you that a drug is dangerous for you...they could save your life. They LIKE that.
Think about it...if you die...your not going to be a repeat customer. However if they warn you that it could be deadly because of your condition... well...you may just be greatful enough that next time you need medication, you go to them.
I think that if you lie...or refuse to heed the warnings, then you deserve what you get.
> I think there are two kinds of free-market > worshippers.
Just to clarify...I am not a free market worshiper (anymore). I believe in freedom definitly...but not capitalism. I think Capitalism breeds inequality of opertunity, and makes for a system where the rich live lives of privilidge off the backs of the workers. (not to mention that it rewards the dishonest... it doesn't matter how bad it is or how poorly its made...if you can market it well you get rewarded with profit...doesn't exactly encourage moral action)
Anyway...back to the topic....
Yes it is infeasable to just educate everyone. What I advocate is make the information available. Make sure everyone who wants it can get it.
Then let it loose. People will not listen. They may die. However, their deaths will educate others to the dangers of not doing research. In the end people will be more educated.
MOST people will still goto Doctors and get advice that way. I think that in absence of prescription REQUIREMENTS, the vast majority will still goto a doctor first.
The best solution, in my opionion, is to not use an economic system that favors people who cheat and lie. However, thats not happening very quickly....and is another topic completely.
> Spoken like a true completely ignornant > libertarian idiot. Don't believe everything you > read off the internet. > Please spend 4 years in med-school before > comming to a decision on the regulation of > drugs.
Somehow I need to go to med School to see that prohibition doesn't work?
This isn't about drugs. This is about freedom. It is about the fact that my body is mine and I reserve the right to say what goes in it and what doesn't.
> Should I be allowed to fire my gun in the air > randomly?
Sure...if noone is anywhere nearby that could possibly be hit. Otherwise you are endangering others.
> should your neighber be allowed to run a brothel > in his house?
Why is it any of your buisness if they run a brothel? Oh god no...someone might get paid money for Sex! Shit! that would just be wrong.
> or a drug lab?
Why not? Why is it you are so interested in what your neibor does in the privacy of his own home? Do you keep track of what he does...make sure he isn't having sex outside of marriage too?
> I've seen anarchy in action, it aint pretty.
No you have seen chaos...anarchy is not chaos. Anarchy involves mutual voluntary cooperation not chaos and destruction.
> Pharmacists know a hell of alot more than the > average joe about what you should and should not > take.
Yes they do...which is why the "Average Joe" should consult his doctor and pharmasist before he even considers using any drug.
However what about above-average joe? How about someone who has done personal research, read reports, etc and decided that a drug is right for them? What gives you or anyone else the right to tell him that he shouldn't be able to decide for himself? Is it not his body?
> Tell your evangelization shit to the family of > the man who died because he bought viagra over > the internet
How about people who took tylanol and died? Lots of them every year. How about someone who took a bit more nyquil then they should have and found out the hard way that they are one of the 1%-3% of caucasions who are missing the enzyme that metabolizes Dextromethorphan.
The simple fact is that if you don't consult a doctor, then its "Buyer Beware". Buying a drug on your own means that YOU take responsibility for making sure its not contraindicated.
Noone is to blame for the fuckup but the man himself. He could have easily done a little research and found out that information.
> Sure, it's his responsibility to know that, but > not everybody is as smart as you say you are
Glad you realize that. Its why we have Darwin Awards. If a person dies because of their own irresponsibility, I have little pity (perhaps for the fammily but not for him).
If you want to help out, forget regulation. Go for Education. People SHOULD know more than they do. Over the counter drugs account for many deaths every year.
Believe it or not, regulation ENCOURAGES irresponsibility. It breeds the attitude that "Well other drugs are controlled by doctors and pharmacists, so these must be safe if I can buy them" so people buy them and start popping away.
hmmm so people lik myself want no regulation until we get a bad prescription ourselves? Hmmm how does regulation prevent bad prescriptions?
Even without Licenceing etc all the drugs they sell still need to be made in a manner that they are safe to consume...if not then they are selling dangerous product. In fact...most of the time the drugs are made by the same manafacturer as the normal pharmacies buy from.
Pharmacies are basically glorified pill counters these days. Licencing doesn't prevent them from fucking up and counting wrong. It doesn't prevent them from picking up the wrong bottle and giving you the wrong pills.
An online pharmacy that sold anything except what they are advertising is still in trouble for breaking existing laws...like say fraud.
In truth this regulation is all about control. It is about the belief of people in the federal government that they have the right to control every aspect of our lives. The entire concept of prescription drugs is founded on the idea that citizens do not own their own bodies and do not have the right to self medicate beyond what Big Brother has Aproved.
Its funny how anti-drug propagandists always talk about the "Message it sends". I don't know about you...but I don't like the message that these control measures send.
hmmm I dunno.... As a person whose Tax dollars pay for the US government to research things...I have no problem with it.
In fact...I am pissed that the technology wasn't released to the public. Afterall...we paid for the research, we should get to know about it and all of how it works.
Secrets are for private individuals and corrupt regeimes.
> At work, I also use Win98, as does everyone > else, except for the NT server.
At my old work I used win95...last I hjeard they should finish the Win95 Rollout in 2002. Sux to be them. (I wont say who they are to save them embarassment)
Here I am on an SGI workstation until I get a Linux Desktop (should be soon). We use ALL Unix machines and Linux machines. There is also some hodge-podge of NT and Banyan-Vines stuff around but...we don't deal with that.
> By far and above degrees, most problems I've > encountered over the past 5 years are due to > folks messing around where they ought not be, or > doing things the 'wrong' way (like deleting app > dirs instead of the Add/Remove).
I agree that MOST problems are due to users "Bad Habbits" however...when left to their own devices it is EASY to develop bad habbits in Windows.
Another one that is "up there" on my list is installing software. I have found that installing any software (be it commercial or not) seems to have a "Risk Factor".
Often Add/Remove programs tended to leave "Residue" behind that needed to be cleaned up manually (both in the filesystem and in the registry). Often they would just fail completely, leaving things in an unstable state. These remove utilities are in fact the fault of others, not Microsoft.
However, Microsoft has been one of the WORST offenders of this. Our users would go off and install IE5 on their own...which BROKE (but only 90% of the time) several programs.
After this it was impossible to correctly uninstall IE5 and reinstall IE4...It would not work. We could only go back to IE3 (I fully admit this may be due to stragness of our systems and tweaks our group in charge of windows in general made to the system...none of which was documented for Technicians)
Usually after an IE5 install on the system...a complete rebuild of the system was needed to bring it to a stable state.
Then of course there is M$ Word...which would somehow get its normal.dot corrupted ocasionally needing it to be deleted.....
> And anyway, it doesnt have to compute the total > memory space, just the binary code + the random > server string. if the hacked client lies about > its space it wont be able to compute the correct > signature..hence it will be rejected.
So,.... This code has to be static or else the whole system doesn't work...as long as they have a copy of the original correct code (say a binary dump in a file of some sort) then the hacked client can computer the signature from the static dump instead.
How about "man in the middle" style? Hacked client contains a proxie built in. When you tell it to connect, it spawns a real Quake that connects to it...it proxies the connection over to the real server and listens. The real client then participates in the protocol, when it finishes, it is killed and the hacked client takes over the connection.
Yes...this can be worked around and possibly stopped. However as long as someone has the original code, they have the "secret" you want to authnticate with. Thus they can authenticate.
> Windows, any version, is not as defective as > you make it out to be
I was a PC tech on Desktop machines in a HUGE Win95 environment. I can make WIndows out to be pretty damned defective from what I have seen it do.
> Windows 98 works just fine for the vast majority > of people who use it.
Well...the "vast Majority of people" are morons. They have just gotten used to rebooting several times a day when the system crashes. They have gotten used to phrases like "You have to expect it will crash ocasionally".
I have even heard a salesman on TV saying that computers run so FAST these days that they ocasionally make mistakes and get themselevs screwed up. I kid you not he was actually saying on no uncertain terms that "crashes" and lockups were the fault of the hardware going real fast and losing track of what it was doing.
I have seen too many Windows machines with too many differnt problems for too many users to say that Windows is not extremely defective. It IS defective.
Which is exactly why I no longer run it on any of my machines.
After seeing this I want to expound a bit on what someone else said in response.
> I disagree... having the ability to look deep > into the product to check for possible problems > is not the job of the consumer.
This is exactly why I think Free Software programmers should not be held liable.
Free Software does not follow the standard Capitalist model. The standard model is, Party 1 makes the product, party 2 pays money to party 1 for the product.
Free software is "Party 1 makes the product. Anyone is free to take the product". Rather than "Hey here it is, the one thing you need" its "Heres what I did, use it if it fits your needs, don't use it if it doesn't"
Its about being open and shareing. The whole purpose of negligence and similar things came about because capitalism inherintly rewards cutting corners and making products as cheaply as possible, whether its safe or not.
It is because of this that negligence laws and similar responsibilities of product producing companies exist.
In Free Software, there is no incentive to cut corners. A person working on a piece of software is usually writting it first and formost because he needs it. As such the incentive is in getting it to work and fill his need.
As such, there is no "Consumer". A person who needs the same need filled can take his code and use it if they like. They are the ones that seek it out, and they are the ones who put it in place. Ultimatly they should be responsible for making sure it meets their need before they put it in place.
> Software engineers are simply unethical > engineers.
I disagree emphaticaly. What is so unethical about disclaiming any warrenty? Other engineers generally work for hire or for a company. This means they are getting money to design something for someone else, as such they are liable to the person who is paying them.
However, if an electical engineer designs his own TV remote control from parts he can buy at radio shack, completely at home and on his own. Then he releases the plans on how to build it... should he be liable if someone builds it and it doesn't work for them? He didn't charge them for the plans. He just said "Here is how I did it, this works for me" Should he suddenly be liable if it doesn't work or causes harm to someone elses TV?
If that is to be the case, then free exchange of information may as well be a dead idea. It would make it much to costly.
Well I am only a lowly dialup guy...but I had my acount terminated (I got it back damnit) for something I did 2 YEARS previously!
I called the ISP to ask why I had been shut off. They said I accessed a certain server of theirs that customers were not allowed to access (all have acounts on it...but we arn't allowed to log in...it wont even allow logins). They say I made a directory called bin and put a symlink to ping in it so I could ping from my acount
HA! I did that 2 years previously...back when this "Off limits" machine was the main server they gave everyone shells on. There was no complaint then. Now 2 years later they find what I did and terminate the account because I suposedly "Accessed it"
I tried to explain this to the tech support guy (who was a cluebie himself) and he said "Well someone must have gotten your password" yea thats it...they got my password and logged into a box that logins arn't even allowed on. Nice try.
SO I reset my password and got my acount back. The stupidity is just too much sometimes.
Under actual copyright law a derivitive work falls under the copyright of THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR.
So...if I modify the Linux kernel...LINUS holds the copyright on my changes. (The licence gives me the right to modify and redistribute...but my modification is not copyright by me unless the original work was only truly minor to the end product)
Feel free to look up the US Copyright office web page and look it up. ALL derivitive works fall under the original works copyright. (there ARE exceptions...parody being the only one I can think of)
If the GPL is wholly invalid...then there is no right to copy and distribute at all.
> By the way, as an aside, the pre-printed cards > system you advocate all-but-forces the ballots > to be hand-counted... driving the cost of > conducting the election up significantly.
Hmmm I don't care. It gives anyone who wishes to run the ability to do so, without having the horrible restrictions that we have today. That is way more important than cost.
I think an important thing is the "None of the Above" vote that would cause a position to go vacant is most important reform I can think of.
In truth...I would prefer to advocate none of these. I would advocate getting rid of ALL ideas of federal impersonal government. No government should ever be so large or occupy such large of an area that simple direct democracy town meeting style government is inneffective.
I think "Democracy" in the huge proportion we have now is woefully innefective. It reduces everything to a high school popularity contest where whoever has the coolest haircut and prmoises pizza in the cafeteria wins.
I dunno about you...but I look at ALL of the available choices in almost EVERY election I have seen...and I have yet to see a single person I would want in any position of power.
Gore? Bush? Bradly? how about a choice?
I am damned tired of having the best Government money can buy....but now I have digressed way off topic.
In any case...I think this guys proposal would be a terrible way to run elections.
Definitly agreed....a sad epitat on this is the Time top 100 polls...
"Elvis Teaches Teens to Rock and Roll" is winning as "Most important event of the century"
#2 is "Man visits the moon" with over 7000 votes LESS than elvis.
invention of the trasistor? less than 5000 votes (elvis was almost 50000)
An interesting note on this...try asking a romanian about Vlad Tepes. It seems a web page ranked him as the "Most evil person of all time". Mostly because of historical acounts of burning large numbers of people alive...and the feat he is known most for, having thousands of people at a time impaled and left to die on high stakes.
This web page author got a very differnt view from any romanians he talked to, who said that Tepes was a good guy. They claim he only did it to the rich who were epxloiting the poor, along with thieves and other dishonest people.
BTW Tepes was also known by the name Dracula. The page is here: http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/good.htm l
Slashdot Mirror
Course then there is the other side of the ball..
I know of a person whose doctor screwed up and
wrote down 2 refills on one of those drugs that
refills are not allowed on (Thank you schedual 2)
The pharmacist didn't catch it either...not until
the person went back to get a refil.
When she did, the pharmacist accused her of fraud
and she is no longer allowed to buy medicine at
that pharmacy anymore.
> You make some valid points, but it's quite
> unfair to paint pharmacists as just
> "pill counters".
In one sense you are right. It DOES take alot of
training and knowledge to be a pharmacist.
However...the basic job these days is of a
pill counter. Most drugs come either pressed or
in pre-measured caps. Most users never ask any
questions.
In effect their job is to look at ascript, read
it (which can be a feat in itself) and then
count out the pills. For 90% of customers a
trained monkey could do it.
However...yes...they are required to have a great
deal of knowledge.
Of course I admit...I am thinking of Consumer
Pharmacists at the local drug store. In hospitals
things are quite different. In hospitals there
is much closer interaction and a pharmacist would
have to actually do work beyond counting.
> I'd also include some restrictions on narcotics
> and other addictive drugs for all the usual
> reasons, it's generally agreed for example that
> heroin abuse causes social problems.
Mostly only by people who don't read studies.
In switzerland a heroin trial took place where
several users were allowed to purchase the
drug at a reasonable price (ie about what it would
be without prohibition inflating the price)
and use it in a safe area (obviously letteing
them take it with them to the street is out of
the question because of legal climate etc)
What happend?
within a few weeks these users no longer needed
to rely on illegal sources of income at all.
They all became otherwise normal productive
members of society.
Interesstingly you may hear that the study was
a failure. Several groups have said it was,
because they were still using heroin. These
groups all neglect the fact that the study
was NOT about finding ways to end addiction
but rather to study whether addicts could lead
normal lives if prohibition wasn't in effect.
(basically)
>> No, North Korea is what happens to communism
>> over time
> Er, no. Communist countries start out this way.
> Russia post-1917 was a very ugly place.
Well there are lots of differnt types of
communism and socialism. I have yet to see
a large scale "Communist" country that actually
espouses communist ideals in any way shape or
form (beyond paying lip service to them)
In truth...Lennin and Stalin were much more close
to fascists than Communists. They just called
themselves communist because it was popular at
the time (and perhaps at one point they even
believed it)
As a socialist, and possibly a communist (I am
not that far philosophically developed to
call myself a communist...I am certainly an
anarcho-socialist) I am apaulled at the
misconceptions about socialism and communism
that I see going around. Much of it is the
fault of people like Stalin who were major
world leaders and called themselves communist...
but were not.
Communism calls for an end to separation of
classes (actually socialism in general tends to)
however Lennin and Stalin, and all communist
leaders that I have seen follow them, have
created even worst class division than before.
They created a working class that was basically
everyone...then a small elite "ruling class"
that sat above everyone.
Hardly communist if you ask me.
> It's true that people should take responsibility
> for their actions. However, there's a limit
> to how much self-education you can expect
> someone to do.
Perhaps you don't understand our argument?
Noone has argued that doctors and pharmacists
are not needed. The argument is that we, as human
beings, should be allowed to legally obtain and
consume any chemical we wish to consume.
This is not to say that EVERY person SHOULD do so.
It is simply to say that those who wish to do so
should be allowed to do so.
Even if the prescription system were gone, most
people would still go to doctors, they will still
get some recomendation for a certain drug.
The only change we are asking for, is that those
who believe they are qualified to not go that
route, be allowed to not go that route.
> The FDA, IIRC, is made up of appointed
> officials, not elected ones, making it
> a bit harder to corrupt with money.
Not true. How does being apointed make a person
less greedy? Its true it makes them possibly
more suited to the job (having been selected
not by popularity contest but by selection based
on qualifications) but...once there... them
dead green presidents look mighty sweet no
matter how you got your job.
This is offtopic but...since you ar ehaving
trouble...
Whenever I have the need (or desire) to look up
info on a drug I use the "Physicains Desk
Reference". I have it available from a web page
due to some complex circumstances...however its
behind a firewall and there is no way for me to
tell you how to access it.
I am sure it must be available in book form or
elsewhere. It is actually several differnt
resources together.
It has all sorts of info. Contraindications,
average dose, half life, overdose dangers and
treatment, tetragen status. even has some
cases for some situations.
Its truely a great reference, I highly recomend it
for anyone who wishes to self medicate (or check
up on the doctor)
> It's easy to generalize a story, thus making
> pretty much any topic that fits in that
> generalization "on-topic."
Very true...and topics tend to wander in
these types of discussion.
However.,..as was stated...its the same system.
I am against this move by the FDA not because
it is the internet but simply because the
"Controlled Substances Act" (which is what all
prescriptions are based on) is horribly
flawed IMO and that it needs to be gotten rid
of completely not extended.
> My brother-in-law just spent Christmas Eve
> driving around town to various crack houses
> looking for his adolescent neices father.
My deepest condolences. that is a horrible
way to spend the holidays but...
have you ever thought that prohibition might just
be part of the problem?
Studies have been done (not in the US, it would
NEVER be allowed) where drug addicts were given
a safe and REASONABLY PRICED supply of drugs.
What happend?
They started living and functioning as ordinary
human beings. They still were addicts. They still
used their drugs. However, they started to live
normal lives.
Thats not to say there is no problem. Hell
Alcohol is legal and I know people who do the
SAME thing as your relative do, but with bottles
of booze. However, can you imagine what the
life of an alcoholic would be if the cheapest
bottle of booze was $150? or it was $15/shot?
Prohibition drives up prices. Not only that but
with hugely inflated profits, and users having
no real recource for redress og grievences,
most drugs sold are adulturated with other
chemicals (cocaine users are regularly exposed
to levels of benzene...mostly thanks to US
efforts to limit export of the proper solvents
that should be used to countries like columbia)
Prohibition also brings in the criminal element.
Drugs don't "breed crime". Look at alcohol. As
soon as it was made illegal in the early part of
this century, many of the problems we see today
with drug prohibition arose.
You can't get drugs without being in contact with
some criminal element, just like in the 20s.
It is how men like Al Capone got rich. The murder
rate in 1930 was so large...that after prohibition
ended...it wasn't till the height of drug
prohibition in the 1980s that it peaked that
high again.
food for thought.
> So by this I assume that you do not support
> statutes for things like "disturbing the peace"?
Well...ok disturbing the peace. I was kind of
thinking off alone in the middle of a feild
where noone is around.
> One could argue that allowing a pharmacy to
> operate negligently or illegally is, in fact,
> "endangering others."
Yes one could argue that. Howevr that same
argument could be applied to sales of tobbacco
or even alcohol. Should we require prescriptions
for those too? perhaps ban the sale of them?
>>Why is it any of your buisness if they run a
>>brothel?
> So I guess then that you are also opposed to
> anti-prostitution legislation, and various
> zoning laws
Yes I am. Granted I agree that they should not be
able to build a coal processing plant next door
to a residental area, I see nothing wrong with
a brothel. As long as they keep quiet, why not?
Its been shown that crime and other problems
associated with prostitution are more a product
of the fact it is illegal and not a legitimate
buisness than anything else.
> I can't really tell if you're trying to have a
> legitimate argument here or if you're just
> trying to be annoying.
A little of both. I am firmly against the idea
that the government should have any say in what
people can or can not do in the privacy of
their own home, or with other consenting
adults (ie using drugs, paying for sex).
> If you really have such a beef about these laws,
> perhaps you should try writing to your local
> legislature. I sincerely doubt these things will
> ever be legalized,
I have written them. Also...why not have them
legalized? They have not been illegal very long.
The "War on Drugs" has been killing this country
for years.
When alcohol was made illegal, men like Al Capone
ruled. They made their money off alcohol and branched into illegal gambling and other things.
Now that other drugs are illegal...almost all
of the same things happend. Drug lords got
rich, ganges like the bloods formed. Murder rate
skyrocketed.
Prohibition decreases supply. Demand stays the
same. Prices skyrocket. Thus profit for selling
goes up. In this way prohibition FUELS the
black market.
In the end all you have is that people who want
to peacefully use drugs in the privacy of their
own homes need to spend alot more money to do it,
and risk being arrested. All for a peacefull
consensual act.
Land of the Free indeed.
> Seriously, why the fsck can't someone be opposed
> to government cartel protection and still
> recongnize that experts are still required.
Its good to hear the voice of reason.
I would like to state for the record...I do know
a good deal more about drugs than "Average Joe
Citizen", I have some access (due to previous
employment and friends related to medical
institutions) to informtation not everyone has
at their fingertips.
I am against prescriptions (as I previously said).
When I get sick...I go see my fsck'n doctor
if my treatment doesn't clear it up or at least
show major improvement in 3 days. (or if the
symptoms are inconsistant with things I am
fammilair with)
I have no problem with getting expert advice. I
love the idea that its there. However...even
then...
Doctor gives me a script? I check it out no matter
what it is. I look up the contraindications and
side effects myself before I start taking it.
> If I lie and say that I don't have a heart
> problem because I want Viagra, it's my own damn
> fault when I die.
Exactly. Just as it would be the pharmacies fault
if they lied about what the drug was. Look at it
this way...pharmacies WANT buisness. If they
tell you that a drug is dangerous for you...they
could save your life. They LIKE that.
Think about it...if you die...your not going to be
a repeat customer. However if they warn you that
it could be deadly because of your condition...
well...you may just be greatful enough that next
time you need medication, you go to them.
I think that if you lie...or refuse to heed the
warnings, then you deserve what you get.
> I think there are two kinds of free-market
> worshippers.
Just to clarify...I am not a free market
worshiper (anymore). I believe in freedom
definitly...but not capitalism. I think
Capitalism breeds inequality of opertunity, and
makes for a system where the rich live lives
of privilidge off the backs of the workers.
(not to mention that it rewards the dishonest...
it doesn't matter how bad it is or how poorly
its made...if you can market it well you get
rewarded with profit...doesn't exactly encourage
moral action)
Anyway...back to the topic....
Yes it is infeasable to just educate everyone.
What I advocate is make the information available.
Make sure everyone who wants it can get it.
Then let it loose. People will not listen. They
may die. However, their deaths will educate others
to the dangers of not doing research. In the end
people will be more educated.
MOST people will still goto Doctors and get
advice that way. I think that in absence of
prescription REQUIREMENTS, the vast majority will
still goto a doctor first.
The best solution, in my opionion, is to not
use an economic system that favors people who
cheat and lie. However, thats not happening very
quickly....and is another topic completely.
> Spoken like a true completely ignornant
> libertarian idiot. Don't believe everything you
> read off the internet.
> Please spend 4 years in med-school before
> comming to a decision on the regulation of
> drugs.
Somehow I need to go to med School to see that
prohibition doesn't work?
This isn't about drugs. This is about freedom.
It is about the fact that my body is mine and I
reserve the right to say what goes in it and
what doesn't.
To answer your questions:
> Should I be allowed to fire my gun in the air
> randomly?
Sure...if noone is anywhere nearby that could
possibly be hit. Otherwise you are endangering
others.
> should your neighber be allowed to run a brothel
> in his house?
Why is it any of your buisness if they run a
brothel? Oh god no...someone might get paid money
for Sex! Shit! that would just be wrong.
> or a drug lab?
Why not? Why is it you are so interested in what
your neibor does in the privacy of his own home?
Do you keep track of what he does...make sure he
isn't having sex outside of marriage too?
> I've seen anarchy in action, it aint pretty.
No you have seen chaos...anarchy is not chaos.
Anarchy involves mutual voluntary cooperation
not chaos and destruction.
> Pharmacists know a hell of alot more than the
> average joe about what you should and should not
> take.
Yes they do...which is why the "Average Joe"
should consult his doctor and pharmasist before
he even considers using any drug.
However what about above-average joe? How about
someone who has done personal research, read
reports, etc and decided that a drug is right
for them? What gives you or anyone else the right
to tell him that he shouldn't be able to decide
for himself? Is it not his body?
> Tell your evangelization shit to the family of
> the man who died because he bought viagra over
> the internet
How about people who took tylanol and died? Lots
of them every year. How about someone who took
a bit more nyquil then they should have and found
out the hard way that they are one of the 1%-3%
of caucasions who are missing the enzyme that
metabolizes Dextromethorphan.
The simple fact is that if you don't consult a
doctor, then its "Buyer Beware". Buying a drug
on your own means that YOU take responsibility
for making sure its not contraindicated.
Noone is to blame for the fuckup but the man
himself. He could have easily done a little
research and found out that information.
> Sure, it's his responsibility to know that, but
> not everybody is as smart as you say you are
Glad you realize that. Its why we have Darwin
Awards. If a person dies because of their own
irresponsibility, I have little pity (perhaps
for the fammily but not for him).
If you want to help out, forget regulation. Go
for Education. People SHOULD know more than they
do. Over the counter drugs account for many deaths
every year.
Believe it or not, regulation ENCOURAGES
irresponsibility. It breeds the attitude that
"Well other drugs are controlled by doctors and
pharmacists, so these must be safe if I can buy
them" so people buy them and start popping away.
hmmm so people lik myself want no regulation
until we get a bad prescription ourselves? Hmmm
how does regulation prevent bad prescriptions?
Even without Licenceing etc all the drugs they
sell still need to be made in a manner that they
are safe to consume...if not then they are selling
dangerous product. In fact...most of the time the
drugs are made by the same manafacturer as the
normal pharmacies buy from.
Pharmacies are basically glorified pill counters
these days. Licencing doesn't prevent them from
fucking up and counting wrong. It doesn't
prevent them from picking up the wrong bottle
and giving you the wrong pills.
An online pharmacy that sold anything except what
they are advertising is still in trouble for
breaking existing laws...like say fraud.
In truth this regulation is all about control. It
is about the belief of people in the federal
government that they have the right to control
every aspect of our lives. The entire concept of
prescription drugs is founded on the idea that
citizens do not own their own bodies and do not
have the right to self medicate beyond what
Big Brother has Aproved.
Its funny how anti-drug propagandists always talk
about the "Message it sends". I don't know
about you...but I don't like the message that
these control measures send.
Thats not the source its a binary:
[sjc@lenny dcss]$ unzip DeCSS.zip
Archive: DeCSS.zip
inflating: readme.txt
inflating: DeCSS.exe
inflating: wnaspi32.w2k.dll
inflating: Wnaspi32.w98.dll
Not to terribly useful to those of us with no
access to Windows machines
hmmm I dunno....
As a person whose Tax dollars pay for the US
government to research things...I have no problem
with it.
In fact...I am pissed that the technology wasn't
released to the public. Afterall...we paid for
the research, we should get to know about it and
all of how it works.
Secrets are for private individuals and corrupt
regeimes.
> At work, I also use Win98, as does everyone
> else, except for the NT server.
At my old work I used win95...last I hjeard they
should finish the Win95 Rollout in 2002. Sux
to be them. (I wont say who they are to save them
embarassment)
Here I am on an SGI workstation until I get a
Linux Desktop (should be soon). We use ALL
Unix machines and Linux machines. There is also
some hodge-podge of NT and Banyan-Vines stuff
around but...we don't deal with that.
> By far and above degrees, most problems I've
> encountered over the past 5 years are due to
> folks messing around where they ought not be, or
> doing things the 'wrong' way (like deleting app
> dirs instead of the Add/Remove).
I agree that MOST problems are due to users
"Bad Habbits" however...when left to their own
devices it is EASY to develop bad habbits in
Windows.
Another one that is "up there" on my list is
installing software. I have found that installing
any software (be it commercial or not) seems to
have a "Risk Factor".
Often Add/Remove programs tended to leave
"Residue" behind that needed to be cleaned
up manually (both in the filesystem and in
the registry). Often they would just fail
completely, leaving things in an unstable state.
These remove utilities are in fact the fault of
others, not Microsoft.
However, Microsoft has been one of the WORST
offenders of this. Our users would go off and
install IE5 on their own...which BROKE (but only
90% of the time) several programs.
After this it was impossible to correctly
uninstall IE5 and reinstall IE4...It would not
work. We could only go back to IE3 (I fully
admit this may be due to stragness of our
systems and tweaks our group in charge of
windows in general made to the system...none
of which was documented for Technicians)
Usually after an IE5 install on the system...a
complete rebuild of the system was needed to
bring it to a stable state.
Then of course there is M$ Word...which would
somehow get its normal.dot corrupted ocasionally
needing it to be deleted.....
-Steve
> And anyway, it doesnt have to compute the total
> memory space, just the binary code + the random
> server string. if the hacked client lies about
> its space it wont be able to compute the correct
> signature..hence it will be rejected.
So,....
This code has to be static or else the whole
system doesn't work...as long as they have a copy
of the original correct code (say a binary dump
in a file of some sort) then the hacked
client can computer the signature from the
static dump instead.
How about "man in the middle" style? Hacked client
contains a proxie built in. When you tell it to
connect, it spawns a real Quake that connects to
it...it proxies the connection over to the real
server and listens. The real client then
participates in the protocol, when it finishes,
it is killed and the hacked client takes over
the connection.
Yes...this can be worked around and possibly
stopped. However as long as someone has the
original code, they have the "secret" you want to
authnticate with. Thus they can authenticate.
> Windows, any version, is not as defective as
> you make it out to be
I was a PC tech on Desktop machines in a HUGE
Win95 environment. I can make WIndows out to be
pretty damned defective from what I have seen it
do.
> Windows 98 works just fine for the vast majority
> of people who use it.
Well...the "vast Majority of people" are morons.
They have just gotten used to rebooting several
times a day when the system crashes. They have
gotten used to phrases like "You have to expect
it will crash ocasionally".
I have even heard a salesman on TV saying that
computers run so FAST these days that they
ocasionally make mistakes and get themselevs
screwed up. I kid you not he was actually saying
on no uncertain terms that "crashes" and lockups
were the fault of the hardware going real fast
and losing track of what it was doing.
I have seen too many Windows machines with too
many differnt problems for too many users to
say that Windows is not extremely defective.
It IS defective.
Which is exactly why I no longer run it on any of
my machines.
After seeing this I want to expound a bit on what
someone else said in response.
> I disagree... having the ability to look deep
> into the product to check for possible problems
> is not the job of the consumer.
This is exactly why I think Free Software
programmers should not be held liable.
Free Software does not follow the standard
Capitalist model. The standard model is, Party 1
makes the product, party 2 pays money to party 1
for the product.
Free software is "Party 1 makes the product.
Anyone is free to take the product". Rather than
"Hey here it is, the one thing you need"
its
"Heres what I did, use it if it fits your needs,
don't use it if it doesn't"
Its about being open and shareing. The whole
purpose of negligence and similar things came
about because capitalism inherintly rewards
cutting corners and making products as cheaply
as possible, whether its safe or not.
It is because of this that negligence laws and
similar responsibilities of product producing
companies exist.
In Free Software, there is no incentive to cut
corners. A person working on a piece of software
is usually writting it first and formost because
he needs it. As such the incentive is in getting
it to work and fill his need.
As such, there is no "Consumer". A person who
needs the same need filled can take his code and
use it if they like. They are the ones that seek
it out, and they are the ones who put it in place.
Ultimatly they should be responsible for making
sure it meets their need before they put it in
place.
> Software engineers are simply unethical
> engineers.
I disagree emphaticaly. What is so unethical about
disclaiming any warrenty? Other engineers
generally work for hire or for a company. This
means they are getting money to design something
for someone else, as such they are liable to the
person who is paying them.
However, if an electical engineer designs his own
TV remote control from parts he can buy at radio
shack, completely at home and on his own. Then he
releases the plans on how to build it...
should he be liable if someone builds it and it
doesn't work for them?
He didn't charge them for the plans. He just said
"Here is how I did it, this works for me"
Should he suddenly be liable if it doesn't work
or causes harm to someone elses TV?
If that is to be the case, then free exchange of
information may as well be a dead idea. It would
make it much to costly.
Well I am only a lowly dialup guy...but I had
my acount terminated (I got it back damnit)
for something I did 2 YEARS previously!
I called the ISP to ask why I had been shut off.
They said I accessed a certain server of theirs
that customers were not allowed to access (all
have acounts on it...but we arn't allowed to
log in...it wont even allow logins). They say I
made a directory called bin and put a symlink to
ping in it so I could ping from my acount
HA! I did that 2 years previously...back when this
"Off limits" machine was the main server they
gave everyone shells on. There was no complaint
then. Now 2 years later they find what I did and
terminate the account because I suposedly
"Accessed it"
I tried to explain this to the tech support
guy (who was a cluebie himself) and he said
"Well someone must have gotten your password"
yea thats it...they got my password and logged
into a box that logins arn't even allowed on.
Nice try.
SO I reset my password and got my acount back.
The stupidity is just too much sometimes.
Wouldn't matter.
Under actual copyright law a derivitive work
falls under the copyright of THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR.
So...if I modify the Linux kernel...LINUS holds
the copyright on my changes. (The licence gives
me the right to modify and redistribute...but my
modification is not copyright by me unless
the original work was only truly minor to the
end product)
Feel free to look up the US Copyright office
web page and look it up. ALL derivitive works
fall under the original works copyright.
(there ARE exceptions...parody being the only
one I can think of)
If the GPL is wholly invalid...then there is no
right to copy and distribute at all.
> By the way, as an aside, the pre-printed cards
> system you advocate all-but-forces the ballots
> to be hand-counted... driving the cost of
> conducting the election up significantly.
Hmmm I don't care. It gives anyone who wishes
to run the ability to do so, without having the
horrible restrictions that we have today. That
is way more important than cost.
I think an important thing is the "None of the
Above" vote that would cause a position to go
vacant is most important reform I can think of.
In truth...I would prefer to advocate none of
these. I would advocate getting rid of ALL ideas
of federal impersonal government. No government
should ever be so large or occupy such large
of an area that simple direct democracy town
meeting style government is inneffective.
I think "Democracy" in the huge proportion we
have now is woefully innefective. It reduces
everything to a high school popularity contest
where whoever has the coolest haircut and
prmoises pizza in the cafeteria wins.
I dunno about you...but I look at ALL of the
available choices in almost EVERY election I
have seen...and I have yet to see a single person
I would want in any position of power.
Gore? Bush? Bradly? how about a choice?
I am damned tired of having the best Government
money can buy....but now I have digressed way
off topic.
In any case...I think this guys proposal would
be a terrible way to run elections.
Definitly agreed....a sad epitat on this is
m l
the Time top 100 polls...
"Elvis Teaches Teens to Rock and Roll" is winning
as "Most important event of the century"
#2 is "Man visits the moon" with over 7000 votes
LESS than elvis.
invention of the trasistor? less than 5000 votes
(elvis was almost 50000)
An interesting note on this...try asking a
romanian about Vlad Tepes. It seems a web page
ranked him as the "Most evil person of all time".
Mostly because of historical acounts of burning
large numbers of people alive...and the feat he
is known most for, having thousands of people at
a time impaled and left to die on high stakes.
This web page author got a very differnt view from
any romanians he talked to, who said that Tepes
was a good guy. They claim he only did it to the
rich who were epxloiting the poor, along with
thieves and other dishonest people.
BTW Tepes was also known by the name Dracula.
The page is here:
http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/good.ht
fun reading.