A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Off Topic



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old August 4th 19, 05:02 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Radey Shouman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,310
Default Off Topic

John B. writes:

On Sat, 03 Aug 2019 20:59:18 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

Tom Kunich writes:

On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 6:03:16 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 5:29:18 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
I know this is off topic but I don't find the answer anywhere else.

Today's news has Pres. Trump accusing the Chinese of continuing to
sell fentanyl to the United States -- "and many Americans continue to
die!"

But my research shows that fentanyl is a medical drug for the
alleviation of severe pain and as such I would assume to be a
controlled substance. How than, "many Americans continue to die!" ?

See
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/01/w...nyl-trump.html
Fentanyl and all its variants are now controlled substances in China
which, of course, does not stop illegal trade.

-- Jay Beattie.

Jay, Fentanyl was developed to be used as an injectable painkiller
when all else fails. The people in the final stages of cancer and the
like do not respond much to most of the pain killers on the market
including the strongest forms of Morphine.


I'm not sure what the idea was when it was developed, but fentanyl is
widely used for pain relief in transdermal patches. You can quite
easily absorb enough narcotic to light you right up from a patch smaller
than a postage stamp applied to your skin. Put a few on and you might
absorb a lethal dose.

It is useful, but I have to wonder if humanity would not have been
better off just liberalizing the use of heroin, which works much the
same way but is easier to titrate.


From what I read you are correct in the sense of, one might say, the
legal use of fentanyl, but the current U.S. claim seems to be that
illegal users of fentanyl are simply ordering it from (mainly) Chinese
Web Sites and getting it delivered to their door.


Fentanyl overdoses are a significant problem where I live. My
impression is that most users don't know whether they're getting heroin
or fentanyl of some mixture of the two. Dealers don't want to kill off
paying customers, but not being analytical chemists they're not that
good at dealing with doses in the micrograms, particularly after several
stages of distribution.

There are probably some users who order directly from China, but those
are very much in the minority.

I don't know whether the ultimate source of most fentanyl on US streets
is China; it does seem possible.

Again from my reading, something like 20,000 individuals are dying
from the illegal procurement and use of fentanyl and the U.S. wants
China to do something about it.

But you are correct, simply legalize the use of drugs and the price
goes down and illegal procurement immediately becomes a mote subject.


I was wondering aloud whether fentanyl would even have been developed if
legal heroin had continued to be easily available. The big reason to
promote new narcotics in the legal market is just that they are new, and
subject to patents and other legal means to monopoly. Makes great sense
for drug companies, not so much for either medical or recreational
users.

As an example, currently the "wholesale" price of methamphetamine
tablets on the Thai/Myanmar border is roughly 1/3- 1/2 the "wholesale"
price in Bangkok and in consequence the police daily capture pickup
truck loads of what the Thai's call "Ya Ba" (crazy medicine) on the
way to the big city. Multi million tablet intercepts are common these
days. The price varies but an "average" price is probably in the TB
200 - 300 per tab, about $6.60 -$10.00.

If Ya Ba was legalized tomorrow the retail price might become as low
as 30 baht ($1.00) each.
--
cheers,

John B.


--
Ads
  #62  
Old August 4th 19, 06:44 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joy Beeson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,367
Default Off Topic

On Sun, 04 Aug 2019 12:19:20 +0700, John B.
wrote:

Atheists - I have no idea. I never met anyone who didn't believe in
anything and tried to convert others to his belief.


Anti-theists posing at atheists are another matter. An antitheist on
some newsgroup -- I've long since forgotten the details -- thought it
"child abuse" that the children of theists are not taken from their
parents and brought up in the one true belief.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net

  #63  
Old August 5th 19, 12:06 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jOHN b.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 824
Default Off Topic

On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 10:49:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/3/2019 11:30 PM, jbeattie wrote:


Wow, now you're condoning murder of abortion providers? Even therapeutic abortion to save the mother? Incest? Abortion of non-viable fetuses?


FWIW, I'm not condoning murder of anyone. But the "therapeutic abortion
to save the mother" thing, and the incest and rape excuses, apply to
only a tiny proportion of abortions. Generally speaking, they're a red
herring.

The vast majority of abortions are for simple birth control. In other
words, those having sex aren't responsible enough to think ahead, or
competently use birth control. Perhaps they don't want to interrupt
their pleasure for a moment.

When their gamble goes wrong, they kill the baby before it's born. It's
simple - and a bit barbaric.


While I'm not disagreeing with you, but the cases where I knew the
details, actually not that many, a "birth control" abortion was
conducted in the first three months of pregnancy. Back in the day, bar
girls often got them and went right back to work the next day.

--
cheers,

John B.

  #64  
Old August 5th 19, 12:36 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jOHN b.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 824
Default Off Topic

On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 11:02:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/4/2019 1:19 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 21:45:06 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/3/2019 8:42 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 20:14:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/3/2019 6:53 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 12:19:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/3/2019 11:55 AM, jbeattie wrote:
... even a sensible Democrat is clearly superior to the insane asylum the Left has conjured up out of the fraudulent "oppression" of tiny minorities, who together cannot account for rolling a single log...

Agreed. And I think lots of people agree.

Murder is definitional -- and if it is licensed, it is not murder. Whether one can murder a fetus in the US varies from state to state. The religious and historical prohibition on murder was to maintain social peace and order. The Fifth Commandment did not apply to a fetus, at least not absolutely and not according to the Jews -- whose God god wrote the rule (although the original was lost for many years until found by Stephen Spielberg.) Regrettably, Catholics and conservative Christians have pushed for prohibition as an article of faith and without regard to what becomes of the fetus once born, and in fact Christian conservatives bemoan the "welfare state."

I disagree with that final sentence. At least around here, there are
many church-based institutions that care for women and children, and
there are ongoing congregational charity drives for them. We contribute.

I'm not "into" women's rights but can the death of a fetus that would
not survive if removed from the mother logically be termed "murder"?

And conversely, babies born after 24 weeks are now regularly saved. But
others are aborted after 24 weeks. Granted, it's not common - but what
should it be called?

I don't know and my thoughts were aimed at early abortion before the
fetus is capable of survival outside the mother. And those who cry
that any abortion is murder.

What should it be called? I don't know and frankly I don't care as my
attitude is that I will do as good as I can do and what you do is up
to you. The uniquely Christian concept that one should run about and
force their neighbors to conform to "their" belief is totally foreign
to me.

Wow. I'm amazed you can call that "uniquely Christian." You must have no
knowledge at all about muslims, , various pagans, etc.


Actually I do as at various times, in my military career I was
assigned to places where there wasn't much reading material so I read
various religious books and at other times I was living or working in
a country that wasn't predominately Christian and felt it useful to
know what "they" were doing.

Moslem -the Holy Koran, i.e.," The Word of God", sets forth the
parameters for "infidels" to reside in a Moslem country. There is no
mandatory conversion required but Infidels must pay a tax.

Buddhists - Nothing in the Buddhist writings, that I have read or are
aware of, requires an adherent to the religion to convert anyone. In
fact there is a early Buddhist sutra that discusses "God" in which
the Buddha says that he hasn't discussed god(s) but has given the
student 8 things to concern himself with. (The Jews had 12 :-)

Pagan - I certainly cannot discuss all "pagans" but certainly the
pagans I worked with in Irian Jaya, some of whom may well have been
cannibals, required anyone to convert to their beliefs.

Atheists - I have no idea. I never met anyone who didn't believe in
anything and tried to convert others to his belief.

Hindu - I'll throw this in for free as many Indonesians from Bali are
Hindu and it is one of the authorized religions in Indonesia and the
Hindus that I worked with never seemed to have any desire to convert
me.

Christians - Ah well, I will leave this up to you. Would you care to
comment on how many have been killed, tortured, forcibly converted,
burned or otherwise killed in the name of Christianity? Quora has it
somewhere in the region of 50 - 100 million.

In comparison, the population of England, in 1086, was estimated to
have been 1.25 - 2 million.


John, read up on the mechanism by which the muslim faith was initially
spread. They used a very different technique than, say, the Mormons.
Read up on the history of atheistic communism and its treatment of
religious people of many types. Read up on hindu treatment of buddhists.
Read up ...

Oh, you get the idea.


Well I have "read up on", to a certain extent, and for example, the
initial spread of the Moslem Faith, usually counted from the return
from Medina to Mecca did not include the massacre of all none Moslems,
or even the mistreatment of none Muslims in Mecca.

Hindu treatment of Buddhists? I'm not aware of just what you are
talking about, perhaps you meant the Hindu treatment of Moslems, but
does this somehow negate the Crusader deliberate slaughter of
essentially the entire population of Jerusalem in 1099. Or the so
called "Inquisition", first established in Languedoc (south of France)
in 1184 and formally ended in the mid 19th century.
Or the so called "Holocaust" a carefully planned elimination of an
entire race of people carried out by (at least) nominal Christians.
--
cheers,

John B.

  #65  
Old August 5th 19, 12:39 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jOHN b.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 824
Default Off Topic

On Sun, 04 Aug 2019 12:02:43 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Sat, 03 Aug 2019 20:59:18 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

Tom Kunich writes:

On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 6:03:16 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 5:29:18 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
I know this is off topic but I don't find the answer anywhere else.

Today's news has Pres. Trump accusing the Chinese of continuing to
sell fentanyl to the United States -- "and many Americans continue to
die!"

But my research shows that fentanyl is a medical drug for the
alleviation of severe pain and as such I would assume to be a
controlled substance. How than, "many Americans continue to die!" ?

See
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/01/w...nyl-trump.html
Fentanyl and all its variants are now controlled substances in China
which, of course, does not stop illegal trade.

-- Jay Beattie.

Jay, Fentanyl was developed to be used as an injectable painkiller
when all else fails. The people in the final stages of cancer and the
like do not respond much to most of the pain killers on the market
including the strongest forms of Morphine.

I'm not sure what the idea was when it was developed, but fentanyl is
widely used for pain relief in transdermal patches. You can quite
easily absorb enough narcotic to light you right up from a patch smaller
than a postage stamp applied to your skin. Put a few on and you might
absorb a lethal dose.

It is useful, but I have to wonder if humanity would not have been
better off just liberalizing the use of heroin, which works much the
same way but is easier to titrate.


From what I read you are correct in the sense of, one might say, the
legal use of fentanyl, but the current U.S. claim seems to be that
illegal users of fentanyl are simply ordering it from (mainly) Chinese
Web Sites and getting it delivered to their door.


Fentanyl overdoses are a significant problem where I live. My
impression is that most users don't know whether they're getting heroin
or fentanyl of some mixture of the two. Dealers don't want to kill off
paying customers, but not being analytical chemists they're not that
good at dealing with doses in the micrograms, particularly after several
stages of distribution.

There are probably some users who order directly from China, but those
are very much in the minority.

I don't know whether the ultimate source of most fentanyl on US streets
is China; it does seem possible.

Again from my reading, something like 20,000 individuals are dying
from the illegal procurement and use of fentanyl and the U.S. wants
China to do something about it.

But you are correct, simply legalize the use of drugs and the price
goes down and illegal procurement immediately becomes a mote subject.


I was wondering aloud whether fentanyl would even have been developed if
legal heroin had continued to be easily available. The big reason to
promote new narcotics in the legal market is just that they are new, and
subject to patents and other legal means to monopoly. Makes great sense
for drug companies, not so much for either medical or recreational
users.


Read up ion it. Fentanyl was originally developed for use in surgery
and was, at least for a time, the preferred surgical or obstetrical
anesthesia.
--
cheers,

John B.

  #66  
Old August 5th 19, 01:51 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,258
Default Off Topic

On Monday, August 5, 2019 at 12:36:05 AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:

Or the so called "Holocaust" a carefully planned elimination of an
entire race of people carried out by (at least) nominal Christians.


The Holocaust wasn't "so-called"; it is an historical, meticulously documented event, not least by its perpetrators, master bookkeepers. And scare-quotes around the noun also give the impression you're a Holocaust denier. I don't imagine that was your intention. If that was your intention, keep it to yourself because many places in the world now Holocaust denial is punishable legal transgression.

The Nazis weren't even "nominally" Christians. They explicit rejected Christianity in favour of a pagan national connection to nature. For instance, the title among his many titles that Herman Goering was most proud of was 'Huntsman of Germany", which put him in charge of all the forests -- I kid you not. Religion in Germany under the Nazis wasn't exactly a fringe activity, but it played no part in the policies of the German state* -- contrast for instance Ireland, where the Catholic church, which had no official position, was a de facto arm of government until the 1980s.

*It is argued that Vatican and the Curia played the part of the blind monkeys, that they were fellow-travellers and collaborators with the Nazis; their defender claim they were helping to save Jews.

Andre Jute
Welcome, Trivia!
  #67  
Old August 5th 19, 02:24 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,698
Default Off Topic

On 8/4/2019 6:36 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 11:02:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/4/2019 1:19 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 21:45:06 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/3/2019 8:42 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 20:14:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/3/2019 6:53 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 12:19:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/3/2019 11:55 AM, jbeattie wrote:
... even a sensible Democrat is clearly superior to the insane asylum the Left has conjured up out of the fraudulent "oppression" of tiny minorities, who together cannot account for rolling a single log...

Agreed. And I think lots of people agree.

Murder is definitional -- and if it is licensed, it is not murder. Whether one can murder a fetus in the US varies from state to state. The religious and historical prohibition on murder was to maintain social peace and order. The Fifth Commandment did not apply to a fetus, at least not absolutely and not according to the Jews -- whose God god wrote the rule (although the original was lost for many years until found by Stephen Spielberg.) Regrettably, Catholics and conservative Christians have pushed for prohibition as an article of faith and without regard to what becomes of the fetus once born, and in fact Christian conservatives bemoan the "welfare state."

I disagree with that final sentence. At least around here, there are
many church-based institutions that care for women and children, and
there are ongoing congregational charity drives for them. We contribute.

I'm not "into" women's rights but can the death of a fetus that would
not survive if removed from the mother logically be termed "murder"?

And conversely, babies born after 24 weeks are now regularly saved. But
others are aborted after 24 weeks. Granted, it's not common - but what
should it be called?

I don't know and my thoughts were aimed at early abortion before the
fetus is capable of survival outside the mother. And those who cry
that any abortion is murder.

What should it be called? I don't know and frankly I don't care as my
attitude is that I will do as good as I can do and what you do is up
to you. The uniquely Christian concept that one should run about and
force their neighbors to conform to "their" belief is totally foreign
to me.

Wow. I'm amazed you can call that "uniquely Christian." You must have no
knowledge at all about muslims, , various pagans, etc.

Actually I do as at various times, in my military career I was
assigned to places where there wasn't much reading material so I read
various religious books and at other times I was living or working in
a country that wasn't predominately Christian and felt it useful to
know what "they" were doing.

Moslem -the Holy Koran, i.e.," The Word of God", sets forth the
parameters for "infidels" to reside in a Moslem country. There is no
mandatory conversion required but Infidels must pay a tax.

Buddhists - Nothing in the Buddhist writings, that I have read or are
aware of, requires an adherent to the religion to convert anyone. In
fact there is a early Buddhist sutra that discusses "God" in which
the Buddha says that he hasn't discussed god(s) but has given the
student 8 things to concern himself with. (The Jews had 12 :-)

Pagan - I certainly cannot discuss all "pagans" but certainly the
pagans I worked with in Irian Jaya, some of whom may well have been
cannibals, required anyone to convert to their beliefs.

Atheists - I have no idea. I never met anyone who didn't believe in
anything and tried to convert others to his belief.

Hindu - I'll throw this in for free as many Indonesians from Bali are
Hindu and it is one of the authorized religions in Indonesia and the
Hindus that I worked with never seemed to have any desire to convert
me.

Christians - Ah well, I will leave this up to you. Would you care to
comment on how many have been killed, tortured, forcibly converted,
burned or otherwise killed in the name of Christianity? Quora has it
somewhere in the region of 50 - 100 million.

In comparison, the population of England, in 1086, was estimated to
have been 1.25 - 2 million.


John, read up on the mechanism by which the muslim faith was initially
spread. They used a very different technique than, say, the Mormons.
Read up on the history of atheistic communism and its treatment of
religious people of many types. Read up on hindu treatment of buddhists.
Read up ...

Oh, you get the idea.


Well I have "read up on", to a certain extent, and for example, the
initial spread of the Moslem Faith, usually counted from the return
from Medina to Mecca did not include the massacre of all none Moslems,
or even the mistreatment of none Muslims in Mecca.

Hindu treatment of Buddhists? I'm not aware of just what you are
talking about, perhaps you meant the Hindu treatment of Moslems, but
does this somehow negate the Crusader deliberate slaughter of
essentially the entire population of Jerusalem in 1099. Or the so
called "Inquisition", first established in Languedoc (south of France)
in 1184 and formally ended in the mid 19th century.
Or the so called "Holocaust" a carefully planned elimination of an
entire race of people carried out by (at least) nominal Christians.
--
cheers,

John B.


for Buddhist vs Hindu the Sri Lanka war comes readily to mind.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


  #68  
Old August 5th 19, 02:56 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
news18
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 483
Default Off Topic

On Mon, 05 Aug 2019 01:11:50 +0000, Ralph Barone wrote:


I think that Leviticus and Deuteronomy (and the majority of Old
Testament writers) could have benefited by “just lightening the ****
up”.


As can all who quote their holy book to justify attrocities.

  #69  
Old August 5th 19, 03:07 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
news18
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 483
Default Off Topic

On Sun, 04 Aug 2019 10:49:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


The vast majority of abortions are for simple birth control. In other
words, those having sex aren't responsible enough to think ahead, or
competently use birth control.


All forms of birtgh control have failure rates.

Perhaps they don't want to interrupt
their pleasure for a moment.


Or live in perpetual agony from the side effects of some forms of birth
control.

When their gamble goes wrong, they kill the baby before it's born. It's
simple - and a bit barbaric.


Shrug, as opposed to the number that are naturally aborted?

  #70  
Old August 5th 19, 03:17 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,174
Default Off Topic

On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 4:06:28 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 10:49:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/3/2019 11:30 PM, jbeattie wrote:


Wow, now you're condoning murder of abortion providers? Even therapeutic abortion to save the mother? Incest? Abortion of non-viable fetuses?


FWIW, I'm not condoning murder of anyone. But the "therapeutic abortion
to save the mother" thing, and the incest and rape excuses, apply to
only a tiny proportion of abortions. Generally speaking, they're a red
herring.

The vast majority of abortions are for simple birth control. In other
words, those having sex aren't responsible enough to think ahead, or
competently use birth control. Perhaps they don't want to interrupt
their pleasure for a moment.

When their gamble goes wrong, they kill the baby before it's born. It's
simple - and a bit barbaric.


While I'm not disagreeing with you, but the cases where I knew the
details, actually not that many, a "birth control" abortion was
conducted in the first three months of pregnancy. Back in the day, bar
girls often got them and went right back to work the next day.


Unless they were mangled by some back-alley abortionist or killed themselves with one of the do-it-yourself remedies. That's barbaric.

And to Frank's point, it is complicated, but moralizing out people's sexual practices is like teaching abstinence -- useless. What is complicated is deciding at what point the state's interest in preserving the life of a fetus outweighs the interest of the mother in not having a child. Different civilized and non-barbaric nations make different choices. https://reproductiverights.org/worldabortionlaws In US (and in many European nations), women are allowed to make the choice on their own, without any state involvement, based on their own religious and moral beliefs during the first trimester or thereabouts. That may offend some religious beliefs, but this is a nation of laws and not a papal state or caliphate.

-- Jay Beattie.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Off topic for UK, on topic for another good laugh at cyclists Mr Pounder Esquire UK 1 May 22nd 16 09:25 PM
Three Greatest Inventions (2/3 On Topic, 1/3 Off Topic) Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman General 21 December 19th 06 04:40 AM
Frank exchange of words with black cabbie New Topic Reply to Topic spindrift UK 50 August 7th 06 06:25 AM
Sort of on topic/off topic: Rising toll of kids hurt on roads wafflycat UK 4 March 24th 06 05:28 PM
This is off topic some ... but on topic also... make up your mind Thomas Wentworth General 7 November 8th 05 09:46 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.