Infrastructure Reforms

[Betruger]

Laziness is the driving force behind many innovations, so I wouldn't knock it too much.

No. Laziness drives nothing but entropy.

[williatw]

You think that no rich person can be lazy? Some of the laziest bastards that I have ever seen were rich.

Do you mean primarily rich people by inheritance (And I would include lottery winners in that)? Hard to see how you can be a lazy bastard and a self made millionaire, suppose if one is just born with some kind of special talent/ability like perhaps some sports stars or entertainers. But most of those have to work really hard to hone their talent to achieve great success. Of course one could work really hard, then get really lazy after they have achieved their success.

[GIThruster]

Honestly, even sports stars and entertainers work hard. As difficult as it may be to believe it, even models work hard to be successful. You need to keep in mind all the time they take modifying special diets and exercising, and they don't shoot nearly as often as most people work, but they do work very long hours when they work.

Generally, successful people work hard at doing whatever they do. We can all ignore Skippy's class warfare rhetoric as the cheezy failure to think that normally comes from him, propped up by a personal bullshit story.

BTW Skippy, the official work week in this country is 40 hours. Lots of successful people work well over twice that. Especially in business, owners and executives often work salary positions because their job is to get the job done, no matter the personal cost. When I was a kid I seldom saw my father because he was working more than 100 hours/week to run his own business. It's not the rich people who are generally lazy.

[Skipjack]

Not everyone who is rich is successful. Take those bankers e.g. that paid themselves millions in bonuses from government bailout money. I would not call these people poor, nor would I say that they deserve the money. I guess that there was a sense of entitlement there too...
The of course we have ex mafia people running the big casinos in Nevada. They all come from a mobster background. Not the kind of people that I think deserve the wealth they have.
Some people that I personally know that inherited their wealth fall into that cathegory as well. These people live of family trusts that were established by long dead relatives. They own tons of land here (forrests that make them money from their wood) and get money from the EU for that on top of that. These people have never lifted a finger in their lives and are perfect at evading taxes on top of that. Everything belongs to the family trust. They live in castles belonging to the family trust, the luxury cars with drivers are paid for by the family trust. They play golf on courses owned by the family trust. It is ridiculous!
But then GoThruster would not know anything about it. He cant get his head out of his ass and just repeats whatever inverse classware he is getting served prechewed by certain people. Personally I dont care whether someone is rich or poor as long as the person works hard in an honest days job.

[choff]

One thing I've learned about trusts is that any companies owned within can be protected against takeover bids. As important as working hard is working smart, having the right connections also helps.

But really, if you look at the success stories, a lot of times it was a case of showing up at the right time in the right place, which stemmed from showing up every day.

[GIThruster]

Not the kind of people that I think deserve the wealth they have.

What you obviously don't get Skippy, is it's foolish to even entertain the question of whether someone deserves the money they have, but it's both stupid and sick to even begin to try to answer that question. You don't know those people. Who are you to judge people you don't know, in situations you're only vaguely aware of, and decide they don't deserve their own money? You are one sick dude. . .

[Skipjack]

What you obviously don't get Skippy, is it's foolish to even entertain the question of whether someone deserves the money they have, but it's both stupid and sick to even begin to try to answer that question. You don't know those people. Who are you to judge people you don't know, in situations you're only vaguely aware of, and decide they don't deserve their own money? You are one sick dude. . .

So you think that criminals deserve the money they make with criminal enterprise? Interesting!
In case of the rich people with family trusts, I do know them personally, am even related to some.
Anyway my original point was that the sense of entitlement goes both ways and it is rarely justified either way. Just because you are rich does not mean that you are entitled to dictate laws and you are not entitled to own people or their intellectual property just because you have money.
Yes, it is injust for some lazy bastard to feel entiteld to other peoples money. But my point was that everyone feels entitled to something for different reasons and they will always try to get the most out for themselves whether they deserve it or not. I am for giving everyone a fighting chance in that arena.

[ladajo]

Yes, it is injust for some lazy bastard to feel entiteld to other peoples money. But my point was that everyone feels entitled to something for different reasons and they will always try to get the most out for themselves whether they deserve it or not. I am for giving everyone a fighting chance in that arena.

Maybe the nuance you are seeking is the difference between false entitlement and entitled fairness.

I agree that everyone should contribute, but reality also intervenes with family inheritance, lottery tickets and what not. Personally, I do not have so much issue with family inheritance as I do with the idea of lotteries. Lotteries seem to exist within the sense of false entitlement, gain without effort.
Fundamentally, I think that effort should have the greater possibility of resulting in gain. This is the system we should seek as humans. He who hunts eats. Contribute personal effort for personal gain, and the system as a whole will grow with opportunity. It is a simple idea, way corrupted by those seeking free lunches.

[ladajo]

Anyone else see this article?

It seems relavant to the earlier discussion on health care.

And, gradually, Europeans are circumventing their systems. Half a million Swedes now use private insurance, up from 100,000 a decade ago. Almost two-thirds of Brits earning more than $78,700 have done the same. But what might really surprise those who assert the excellence of nationalized insurance systems is that throughout Europe, from Britain to Denmark to Sweden, when faced with their inability to deliver timely access, the government’s solution is increasingly to enable access to private health care.

US Healthcare Access

[Skipjack]

Uhhhm, newsflash! As I mentioned before (I think even in this threat) people have always been using private insurance IN ADDITION to the public insurance in order to get some better services and coverage for elective treatments, or better beds, etc. That does NOT have anything to do with the quality of the actual treatments which are great!
GB being an exception here which is consistently getting rated among the worst in Europe. Sweden is actually among the best regarding outcome but has some weaknesses with access (well their country can probably best be compared to Alaska, which might give you an idea why that is).

[Skipjack]

Fundamentally, I think that effort should have the greater possibility of resulting in gain. This is the system we should seek as humans. He who hunts eats. Contribute personal effort for personal gain, and the system as a whole will grow with opportunity. It is a simple idea, way corrupted by those seeking free lunches.

My problem is that the ones seeking free lunches exist on both ends of the income scale. It is VERY easy to evade taxes if you are rich enough and can make use of all the loopholes.
As I said, everyone feels entitled to something. The question is who needs it more.

[ladajo]

Skip,
I do not classify rich or poor in my statement.

As for Comparing Alaska to Sweden, I don't see it. Two completely different animals, that may best compare in latitude only.

My point in posting that article was that it offered a mechanism of comparison with some statistics to back up the argument. Not completely empty hand waving, "Mine's better...yours sucks", etc.

I also thought that some might find it interesting.

[ladajo]

Simon,
There are 1,300 registered Herion Addicts in the Swiss system that get weekly assistance. How many are there that are not registered?
Why are they not registered?
They estimate that it costs $300 per week to run the program for each participant. If all users become registered, what is the national cost?
Do the crime rates cited reflect those registered, or are they national total rates?
Why not provide data on national total rates?

Other another theme...
Why does THC need to be smoked to be used as a medicine?
What is wrong with Medical Marijuana being injested as tea or THC based pills? (Hint, ask the Dutch about this)
Why did Ireland determine that teen psychosis issues (hint - related to sustained pot use) quadrupal in concert with a police policy to not pursue possession (since rescinded)?
Why do you think that introducing taxes and government "control" is goign to be okay, when even today Alcohol, cigarettes and other products are smuggled and/or produced outside legal lanes by "smugglers and criminals" to avoid government taxes and take advantage of being able to provide cheaper alternatives than legally legitimate ones?

Decriminalization is suspect at best, and Legalization is insane. Just ask the Dutch and Swiss. You cite them as full on supporters, They are not. Certainly at a minimum they have determined that legalization is idocy by practical experiment.

On a global scale, there is a distinct parallel to the countries with highest drug use rates, and the countries that are struggling with social, productivity and cultural issues.

Drugs provide one thing, and that is escapism. You know, avoiding dealing with what really matters.

[Blankbeard]

Simon,
There are 1,300 registered Herion Addicts in the Swiss system that get weekly assistance. How many are there that are not registered?

I'm not MSimon but I've been reading the board for a couple months and I think I can answer many of these questions.

Given that Switzerland has a population of around 7.5 million and the UNODC lists opiate use prevalence as 0.63%, there would be a bit more than 47000 opiate users. Assuming (incorrectly) that these are all heroin users would leave about 46000 outside the system.

A more metered guess would be that 20% of opiate users or about 9500. I haven't found any data on the prevalence of heroin versus prescription opiate misuse, although the latter is generally a much larger problem.

Why are they not registered?

Probably the usual reasons, lack of awareness, apathy, funding limitations. In addition, stable users may not wish to reveal their drug use.

They estimate that it costs $300 per week to run the program for each participant. If all users become registered, what is the national cost?

That's a hard number to determine with the data I have. Somewhere between 4 and 36 times the cost of the current program assuming costs scale linearly, which they don't always do. It is worth noting that the Swiss consider their system to be both cheaper and more effective as compared to incarceration.

Do the crime rates cited reflect those registered, or are they national total rates?
Why not provide data on national total rates?

I've not seen the post you're referring to so I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the study probably only provides in-system crime rates and perhaps a relative risk ratio (This is that 70% type of number that you see Diogenes incorporating into a fair numbers of his posts. They're good guides to treatment, but they're also useful for disguising the fact that two groups have very low incidence rates. Say a 2% and 3.4% rate represents a 70% percent increase. that sounds more panic worthy than 3.4% doesn't it?)

The reasons for not providing national rates probably boil down to 3 types. First, it isn't standard practice. If the rates are revised, you don't want to have to invalidate and edit your paper. Second, national rates are generally provided by national governments or other organizations. Why duplicate their work? Third, European data protection laws are insane and you could incur significant cost and legal liability not to mention the time consumed.

Other another theme...
Why does THC need to be smoked to be used as a medicine?
What is wrong with Medical Marijuana being injested as tea or THC based pills? (Hint, ask the Dutch about this)

Why not look at studies that have answered this question? Try a pubmed search for "THC efficacy delivery method" and you should find some studies that show that THC is significantly more effective at suppressing nausea and pain when smoked than when given as an aerosol or tablet (Marinol is a US brand name for THC. It's not very popular because it's not extremely effective.)

The reasons for this aren't clear but the effect is very real, at least as far as our current state of knowledge. No one would deny patients a cancer medication based on the idea that pills are a disfavored delivery method. Denying a patient effective treatment based solely on distaste at its delivery method is immoral.

Why did Ireland determine that teen psychosis issues (hint - related to sustained pot use) quadrupal in concert with a police policy to not pursue possession (since rescinded)?

I think you're making reference to the doings over a study that looked at a connection between schizophrenia and marijuana use. It was widely reported as finding such a link when the actual study found no such link. Teens who had genetic predispositions to schizophrenia were more likely to develop the disease if they smoked marijuana but those with normal brains showed no such link. That's like saying that people with an allergy to milk are more likely to get sick after drinking it, therefore no one should drink milk.

Also, I can find no evidence that psychosis issues (That's pretty vague. What's an issue?) quadrupled at any point in Ireland. Can you provide a reference for this? It should be noted that would actually speak out against marijuana (I am tired of typing that. It's pot from here out.) being associated with increases in "issues."

When there is a correlation between two items, they tend to change in some identifiable ratio. For example, if pot usage was associated with increases in psychotic issues, you'd see that increasing pot usage by 1% increased psychosis by 1 or 2%. There isn't any clear relationship between the two here. I'd guess the real reason for the change in policy is that drug policy is nearly as big a business as drug use and that Ireland was offered incentives to change its law to a more drug-warrior friendly state.

It should be noted that current knowledge is that for healthy people, no link between pot usage and the development of psychosis can be supported by evidence.

Why do you think that introducing taxes and government "control" is goign to be okay, when even today Alcohol, cigarettes and other products are smuggled and/or produced outside legal lanes by "smugglers and criminals" to avoid government taxes and take advantage of being able to provide cheaper alternatives than legally legitimate ones?

I think I'd answer this question differently than MSimon. I expect government policy to be a disaster, just as social engineering is always a disaster whether it's done from the right or left. Any time artificial restrictions on supply create an increase in price, there will be those who circumvent them for a profit. There are people who smuggle candy, but the profits are low and there is little corrosive effect on our society.

Now think about drug policy. Despite spending billions each year, drugs are cheaper, more potent, and more available today then they were before the drug war started. We have the largest number of people in prison and this has failed to change drug use rates at all. We have police departments suing cars, houses, and sacks of money so they can take them in the name of drug prevention. We've militarized our police forces and turned them into an occupying army. Cops no longer need to feel threatened to use violence against you. If you don't obey them fast enough, you'll find yourself tasered or shot. Unaccountable no-knock raids kill perfectly innocent people (in one such incident recently, police officers threatened to shoot an unarmed teenage girl while her father pleaded with them not to as she wasn't armed. It was the wrong house). Nearly every cop is a good person but we've created a system that encourages them to see civilians not as innocents but as likely enemies. US prosecutors have higher conviction rates than those in communist China while innocence projects find high rates of false convictions.

And while all of this goes on here, we still have international cartels supporting terrorism and killing large numbers of third worlders. And yet, no alternative policy is considered politically viable.

Decriminalization is suspect at best, and Legalization is insane. Just ask the Dutch and Swiss. You cite them as full on supporters, They are not. Certainly at a minimum they have determined that legalization is idocy by practical experiment.

Can you provide evidence for this?

On a global scale, there is a distinct parallel to the countries with highest drug use rates, and the countries that are struggling with social, productivity and cultural issues.

Here I'm gonna have to stop ya. The highest drug use rates in the world are in the developed west, with the US leading the pack. These are the most stable, productive, culturally tolerant countries to ever exist in the history of the world. Are you actually claiming that a place like Nigeria, where drug use is lower than the US, is more stable, productive, and has fewer cultural issues? New Zealanders love their pot. Italians use much less. Who's more stable?

And again, what are issues? Can you quantify them?

Let me give you a counter-claim. The highest drug use nations are socially stable, highly productive, and culturally tolerant. The lower drug use nations are mostly socially unstable, experience huge levels of graft, corruption, and waste, and culturally intolerant. There may be exceptions of course but that's the way to bet. The reason is that all of those things
correlate with another data point: Prosperity.

Drugs provide one thing, and that is escapism. You know, avoiding dealing with what really matters.

The same thing is true of most of western culture. Football, television, skiing, media- all are escapism. A significant portion of our GDP is providing escapism because we're so efficient at providing for needs that even the poor are obese.

So let me ask this. Can you construct an evidence based argument that allows banning drugs that doesn't also apply to Bloomberg's sugary drink ban? Once the country has gotten used to the idea that the government can control their diet, expect them to turn their attention to sports and entertainment. The FCC is already on the job there and there are rumblings about how most sports should be banned (or seriously modified) because of the risk of injuries. Do a pubmed search for football injuries. That's groundwork you're seeing there.

My own personal belief is that most drug users are making a mistake and wasting their time and money. But as long as it's their time and money they waste, I have no right to tell them how to live their lives.

Apologies for the length

[GIThruster]

When there is a correlation between two items, they tend to change in some identifiable ratio. For example, if pot usage was associated with increases in psychotic issues, you'd see that increasing pot usage by 1% increased psychosis by 1 or 2%. There isn't any clear relationship between the two here.

Anyone who works with psychotics knows this isn't true. A close friend of mine works in a clinic and everyone there expects anyone coming in with psychosis is a cannabis user. Almost all of them admit it. When they go off their specified regimen it is almost always that they decided to start using again.

It doesn't matter whether psychosis is the cause and cannabis use the effect, or the other way around. There is obviously a life-wrending cycle and it is only when people stop using cannabis, there is hope their psychosis can be controlled. And just saying, these arguments that there is no causal relation here just because the studies are only able to identify a correlation are a very poor reading of the data. There is certainly an enormous correlation and when you remove the drug, you get much healthier people. This is why in-patient programs are highly preferred and more effective in treating psychosis--because they remove pot from the picture.

Doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out an hallucinogen is not good for someone suffering psychosis.