Posted by alexandra_k on May 3, 2020, at 23:01:42
In reply to Re: Jesus Christ is free trade, posted by sigismund on May 3, 2020, at 2:00:29
I see.
I did not know about the Jesus is free trade quote.
I got to reading about Coca leaves and the cultural right to chew those.
And of course, our societies right to consume alcohol.
Nicotine.
Caffeine.
And how it does seem arbitrary that some things are heavily regulated and others not so much.
And it is sad that because some abuse and misuse that others cannot use in a manner that does not create problems for themselves and others.
Similar things with testosterone and growth hormone and the like. Estrogen replacements.
It is hard to draw sensible lines. For sure.
Especially when we are talking about informed adults and personal use.
It is hard from the level of populations, however, to see peoples decimated or underachieving or whatever. The social harms that can result from it.
> We are having an enquiry into the Chinese here atm. I can imagine their response.
I imagine China is wondering when people might catch on to the situation and say 'well, really, the most sensible thing to think is that if it came out of a laboratory (and I don't see how you would know that or not unless someone put a little molecular signature on it intentionally just because they could)... Then the most likely situation is that it was made in a laboratory in Hong Kong and relased into China so that the people in China would be forced to wear face masks to ''stand with China''!!'
I mean...
The irony -- right?
I have read only a little about the Biological Warfare experiments that the Japanese used to do on the Chinese during WWII. That were not prosecuted when the Nazis were prosecuted. So... While the Jewish people have some sort of a sense of justice from Nurenberg trials the Chinese don't have the same sort of a sense of justice because the Japanese people involved often were granted immigration status by America in exchange for their experimental data. Much of it was, apparently, to do with intentionally trying to infect them with various things like anthrax, or whatever. But to make something lethal with transmission between people... That turned out to be so very very very very much harder than anybody thought. At least, that's the story I was getting. Despite their very very best efforts. Getting something to transmit between people was not something they managed to accomplish. Not for wont of effort.
I'm not saying that it was intentional. If something was released from a lab likely nobody would have any freaking idea how it would do in a lab. That's my point. That's why likely all those nuclear weapons tests. Because it was likely much much harder to set things off and actually make an explosion reliably than you might think.
I did not know about the Nevada site or about the fallout in Utah or Iowa or around the US. I did not know there was more around Russia... I did not know that countries experimented on themselves (in some sense) before moving it to the Southern Hemisphere. I am actually surprised, now I know this, that we don't have so very very very much more blood cancers and thyroid cancers and 3 headed animals and... Everything is so much more resilent than I thought it would be...
> Poppies are grown all over northern Tasmania, with quite a lot of security.Yeah. I was reading. I had no idea. I had been to Tassie, too. For a conerence. Only to the south. Logging of old forests... I had no idea about opium fields.
> I agree with Purdue that oxycodone is much less addictive than morphine.
I don't know. What if you cruch up the oxycodone into a powder and ingest it all at once? I'm not recommending it. I just heard that that was the trouble with these things. The abuse potential was that the slow-release tablets could be tampered with to break the slow-release mechanism and release the entire dose all at once. So then people would have a withdrawl affect before they were due their next dose.
And I was thinking 'well, who would think to crush them up unless they were intent on abusing them in the first place? THey aren't creating abuse -- it is just that some people do choose to use (maybe abuse) them by doing off lisence things with them.'
But now I am remembering people saying the jump in tablet size was too big to do a gradual taper to stop. So people started trying to cut the tablets in half. To try and reduce consumption.
And I got to thinking that maybe that was an 'accidental' way of people developing a dependency to high doses *because* of decisions the company made in making the tablets in teh sizes they did.
I was reading about how in the court case what came out about Purdue was that they targeted states with lesser reporting for their marketing campaigns. They did not market so much in states that required prescriptions be filed in triplicate. Something about one of those going to law enforcement. So in the court case the thing was that they intentionally targeted vulnerable people and tried to induce dependency for maximum profits.
It wasn't just 'oops'. It was a series of marketing decisions.
Hur.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:1109848
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20200325/msgs/1109951.html