The World Events Thread

[canuckistani]

5 minutes ago, Lockout Casualty said:

I'll preface this post by saying that I won't be replying as thoroughly, if at all going forward, as I've spent all morning and afternoon on CDC, thinking through your and my own posts. And I'm grateful for the exchange. Just time to focus on my daughter.

 

In my experience, people in long term relationships don't tend to break up lightly. I don't know the inner workings of these people's relations, but so far as my anecdotal evidence has led me to believe, it's because they stop fighting against the current. Meaning that they've struggled to be together for a long time already, and finally recognize that their relationship is doomed. Typically, these relationships, ones that last for years before dying, start when people are young. People grow and become different people, I don't think it's healthy to stay together when both have grown into people neither wants to be with. I think you're over-simplifying why people break up after years together, almost to the point of devaluing these people's individuality and feelings. 

Sorry, that is not my intent. I am not trying to say ALL long term relationships fail due to such trivial reasons, but many are ending after 2-3 years or so for these kind of trivial reasons. I've myself seen a 15 year old marriage break up because of 'we dont treat each other like newlyweds anymore and the romance is gone'. I am commenting towards this trend slowly becoming a dominant trend in our society for breakups and such. 

5 minutes ago, Lockout Casualty said:

 

You're right that single parenthood does worse than the united family in ensuring a child's success, but I would question the why. Being a relatively recent trend, possibly our society hasn't adjusted yet to the new paradigm. Possibly the effects of this multi-generational change haven't cascaded down yet. As well, as you said to Rup earlier regarding institutional racism, one cannot unequivocally say, based of family structure alone who will fail and who will succeed. To me, painting all with this brush is premature.

The answer is very simple - the total hours of attention given to a developing child is always much, much lesser in single parent families than nuclear families. Species homo sapiens, like elephants, dolphins, etc. are predominantly a memetic species, not a genetically adaptive species. What that means, the overwhelming majority of our skills, ethos, views, etc. are learned behavior. A genetically adaptive species is like a dog or a cat - they don't need to be taught how to hunt or swim or climb. 

As such,like elephants ( due to mass poaching), we show the biggest discernable effects in terms of altering our child-raising strategies & methodologies. 

And yes, much like structural racism, this effect is not uniform. Its better to have a dedicated, loving single mom than a mom and dad who wage WW-III every other day with each other. 

But much like structural racism, the general trends are present and cannot be denied. 

5 minutes ago, Lockout Casualty said:

 

What I don't see is our society collapsing. You see the core as being hollowed out, whereas I see it as changing into something else. I don't know if ultimately you or I will be correct, and I don't think either of us will live long enough to know. I have divorced friends who are both heavily involved in the child's life and ones whose parents are together but neither really takes an interest. I think it ultimately falls to parents as individuals in how successful their child will become. 

Well thats the sad thing about societal collapse - no society sees it coming and hasn't seen it coming. The core of human society is investing time in raising our kids. For the longest period, it was via 'group-raising via females of the tribes sharing responsibilities and attention'. Then farming happened and nuclear society happened. The core became mom + dad = time for children. 

Now we are, in one part of the world (here), in the era of single parenthood, where the dominant form is single parent in the house. We have also seen a correlative rise in childhood dysfunction, depression, anxiety and whole host of psychological issues on the increase. The lazy argument is 'well we are more accepting as a society and more advanced, so we diagnose better'. This is lazy,because this is PARTLY true. The other part, is that societies that show similar levels of disposal income, free time, lack of religiosity but greater prevalence of nuclear family dynamic ( eg: Singapore, Ireland, etc) has also seen a correlative rise in such diagnosis but distinctly lower than the 'divorce-happy' nations in similar socio-economic spectrums. 

 

5 minutes ago, Lockout Casualty said:

 

I wouldn't say social programs are of higher priority to me, rather they are the means to alleviate the pressure on single parents today and to aid in their children's development and future success. It is an immediate action that can foster more desired outcomes. Ultimately, both are a means to an end - having children grow into successful adults. I am entirely unopposed to a combination of the two approaches. 

Me too. Though i think social programs are more of a short-term, quick fix while the education programs are more of a long term fix. I value the educational approach greater as a long-term fix but the necessity of a working solution in the short term cannot be underestimated. What i fear, is that doing the short term fix but not the long term (educational) fix will accentuate the problem by giving people further easy outs and less personal responsibility towards the children & their families. 

5 minutes ago, Lockout Casualty said:

 

Lastly, I feel a lot of your concerns regarding collapse will be put to rest once we become a space faring species.

Its easier said than done. As a science individual, i find it very irksome and sometimes very frustrating that non-science people think that all science is a matter of '1000 monkeys bashing rocks together will one day make the statue of David'. Its not just money and more money and more effort  = results.

 

Science relies on inspration and a chance luck of genius to come solve something nobody has been able to do before. I don't think it was a matter of 'enough people pondering it and enough money poured into it' would've replaced Einstien and his theory of special relativity. Or solve the unsolvable equations that Srinivas Ramanujan solved without any education himself!  Plenty of apples fell on heads of countless people but it took one chap named Issac Newton to suddenly put gravity into the picture. Space-faring civilization may never happen. 
Because we simply have no means to go faster than light or communicate faster than light or have sub-atomic accuracy. ( the latter is oft missed part of sci-fi but reality of any long distance travel - sure, you have engines to go faster than speed of light, but just think, how sophisticated your tracking sensor needs to be, to go FTL for 10 light years - at that distance, being off by as much as an atomic width will equate to slamming into a house in Denmark 10 light years away instead of landing at Kennedy Space Center). 

Will we ever overcome these ceilings in our theoretical physics ? Maybe. Maybe not. Mankind had to wait 10,000 years between intuitively manipulating gravity and actually understanding it. We had to wait 20,000 years between building a boat from a buyoant material (like wood, that floats) and a non-buyoant material ( steel). Maybe we will be flying to Alpha Centuri in 50 years. Or maybe, by 50,000 AD, we'll still only be barely making it out to Titan. Best not to bank on such a faint hope clause and fix what we can fix here. 

5 minutes ago, Lockout Casualty said:

We could think of all sorts of ways to break and fix our societies on Earth, and all it will take is one space rock big enough and it will all be for naught. 

 

Cheers to a good talk. 

Cheers, it was a good talk

 

[nuckin_futz]

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to be indicted on corruption charges

The prime minister faces one count of bribery and three counts of breach of trust.

 

Israel's attorney general announced Thursday that his office plans to indict Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on corruption charges after a two-year investigation.

The prime minister faces one count of bribery and three counts of breach of trust.

 

"The Attorney General, Avihai Mandelblit, has informed the Prime Minister, Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu, through his attorney, that he is considering indicting him on several criminal charges," according to a statement by Ministry of Justice spokesman Adi Livni.

 

Prosecutors would have to go forward with a pre-indictment hearing before Netanyahu is formally charged.

 

"It should be noted that the decision regarding an indictment is not yet final, since the Attorney General will offer to conduct a pre-indictment hearing before reaching any final decision, according to Israeli law," according to Livni's statement.

 

Police have previously recommended indicting Netanyahu for bribery, fraud and breach of trust in three different cases.

 

The most serious allegations against Netanyahu involve his relationship with Shaul Elovitch, the controlling shareholder of Israel's telecom giant Bezeq.

 

Police recommended an indictment in the case based on evidence collected that confidants of Netanyahu promoted regulatory changes worth hundreds of millions of dollars to Bezeq. In exchange, they believe Netanyahu used his connections with Elovitch to receive positive press coverage on Bezeq's popular subsidiary news site, Walla. Police have said their investigation concluded that Netanyahu and Elovitch engaged in a "bribe-based relationship."

Police also recommended charges be brought against Elovitch, members of his family and members of his Bezeq management team.

Police have previously recommended indicting Netanyahu on corruption charges in two other cases. One involves accepting gifts from billionaire friends, and the second revolves around alleged offers of advantageous legislation for a major newspaper in return for favorable coverage.

 

Netanyahu, 69, who is serving his third consecutive term as prime minister and his fourth overall, has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing and called the various allegations against him a witch hunt aimed at removing him from office.

 

The attorney general's decision to publish his conclusions 39 days prior to the general election on April 9 is raising questions about what impact it can have on the outcome of the vote.

 

Israeli media reported Thursday that with just hours to go before Mandelblit's anticipated decision to indict Netanyahu, his Likud Party filed a petition to the Supreme Court to stop the announcement from happening before the election on the grounds that it would unfairly impact on Netanyahu's prospects of re-election. However, the court's spokesperson confirmed later in the afternoon that the petition was rejected.

 

The announcement marks the first time in Israeli history that a sitting prime minister faces criminal charges of this nature.

Legal experts in Israel say it could take up to a year for a hearing process into the charges to end and an additional two years for a court case to be heard.

 

While Israeli prime ministers are not required by law to resign if charged, the prospect of a prime minister standing trial while simultaneously running the country would be unchartered territory.

 

In response to the indictment, Jerusalem-based Israel Democracy Institute said Netanyahu should consider carefully whether it’s best for him to stay on as prime minister or resign and focus on proving his case in the courts.

 

“We cannot ignore the serious potential damage to the public's trust in the state’s institutions caused by a situation in which the government is headed by an individual charged with criminal misconduct involving abuse of power,” the organization’s statement said.

 

The institute says the timing of the announcement doesn’t constitute “an inappropriate influence on the elections” because it was made “within a reasonable amount of time before the elections, taking into account both the public’s right to know and the desire not to intervene in the electoral process.”

 

Israeli law professor Avi Bell, a senior fellow at the Jerusalem-based Kohelet Policy Forum, said the indictment inserts law enforcement officials into the political arena “in an unprecedented way, and on a very shaky legal foundation.”

 

President Donald Trump, with whom Netanyahu has forged a close connection, said "[Netanyahu's] done a great job as prime minister" in response to a question in Hanoi, where he was holding a summit with the leader of North Korea.

 

"He's tough, he's smart, he's strong," Trump said of the Israeli leader, but didn’t comment on the indictment.

 

Netanyahu rushed back Wednesday from a diplomatic mission to Moscow, and a meeting with President Vladimir Putin, to prepare for his expected rebuttal to the charges on Thursday.

 

Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit is Netanyahu's former cabinet secretary.

 

While no stranger to scandal, this was the first time Netanyahu faced the possibility of being formally charged with a crime.

 

Netanyahu and his family's luxurious lifestyle — often at taxpayers’ expense — has come under scrutiny before. Nearly six years ago, Netanyahu was criticized for reportedly spending $127,000 in public funds for a special sleeping cabin for a five-and-a-half hour flight to London for Margaret Thatcher's funeral. That came just months after the Netanyahu family's taxpayer-funded food budget included $2,700 for artisanal pistachio and French vanilla ice cream.

 

CORRECTION (Feb. 28, 2019, 12:56 p.m. ET): An earlier version of this story misstated the Israeli attorney general's decision regarding an indictment for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The attorney general said he plans to issue the indictment, but has not done so yet.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israel-prime-minister-benjamin-netanyahu-indicted-bribe-fraud-charges-n977571

 

 

Edited February 28, 2019 by nuckin_futz

[Kragar]

Double post, as first attempt had everything in spoilers

Edited February 28, 2019 by Kragar

[Kragar]

Spoiler

On 2/27/2019 at 9:47 AM, Lockout Casualty said:

 

You're right, I was off. Alcohol may be worse.

 

My post wasn't exclusively about which drug destroys the body the fastest. Sure, heroin will destroy your body in 10 years of abuse, and alcohol will do it in 15. Does it mean alcohol is so much better? No, my point was that both, individual and societal harm caused by these drugs is great. And if we were to discuss the important part for the libertarian prohibition crowd, heroin causes much lower societal harm than alcohol, whereas alcohol is less destructive to the individual. You'd think self-proclaimed libertarians would take this as an indication that heroin would be preferable to alcohol in society, but here we are. Then again, I never put any stock into libertarian ideology.

 

And while important, addictive quality of certain drugs is not a sole, or even the most pertinent indication of its harm. Nicotine is nearly as addictive as heroin and alcohol, but nobody is making the claim it's the worst drug. And also let's not forget that just like functioning alcoholics, there are thousands of functional heroin and cocaine users. Not everyone that tries hard drugs will become either hopelessly addicted or homeless.

 

I have numerous times alluded to my own drug use in these discussions. I use cocaine occasionally with my friends. I have a well paying job, a young baby girl, a home I own. It affects my life less than my friends' drinking does theirs, because cocaine wears off in a couple of hours and I'm not a zombie for 24-48 hours like my friends after a night of boozin'. And neither am I addicted. I go weeks to months without using or thinking about it. Lucky for me, I also have a trusted source, so I'm never worried about fentanyl, which has affected casual cocaine users just like hardcore heroin users we typically think of when drug ODs are mentioned. I recall witnessing an OD from cocaine at a local pub, due to laced drugs. The person was doing nothing different than any other person in the establishment - getting effed up. Except his preferred method was illegal, and therefore outside of any regulation and susceptible to street dealer tactics of buffing it.

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61462-6/fulltext

https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/publications/nz-drug-harm-index-2016-2nd-ed-jul16.pdf

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/4/e000774

 

Legalization is not a perfect solution, no. However,  it is the most effective at both, reducing societal harm and rates of addiction and self-destruction. Take a look at the way things have been going since the drug war began in the 70s. Can you say honestly that prohibition has worked in any way (aside from appeasing morality police)? I think that's a solid "NO". What we've been doing has not worked, more people than ever are dying from drugs in Vancouver. Heroin use is on the rise in the US, according to the CDC (not this CDC, the important one).

 

Yes, places like California are screwing up legalization because of high taxes. When I was there last spring, I paid $20/gram, whereas in BC I paid about $7/gram in US dollars, and it was still illegal here back then. This will allow a black market to flourish. I was also told I can't buy from a shop because I didn't have my passport, forcing me to buy from the black market on Venice Beach. That's not the story everywhere. In Colorado, weed prices have crashed so fast that a pound today is worth less than half what it was 2 years ago. And it's trickled down to the customers. In Oregon, price of a gram has dropped from $14/g to $7/g.

 

At the end of the day, it is a product like any other, and as legalization spreads, it'll continue to drop in price, squeezing out the black market. Maybe there will still be black market, cigarettes have had one for decades. However, if we accept one truth, it is that people will always want to get high. That is not a fight that can be won, not with prohibition, not with legalization, not with education. It's a fact of life, just like changing of seasons or death and taxes. You can't fix it, you can't fight it, you can only accept the reality and work within this framework to reduce harm. Which is what I've been advocating for years. 

 

When it comes to heroin, I don't know what framework will be required to implement legalization. It certainly won't be like marijuana. However, there is no reason for these drugs to be expensive. I would support subsidizing heroin for those with addiction, while also providing programs to help people quit and recover. It doesn't bother me to pay for someone's high. What bothers me are the bike theft epidemic in Vancouver; the senseless deaths from fentanyl laced drugs, in DTES and everywhere else; the exorbitant prices on the street that go into the pockets of organized crime. So really, is it the addictive nature of these drugs that's the issue? Or that they're not regulated and can be akin to playing Russian roulette, while funding criminal organizations? I would say it's the latter, but YMMV.

 

As for declining culture, I am at a loss what to say there. I can raise my children, I can't raise yours or anyone else's. I've seen kids from good families fall victim to drugs and I've seen kids from broken homes avoid them at all costs. If you or Canuckistani have a plan how to deal with changing family dynamic in the modern world, I applaud you and bid you good luck in implementing it. I don't see how pinning things on "culture" does anyone any good, except maybe feed into some people's sense of superiority because their parents stayed together. 

 

 

Putting your comments in spoilers, just to save some space.

 

My point wasn't about destroying the body faster either, although I guess it could be interpreted that way.  With a large majority of heroin users (over 2/3rds, per the CDC link I provided) admitting to also abusing/being addicted, that's highly significant.  Alcohol is nowhere near that bad.  I checked that same report regarding coke, and was surprised... the numbers for abuse/addiction were much lower, similar to alcohol, with 5-6 times more coke users than heroin.

 

You often mention societal impact.  Could what drives alcohol's societal impact being higher (which I'm not sure on, but I'll accept it for now) be due to the vast number of consumers?  I'd guess that for every heroin user here in the US, there are about 100 who drink alcohol.  Maybe I'm not clear what you mean about that.

 

I don't know many who have tried heroin or coke, and those few are up in Canada.  Of course, there may be others who have tried and I just don't know.  I knew a fair amount who smoked weed back home, so it's not like I hung out in an ultra-clean crowd.  Of the two I know for sure, last I heard, their lives weren't great, with one being divorced, and the other quite depressed.  That was a couple decades ago, no idea how they are now.  Alcohol was my vice of choice, having reasonable access in my mid-teens.  I worried at one point in my 20s, after taking a survey, whether I had a "problem".  Successfully going dry for 6 months with no trouble cured that concern.  But, I get where you're coming from with the hangover.

 

Legalizing heroin, and dropping the price, is scary.  It might cut down on thefts since the fixes are cheaper, so it is not without benefits, as you point out.  But since heroin is more addictive and far easier to OD than alcohol, IMO the health costs per user will accelerate for heroin vs alcohol users.  Also, how much of a "high" does a person need?  I don't mean it in a judgmental way at all, but more in the sense of the out-of-pocket costs to reach the desired high.  A couple beers/drinks is enough for most people to relax.  A few more will make someone quite "happy", and a few more can seriously inebriate some people (obviously, tolerance levels vary over a number of factors).  $10 to $20 at a liquor store can get one pretty happy or even drunk.  I'm guessing it costs more for a similar level of inebriation from heroin or coke?  Since our stomachs give us some warning when we drink too much, is there a similar mechanism for drugs?  If you legalize harder drugs, and are somehow able to keep prices in line, I find it easy to imagine people over-consuming drugs as opposed to alcohol.

 

Overall, is a hangover such a bad thing?  Sure, you can feel like crap for a day or so after a drinking binge, but will that make over-consumption so appealing next time?  

 

You are clearly correct about good families and broken homes.  I don't even know whether one is more favored than another, when it comes to where more addicts come from.  I could see "good homes" actually contributing more, since those kids would have access to more money to get started on heavier stuff.  You are also right on the success (or lack thereof) on prohibition.  It would take more thinking on my part to come around to legalizing as a reasonable solution, though.  Studies linking increased mental issues (schizophrenia, for example) with weed users, in the wake of legalization, is not comforting.  Will adding harder drugs to the mix make it even worse?

 

My point regarding culture was more at the personal level.  The tendency to focus students' success on passing standardized tests rather than being good students and teaching good life skills (like personal finances).  Couple this with a misguided focus on "equality", and it appears students are increasingly less ready to survive as adults; expectations are high, and the world tends to not measure up.  Personal debt is getting out of control for too many people.  Our shorter attention spans and demand for instant gratification also contribute.  How much does our increased collective disconnection from the real world impact our brains?  Families, broken or not, spend less time together, so kids often end up getting more and more input from people who don't care about the kids' best interests.  This is something that has gotten worse over recent decades.  Single parents who work, or when both parents work, means it takes extra effort to make time for the kids.  Some can handle it, while others can't.  Yet stay-at-home parents are often looked down upon, when in fact when they can afford it, having a parent stay home should be encouraged.  I'm sure I could add to this list, but I think there's enough here to chew on.

 

Basically, I wonder how much of this contributes to the added need for a high.  Couple that with some of the family issues others have mentioned, where we live in a society that praises single parents (and governments that encourage them) despite the added pressure on many of the children involved. 

 

When it comes to everything here, I don't exclude alcohol from the problem.  I just feel that heroin especially is much worse.

 

Thanks for making some great points, and sharing some personal input.

[canuckistani]

Legalizing a drug that virtually anyone can overdose and die from is just insane. 
Its insane to argue that heroin has a lower body harm signature than alcohol and i highly doubt anyone who's seriously done heroin will EVER claim that effects of one of the most powerful opiate is significantly 'less in duration' than that of alcohol hangover. 

I cannot kill myself from drinking enough alcohol. I know some can, but i cannot. I end up puking before alcohol poisoning. Many do. Heroin ? 100 outta 100 users are capable of OD-ing and dying. 

[Lockout Casualty]

Spoiler

18 hours ago, Kragar said:

  Hide contents

 

 

Putting your comments in spoilers, just to save some space.

 

My point wasn't about destroying the body faster either, although I guess it could be interpreted that way.  With a large majority of heroin users (over 2/3rds, per the CDC link I provided) admitting to also abusing/being addicted, that's highly significant.  Alcohol is nowhere near that bad.  I checked that same report regarding coke, and was surprised... the numbers for abuse/addiction were much lower, similar to alcohol, with 5-6 times more coke users than heroin.

 

You often mention societal impact.  Could what drives alcohol's societal impact being higher (which I'm not sure on, but I'll accept it for now) be due to the vast number of consumers?  I'd guess that for every heroin user here in the US, there are about 100 who drink alcohol.  Maybe I'm not clear what you mean about that.

 

I don't know many who have tried heroin or coke, and those few are up in Canada.  Of course, there may be others who have tried and I just don't know.  I knew a fair amount who smoked weed back home, so it's not like I hung out in an ultra-clean crowd.  Of the two I know for sure, last I heard, their lives weren't great, with one being divorced, and the other quite depressed.  That was a couple decades ago, no idea how they are now.  Alcohol was my vice of choice, having reasonable access in my mid-teens.  I worried at one point in my 20s, after taking a survey, whether I had a "problem".  Successfully going dry for 6 months with no trouble cured that concern.  But, I get where you're coming from with the hangover.

 

Legalizing heroin, and dropping the price, is scary.  It might cut down on thefts since the fixes are cheaper, so it is not without benefits, as you point out.  But since heroin is more addictive and far easier to OD than alcohol, IMO the health costs per user will accelerate for heroin vs alcohol users.  Also, how much of a "high" does a person need?  I don't mean it in a judgmental way at all, but more in the sense of the out-of-pocket costs to reach the desired high.  A couple beers/drinks is enough for most people to relax.  A few more will make someone quite "happy", and a few more can seriously inebriate some people (obviously, tolerance levels vary over a number of factors).  $10 to $20 at a liquor store can get one pretty happy or even drunk.  I'm guessing it costs more for a similar level of inebriation from heroin or coke?  Since our stomachs give us some warning when we drink too much, is there a similar mechanism for drugs?  If you legalize harder drugs, and are somehow able to keep prices in line, I find it easy to imagine people over-consuming drugs as opposed to alcohol.

 

Overall, is a hangover such a bad thing?  Sure, you can feel like crap for a day or so after a drinking binge, but will that make over-consumption so appealing next time?  

 

You are clearly correct about good families and broken homes.  I don't even know whether one is more favored than another, when it comes to where more addicts come from.  I could see "good homes" actually contributing more, since those kids would have access to more money to get started on heavier stuff.  You are also right on the success (or lack thereof) on prohibition.  It would take more thinking on my part to come around to legalizing as a reasonable solution, though.  Studies linking increased mental issues (schizophrenia, for example) with weed users, in the wake of legalization, is not comforting.  Will adding harder drugs to the mix make it even worse?

 

My point regarding culture was more at the personal level.  The tendency to focus students' success on passing standardized tests rather than being good students and teaching good life skills (like personal finances).  Couple this with a misguided focus on "equality", and it appears students are increasingly less ready to survive as adults; expectations are high, and the world tends to not measure up.  Personal debt is getting out of control for too many people.  Our shorter attention spans and demand for instant gratification also contribute.  How much does our increased collective disconnection from the real world impact our brains?  Families, broken or not, spend less time together, so kids often end up getting more and more input from people who don't care about the kids' best interests.  This is something that has gotten worse over recent decades.  Single parents who work, or when both parents work, means it takes extra effort to make time for the kids.  Some can handle it, while others can't.  Yet stay-at-home parents are often looked down upon, when in fact when they can afford it, having a parent stay home should be encouraged.  I'm sure I could add to this list, but I think there's enough here to chew on.

 

Basically, I wonder how much of this contributes to the added need for a high.  Couple that with some of the family issues others have mentioned, where we live in a society that praises single parents (and governments that encourage them) despite the added pressure on many of the children involved. 

 

When it comes to everything here, I don't exclude alcohol from the problem.  I just feel that heroin especially is much worse.

 

Thanks for making some great points, and sharing some personal input.

 

 

Unfortunately I don't have the time to really get into this post, but I will bring up a couple of things briefly. Today, most people are well aware that heroin and other hard drugs are an express train to destroying one's life. This is not something that will change with legalization, or whatever method of controlling substances gets implemented. For example, I can easily access heroin that's not laced, and have been able to since high school nearly 20 years ago. Same goes for many people, especially before fentanyl came on the scene. Just because it becomes legal does not mean scores of people will go out and start trying heroin, meth, etc. Portugal has demonstrated that usage rates do not increase, long term. Also that rates of HIV infection, OD deaths, and drug-related crime drop drastically. 

 

To be honest, I'm unclear if the studies accounted for legal status, however, if light of evidence that drug use rate does not increase, it may not be that pertinent to the discussion. Whether 10% of the population gets addicted to legal heroin or illegal, they will get addicted either way. One thing prohibition fails at is actually limiting supply. As long as demand is there, we'll always have this problem. Also, these drugs affect the user differently. Alcohol makes people rowdy, violent, inhibits decision making, etc. Heroin users aren't capable of operating a vehicle at all, much less driving like a drunk. Ergo, their societal impact may not increase at all, and with lower crime, et al, it may actually decrease with regulation. 

 

As well, I think people that abuse opioids (aside from pharmaceutical addicts) are a special breed. Last week my friend's friend was buried after ODing on fentanyl. I never met the guy, but I thought he used laced drugs. Turns out he was purposefully injecting fentanyl, "chasing the dragon". There are people who will try anything, but they are far and few between the people who have no interest in these drugs. I'll never try heroin, whether it's legal or not. I'm sure neither will you, or canuckistani. Neither will most other people. So I think it's a misplaced fear. 

 

Canuckistani and I have already discussed the cultural aspect, so I won't get into that again. I do agree that many people aren't giving their kids the time they need. Also, I haven't researched this much, but non-resident father involvement is associated with better outcomes for the child, although I'm unsure if the outcomes are the same, or better or worse, than married/co-parents. That is to say, parents may not live together, but if they're involved, it may drastically reduce negative issues associated with single-parent households. 

 

Anyway, I'm grateful for the good discussion. Cheers!

[canuckistani]

6 hours ago, Lockout Casualty said:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

Spoiler

Unfortunately I don't have the time to really get into this post, but I will bring up a couple of things briefly. Today, most people are well aware that heroin and other hard drugs are an express train to destroying one's life. This is not something that will change with legalization, or whatever method of controlling substances gets implemented. For example, I can easily access heroin that's not laced, and have been able to since high school nearly 20 years ago. Same goes for many people, especially before fentanyl came on the scene. Just because it becomes legal does not mean scores of people will go out and start trying heroin, meth, etc. Portugal has demonstrated that usage rates do not increase, long term. Also that rates of HIV infection, OD deaths, and drug-related crime drop drastically. 

 

To be honest, I'm unclear if the studies accounted for legal status, however, if light of evidence that drug use rate does not increase, it may not be that pertinent to the discussion. Whether 10% of the population gets addicted to legal heroin or illegal, they will get addicted either way. One thing prohibition fails at is actually limiting supply. As long as demand is there, we'll always have this problem. Also, these drugs affect the user differently. Alcohol makes people rowdy, violent, inhibits decision making, etc. Heroin users aren't capable of operating a vehicle at all, much less driving like a drunk. Ergo, their societal impact may not increase at all, and with lower crime, et al, it may actually decrease with regulation. 

 

As well, I think people that abuse opioids (aside from pharmaceutical addicts) are a special breed. Last week my friend's friend was buried after ODing on fentanyl. I never met the guy, but I thought he used laced drugs. Turns out he was purposefully injecting fentanyl, "chasing the dragon". There are people who will try anything, but they are far and few between the people who have no interest in these drugs. I'll never try heroin, whether it's legal or not. I'm sure neither will you, or canuckistani. Neither will most other people. So I think it's a misplaced fear. 

 

Canuckistani and I have already discussed the cultural aspect, so I won't get into that again. I do agree that many people aren't giving their kids the time they need. Also, I haven't researched this much, but non-resident father involvement is associated with better outcomes for the child, although I'm unsure if the outcomes are the same, or better or worse, than married/co-parents. That is to say, parents may not live together, but if they're involved, it may drastically reduce negative issues associated with single-parent households. 

 

Anyway, I'm grateful for the good discussion. Cheers!

 

1. Its a myth that prohibition fails. Prohibition, by nature of the term, is a deterrence based methodology. For it to work, the deterrence has to be strong enough. Prohibition has a stunning level of success in China, Indonesia, Malaysia and most of the middle east. They have 10 times less people per capita addicted to Heroin. Why ? Because their deterrence is a minimum 20 year prison sentence for usage. 

You cannot say a deterrence based system doesn't work,when the deterrence provided is insufficient. Its like saying threatening people's safety doesn't work for getting beat up, when your threat is 'if you beat me up, i will throw marshmallows at you'. Upgrade it to ' if you beat me up, i will shoot you' and it will have a significantly greater efficacy. 

 

2. Involvement of non-resident parent in the kids life has a better positive outcome on children's lives than single parenthood,but still does not make up the qualitative gap with couples raising their kids under one roof. This is because of the net supervised time per kid per week is greater when both parents live in the same domicile, than separate domiciles. 

[Lockout Casualty]

3 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

  Reveal hidden contents

Unfortunately I don't have the time to really get into this post, but I will bring up a couple of things briefly. Today, most people are well aware that heroin and other hard drugs are an express train to destroying one's life. This is not something that will change with legalization, or whatever method of controlling substances gets implemented. For example, I can easily access heroin that's not laced, and have been able to since high school nearly 20 years ago. Same goes for many people, especially before fentanyl came on the scene. Just because it becomes legal does not mean scores of people will go out and start trying heroin, meth, etc. Portugal has demonstrated that usage rates do not increase, long term. Also that rates of HIV infection, OD deaths, and drug-related crime drop drastically. 

 

To be honest, I'm unclear if the studies accounted for legal status, however, if light of evidence that drug use rate does not increase, it may not be that pertinent to the discussion. Whether 10% of the population gets addicted to legal heroin or illegal, they will get addicted either way. One thing prohibition fails at is actually limiting supply. As long as demand is there, we'll always have this problem. Also, these drugs affect the user differently. Alcohol makes people rowdy, violent, inhibits decision making, etc. Heroin users aren't capable of operating a vehicle at all, much less driving like a drunk. Ergo, their societal impact may not increase at all, and with lower crime, et al, it may actually decrease with regulation. 

 

As well, I think people that abuse opioids (aside from pharmaceutical addicts) are a special breed. Last week my friend's friend was buried after ODing on fentanyl. I never met the guy, but I thought he used laced drugs. Turns out he was purposefully injecting fentanyl, "chasing the dragon". There are people who will try anything, but they are far and few between the people who have no interest in these drugs. I'll never try heroin, whether it's legal or not. I'm sure neither will you, or canuckistani. Neither will most other people. So I think it's a misplaced fear. 

 

Canuckistani and I have already discussed the cultural aspect, so I won't get into that again. I do agree that many people aren't giving their kids the time they need. Also, I haven't researched this much, but non-resident father involvement is associated with better outcomes for the child, although I'm unsure if the outcomes are the same, or better or worse, than married/co-parents. That is to say, parents may not live together, but if they're involved, it may drastically reduce negative issues associated with single-parent households. 

 

Anyway, I'm grateful for the good discussion. Cheers!

 

1. Its a myth that prohibition fails. Prohibition, by nature of the term, is a deterrence based methodology. For it to work, the deterrence has to be strong enough. Prohibition has a stunning level of success in China, Indonesia, Malaysia and most of the middle east. They have 10 times less people per capita addicted to Heroin. Why ? Because their deterrence is a minimum 20 year prison sentence for usage. 

You cannot say a deterrence based system doesn't work,when the deterrence provided is insufficient. Its like saying threatening people's safety doesn't work for getting beat up, when your threat is 'if you beat me up, i will throw marshmallows at you'. Upgrade it to ' if you beat me up, i will shoot you' and it will have a significantly greater efficacy. 

 

2. Involvement of non-resident parent in the kids life has a better positive outcome on children's lives than single parenthood,but still does not make up the qualitative gap with couples raising their kids under one roof. This is because of the net supervised time per kid per week is greater when both parents live in the same domicile, than separate domiciles. 

I thought your position was that western world's drug problems are due to our family culture, as evidenced by this post:
 

Quote

 

If you argue that opiods are the same dosage threat to species homo sapiens as alcohol, i am sorry, you are COMPLETELY OUT TO LUNCH. 

 

Maybe the true issue would be to be instilled an anti-drug culture SINCE YOU ARE A KID IN A FAMILY. oh wait, i forgot. Western world doesnt believe in family values anymore and parents are just exes of each other who think raising kids is sharing babysitting time and costs. No wonder you guys have such a bad drug problem. 

 

As well, the countries you're mentioning have a rather abysmal human rights record. With that, I would rather err on the side of human rights and individual libertarianism than authoritarian, dictatorial regimes. 

 

I am not an expert on eastern drug policy at all, so I can't say much more than that.

[canuckistani]

9 minutes ago, Lockout Casualty said:

I thought your position was that western world's drug problems are due to our family culture, as evidenced by this post:

 

I didn't say ( or atleast i don't think i did) that our drug problem is solely due to family culture (or lack there-of). I think that plays a major part in the preventative element of the equation. In the 'curative' element, that's where deterrence is one of the options. 

Quote

 

As well, the countries you're mentioning have a rather abysmal human rights record. With that, I would rather err on the side of human rights and individual libertarianism than authoritarian, dictatorial regimes. 

That is irrelevant to the point of whether you go in for six months or 20 years. Authoritarianism has very little to do with the length of term, which arguably did work in the western world when we had greater sentencing 50 years ago. 

Edited March 1, 2019 by canuckistani

[CBH1926]

I am wondering how much prison time will the killer get, since it’s Canada probably not very much.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/man-found-guilty-of-manslaughter-for-fatal-one-punch-attack-in-burnaby-starbucks/ar-BBUiRUE?li=AAggNb9

[RUPERTKBD]

Some quick thinking teens prevented what could have been a tragedy on Grouse Mountain this weekend:

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/03/world/grouse-mountain-chairlift-rescue-trnd/index.html
 

Quote

Some teens are being hailed as quick-thinking rescuers for coming to the aid of an 8-year-old dangling from a chairlift at a Vancouver ski resort.

An 8-year-old boy on a chairlift at Grouse Mountain had slipped and was dangling, held up only by his father.

Fourteen-year-old James MacDonald, who had been skiing and snowboarding with his friends, told CNN that when he saw the boy, he didn't think the child would be able to hold on much longer.

"He was starting to flail about and get extremely panicked," MacDonald said.

MacDonald said he asked a man nearby to retrieve some orange netting typically used to indicate out-of-bounds areas. The idea was to stretch out that netting and use it to break the boy's fall.

By this time, MacDonald's friends had come down the hill they were skiing and pitched in to help, as did the man and a woman who was near the stopped chairlift.

Twelve-year-old Josh Ravensbergen said he and the man stripped some padding off a pole and put it on top of the netting as a cushion.

Ethan Harvey, another of the teens, said that while all this was going on, their friend Gabriel Neilson was trying to help the boy stay calm. Once everything was in place, Neilson told the child to take his skis off and asked his father to trust the young rescuers.

The father let go of the child, who dropped safely into the net.

Julia Grant, a spokesperson for Grouse Mountain, said in a statement that the child was attended to by the resort's patrol and sent to the hospital as a precautionary measure. He was found to have no injuries.

Grant added that an investigation of the incident, which happened on Wednesday, was underway.

"Safety is our top priority and we will be taking appropriate action based on the results of the investigation," the statement said.

Grant also said that Michael Cameron, the president of Grouse Mountain, met with the rescuers to thank them personally and that the resort gave each of them a complimentary season pass.

"Grouse Mountain is incredibly appreciative of those who assisted in Wednesday's chairlift incident," the statement said. "Their quick thinking and immediate actions are commendable."

 

Nice work boys...

[RUPERTKBD]

So, this is two positive stories for me in a row, ITT:

 

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/sisters-5-and-8-found-alive-in-california-wildnerness-after-44-hours/ar-BBUkSGk?li=AAggNb9

Quote

 

The county sheriff is calling it an "absolute miracle." Two young sisters were found in good spirits Sunday after being missing in the California wildnerness for 44 hours.

Leia and Caroline Carrico, 8 and 5, were last seen Friday afternoon by their home in the northern community of Benbow, the Associated Press reported. They were found by a local fire chief and firefighter about a mile and a half away in a wooded area.

Humboldt County Sheriff William Honsal said the girls were trained in outdoor survival techniques by their 4-H club. Along with their granola bars and rain boots, they were able to survive getting lost.

The girls' disappearance launched a massive search, and rescuers were able to follow their boot prints and granola wrappers. Leia and Caroline were found cold and dehydrated but in good spirits.

“This is an absolute miracle,” he said. “This is rugged territory, this is an extreme environment. How they were out there for 44 hours is pretty amazing.”

Lt. Mike Fridley was the one who gave the girls' mom the good news.

“She melted on the phone,” he said.

Survival expert Shane Hobel said every child should be taught the basics of what to do if they get lost in the woods.

"One of the best ways to navigate brier and bramble and any of these thorns is when in doubt, you can step on the plant and it just mashes it down. Don’t forget there are game paths and trails out there," he told Inside Edition. 

 

I never thought I'd be grateful for 4H, but there you go....

[CBH1926]

On 2/27/2019 at 12:15 AM, Ryan Strome said:

You are giving India far to much credit. Their air force is one of the most outdated in the world, they still fly early 60s soviet jets.

 

I was more referring to yet another potential show down between the super powers. India helped alongside Russia building Russias new 5th gen fighter and Pakistan received huge funding from the US. Those are both facts.

 

I don't want to burst your bubble but India and Pakistan would be annihilated by the US or Russia. Again, neither would use a nuke as they would again be annihilated and just so you know both the US and Russia have the capabilities to stop either country from using a nuke.

 

Your guaranteed response is not fact at all and you spelled it wrong. I guess we are all human, even the academics.

Even Pakistan Air Force is eating their lunch, I can’t believe that they still use that old MIG 21 pile of garbage.

That thing was a piece of $&!# when I was a youngster, which was long time ago.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/after-india-loses-dogfight-to-pakistan-questions-arise-about-its-vintage-military/ar-BBUkoy7?li=BBnb7Kz

[Ryan Strome]

1 hour ago, CBH1926 said:

Even Pakistan Air Force is eating their lunch, I can’t believe that they still use that old MIG 21 pile of garbage.

That thing was a piece of $&!# when I was a youngster, which was long time ago.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/after-india-loses-dogfight-to-pakistan-questions-arise-about-its-vintage-military/ar-BBUkoy7?li=BBnb7Kz

India has a large land force but outside of that they are 2 to 3 decades behind the West and Russia in technology and capabilities. India was a joint partner in Russia's 5th gen fighter you think they would build those by the hundreds.

 

They're flying those 60s jets against f16s... Good luck lol.

[Ryan Strome]

@CBH1926 at this rate India better slow things down.

 

Pakistan's Navy claims it prevented Indian submarine from entering its waters (VIDEO)

https://www.rt.com/news/453038-pakistan-navy-submarine-india/

[Gurn]

Medical news, of note for Aids and HIV folk.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/hiv-positive-man-is-2nd-known-adult-worldwide-to-be-cleared-of-aids-virus/ar-BBUnyUe?ocid=spartandhp

LONDON- An HIV-positive man in Britain has become the second known adult worldwide to be cleared of the AIDS virus after he received a bone marrow transplant from an HIV resistant donor, his doctors said.

Almost three years after receiving bone marrow stem cells from a donor with a rare genetic mutation that resists HIV infection - and more than 18 months after coming off antiretroviral drugs - highly sensitive tests still show no trace of the man's previous HIV infection.

"There is no virus there that we can measure. We can't detect anything," said Ravindra Gupta, a professor and HIV biologist who co-led a team of doctors treating the man.

The case is a proof of the concept that scientists will one day be able to end AIDS, the doctors said, but does not mean a cure for HIV has been found.

Gupta described his patient as "functionally cured" and "in remission", but cautioned: "It's too early to say he's cured."

The man is being called "the London patient", in part because his case is similar to the first known case of a functional cure of HIV - in an American man, Timothy Brown, who became known as the Berlin patient when he underwent similar treatment in Germany in 2007 which also cleared his HIV.

Brown, who had been living in Berlin, has since moved to the United States and, according to HIV experts, is still HIV-free.

Some 37 million people worldwide are currently infected with HIV and the AIDS pandemic has killed around 35 million people worldwide since it began in the 1980s. Scientific research into the complex virus has in recent years led to the development of drug combinations that can keep it at bay in most patients.

Gupta, now at Cambridge University, treated the London patient when he was working at University College London. The man had contracted HIV in 2003, Gupta said, and in 2012 was also diagnosed with a type of blood cancer called Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

In 2016, when he was very sick with cancer, doctors decided to seek a transplant match for him. "This was really his last chance of survival," Gupta told Reuters in an interview.

The donor - who was unrelated - had a genetic mutation known as 'CCR5 delta 32', which confers resistance to HIV.

The transplant went relatively smoothly, Gupta said, but there were some side effects, including the patient suffering a period of "graft-versus-host" disease - a condition in which donor immune cells attack the recipient's immune cells.

Most experts say it is inconceivable such treatments could be a way of curing all patients. The procedure is expensive, complex and risky. To do this in others, exact match donors would have to be found in the tiny proportion of people — most of them of northern European descent — who have the CCR5 mutation that makes them resistant to the virus.

Specialists said it is also not yet clear whether the CCR5 resistance is the only key - or whether the graft versus host disease may have been just as important. Both the Berlin and London patients had this complication, which may have played a role in the loss of HIV-infected cells, Gupta said.

Sharon Lewin, an expert at Australia's Doherty Institute and co-chair of the International AIDS Society's cure research advisory board, told Reuters the London case points to new avenues for study.

"We haven't cured HIV, but (this) gives us hope that it's going to be feasible one day to eliminate the virus," she said.

Gupta said his team plans to use these findings to explore potential new HIV treatment strategies. "We need to understand if we could knock out this (CCR5) receptor in people with HIV, which may be possible with gene therapy," he said.

The London patient, whose case was set to be reported in the journal Nature and presented at a medical conference in Seattle on Tuesday, has asked his medical team not to reveal his name, age, nationality or other details.

[RUPERTKBD]

This is not good news:

 

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/entertainment/celebrity/alex-trebek-announces-cancer-diagnosis/ar-BBUsIeJ

Quote

LOS ANGELES, Canada - Alex Trebek has been diagnosed with stage four pancreatic cancer.

The Sudbury, Ont.-born game-show host announced the news in a video posted on the "Jeopardy!" YouTube channel.

Trebek says he wanted to announce the news himself to prevent fans "from reading or hearing some overblown or inaccurate reports."

He acknowledges the prognosis for stage four pancreatic cancer "is not very encouraging."

But he adds that he's "going to fight this" and "going to keep working."

The 78-year-old says with love, support and prayers, he plans "to beat the low survival rate statistics for this disease."

"Truth told — I have to, because under the terms of my contract, I have to host 'Jeopardy!' for three more years," he said jokingly in the video.

"So help me: keep the faith and we'll win. We'll get it done. Thank you."

 

Pancreatic Cancer has one of the lower survival rates....

[bishopshodan]

7 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

This is not good news:

 

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/entertainment/celebrity/alex-trebek-announces-cancer-diagnosis/ar-BBUsIeJ

Pancreatic Cancer has one of the lower survival rates....

Made a sad post about this Cancer just today in another thread.

 

Sad new for sure. Fight Alex, finish that contract. 

[canuckistani]

On 3/4/2019 at 8:53 PM, Ryan Strome said:

India has a large land force but outside of that they are 2 to 3 decades behind the West and Russia in technology and capabilities. India was a joint partner in Russia's 5th gen fighter you think they would build those by the hundreds.

 

They're flying those 60s jets against f16s... Good luck lol.

Well historically their Air Force has been their weakest link. However, you are selling the Indian Navy short- until recently (as in 5 years ago) , they were the clear-cut #1 Asian navy by a long,long shot and comparable to Western navies not named USN or RN. 

 

Russian air products have a trade-off with the western designed air products - they tend to be 3x cheaper in flyaway condition and around 2-3x more expensive per flying hours to maintain. So their dilemma is obvious. They may also be nosing in for a F-35 position instead of Russia's 5th gen fighter. 

 

PS: They are claiming their MiG-21 shot down a F-16. If so ( and i have no reason not to believe the IAF, usually one of the most reliable military wings in Asia in terms of their claims), thats quite a feather in the MiG-21's cap. 

PPS: Nobody flies the original MiG-21 anymore. The airframe and engine are original, the avionics, radar, etc are all new in all operational ones and have been for all the air forces that fly them. As such, its quality is that of an interceptor, not a dog-fighter. 

[Ryan Strome]

2 hours ago, canuckistani said:

Well historically their Air Force has been their weakest link. However, you are selling the Indian Navy short- until recently (as in 5 years ago) , they were the clear-cut #1 Asian navy by a long,long shot and comparable to Western navies not named USN or RN. 

 

Russian air products have a trade-off with the western designed air products - they tend to be 3x cheaper in flyaway condition and around 2-3x more expensive per flying hours to maintain. So their dilemma is obvious. They may also be nosing in for a F-35 position instead of Russia's 5th gen fighter. 

 

PS: They are claiming their MiG-21 shot down a F-16. If so ( and i have no reason not to believe the IAF, usually one of the most reliable military wings in Asia in terms of their claims), thats quite a feather in the MiG-21's cap. 

PPS: Nobody flies the original MiG-21 anymore. The airframe and engine are original, the avionics, radar, etc are all new in all operational ones and have been for all the air forces that fly them. As such, its quality is that of an interceptor, not a dog-fighter. 

The British navy consists of like 5 or 6 Destroyers and I think 12 frigates. They finally got an air craft carrier, I wouldn't be surprised if India were further ahead. The RN greatness is a thing of the past.

 

 I doubt the US will sell the F35 to India and the F35 has the highest flight hours of any modern jet.

Edited March 7, 2019 by Ryan Strome