Jump to content

U.S. Politics: Huff and Puff the Socialism away


Guest

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Pharma might have started it, but the crime and despair and issues that the drug use has caused is not in any way particularly different. The big difference is that the people who are addicted are white. 

He's right, you know.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the race politics may be significant, especially as part of neo-ploetzian rassenhygiene--but the opioid addiction rates are not a matter for criminal law precisely because the narcotics have been issued pursuant to physician orders and distributed under DEA regulation.  like most else under capitalism, the worst offenses against sense and decency are patently lawful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

How is it different? How are heroin overdoses now different than crack overdoses or heroin overdoes in the 1990s? How are people dying in drug deals different now than they were in the 90s? How are people getting high and stealing to keep their addiction going different now than they are in the 1990s?

Pharma might have started it, but the crime and despair and issues that the drug use has caused is not in any way particularly different. The big difference is that the people who are addicted are white. 

That's the big difference, thus the difference in treatment and the criminal justice side of it.  It's basically being treated how we deal with alcohol, although even within prescription opioids and alcohol I'd imagine you'd see a very different approach when race is considered.

 

6 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

While I generally agree with you, hasn’t the opioid crisis been different than other drug problems? Doctors weren’t pushing cocaine, heroin, LSD, meth or other drugs on patients the way they pushed opioids on patients. Drug cartels got the blame for most drug problems, but pharmaceutical companies certainly deserved the blame for the spread of opioids. Drug dealers are in on the action now, but it was the medical profession that got the ball rolling.

Wtf?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

and work in an office.

And many of those offices are doctor's offices at that! 

And yet so many people in the so-called 'health profession' wonder why so many of us don't trust doctors, hospitals, drugs, meds and all the rest.

They have been aggressively pushing blood pressure medication at me for years.  I honestly didn't think I had high blood pressure despite the readings.  I hated the process, the people and everything else about even trying to get an appointment etc increasingly for years, and my BP kept going up -- and the first thing that is done is take the BP.  The second to last time mine was done, I'd been left to sit in the specialist's office for an hour beyond when my appointment was scheduled, while also getting to this very high end medical practice and hour before the appointment for paper work etc.  The first thing she did was argue with me about me going on medication.

Only two weeks ago I had an entirely different process in a very different situation for taking my BP -- which began with the person talking with me, listening to me, getting to know my life style, etc., very nice person, for whom I began to feel a liking.  Then he decided I was calm, took my BP and it was way down there in the safe-normal zone for the first time since 9/11.  We've done again to double check.  "You don't need BP medication at all," he said.

How many people then are on BP medications right this minute who not only do not need to be, but shouldn't be?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, sologdin said:

the race politics may be significant, especially as part of neo-ploetzian rassenhygiene--but the opioid addiction rates are not a matter for criminal law precisely because the narcotics have been issued pursuant to physician orders and distributed under DEA regulation.  like most else under capitalism, the worst offenses against sense and decency are patently lawful.

That's incorrect. While that's how many got hooked it isn't how they stay hooked or get their fix. They're doing illegal drugs now, long after their prescriptions are gone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Wtf?

To be fair to FB, big pharma has indeed not been able to capitalize on any type of acid/shrooms substitute I'm aware of.  And if they have, and you know how to get some, please PM me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DMC said:

Possibly, sure.  That would be the "location causes change in political preferences" direction as opposed to "political preferences cause change in location" direction.  Generally, I trend towards the "stable partisanship" school of thought, which would mean migrants over a certain age (say, 25) should not be changing their partisanship based on where they live or even who they socialize with.  What's always surprised me about the research is it's often found that, yes, migrants actually do change their partisanship to conform to their new location.  But overall, my prior is the "political preferences cause change in location" has a considerably stronger impact on geographic sorting than location changing an individual's attitudes.

Quick question about this. When assessing political changes, is the research focusing on people with fixed views changing or does it also include people without fixed views initially, because I think the latter have a good chance to shift based on where they lived?

5 hours ago, DMC said:

What is well-established across studies in a number of subfields of political behavior, however, is that simple exposure to alternative points of view does not usually lead to a change in attitudes.

Another question about the research. What constitutes "exposure?" Are we comparing people who visit a place that's very different politically for a short period of time (say two weeks) or is the research looking at long term exposure, which in my mind means immersion? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Zorral said:

And many of those offices are doctor's offices at that! 

And yet so many people in the so-called 'health profession' wonder why so many of us don't trust doctors, hospitals, drugs, meds and all the rest.

They have been aggressively pushing blood pressure medication at me for years.  I honestly didn't think I had high blood pressure despite the readings.  I hated the process, the people and everything else about even trying to get an appointment etc increasingly for years, and my BP kept going up -- and the first thing that is done is take the BP.  The second to last time mine was done, I'd been left to sit in the specialist's office for an hour beyond when my appointment was scheduled, while also getting to this very high end medical practice and hour before the appointment for paper work etc.  The first thing she did was argue with me about me going on medication.

Only two weeks ago I had an entirely different process in a very different situation for taking my BP -- which began with the person talking with me, listening to me, getting to know my life style, etc., very nice person, for whom I began to feel a liking.  Then he decided I was calm, took my BP and it was way down there in the safe-normal zone for the first time since 9/11.  We've done again to double check.  "You don't need BP medication at all," he said.

How many people then are on BP medications right this minute who not only do not need to be, but shouldn't be?

 

 

My 99% rule of thumb is, unless you feel sick, or some specific thing is annoying you, don't go to the doctor. The 1% is for known risk factors like history of prostate cancer in the family: get checks every 5 years or so, FOR THAT THING ONLY.

The whole medical profession has perverse incentives: Doctors only get paid when people are sick. Doctors are only needed because there are sick people. To support the medical industry people need to keep getting sick. Doctors, individually, almost all are motivated to help people have good health. But they can't afford for people to be so healthy that they don't need a doctor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, DMC said:

To be fair to FB, big pharma has indeed not been able to capitalize on any type of acid/shrooms substitute I'm aware of.  And if they have, and you know how to get some, please PM me.

Can't you micro-dose boomers these days? 

Also, quit being lazy, roll up your shirt sleeves and pant legs, and plant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

How is it different? How are heroin overdoses now different than crack overdoses or heroin overdoes in the 1990s? How are people dying in drug deals different now than they were in the 90s? How are people getting high and stealing to keep their addiction going different now than they are in the 1990s?

Pharma might have started it, but the crime and despair and issues that the drug use has caused is not in any way particularly different. The big difference is that the people who are addicted are white. 

Don’t be silly, the deaths and despair are the same. The paths were different. The heroin addicts were victims of criminal activity, and people passed laws against the sale of those drugs and spent, what, trillions of dollars over the years trying to end their use. We can discuss for a month of Sundays why the ‘war on drugs’ was an abject failure without being able to figure out a resolution.

The opioid addicts were victims of a legal substance, approved by the government, approved by the medical community. The same community that condemned the users of all the other street drugs previously discussed, the people who wanted the drug dealers and the drug users jailed, have had a lot more sympathy for the opioid users. You say that’s because they’re mostly white (I’m sure lots of PoC who got into accidents or injured themselves were prescribed opioids as well) and I think it’s because people have been angry over the big lie, ‘OxyContin is not addictive’, a lie their doctors fell for hook, line and sinker. There is no Big Pharma company that the heroin addict or the meth addict or the cocaine addict can sue for damages. Besides, they used illegal drugs. The legal channels used by the manufacturers of opioids is why it’s different.

This seems so fundamental to me I don’t understand why you can’t see it. The users of illegal drugs are viewed as dirt bags that many Americans don’t want to help. The victims of opioids were failed by corporate America, by the medical establishment and by the government. Ergo, it’s not their fault!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

When assessing political changes, is the research focusing on people with fixed views changing or does it also include people without fixed views initially, because I think the latter have a good chance to shift based on where they lived?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "fixed views" here.  As in their partisanship is stable over time (I guess before they move)?  Or as in whether they're "strong" partisans, which would be operationalized on a Likert scale?  If it's the latter, yeah, that's how most of the ideology and/or partisanship variables are gonna be operationalized if it's based on individual-level data.  If it's the former, I do think there've been some panel studies that touch on that, but you're gonna see a lot less of those simply because the data collection is much more expensive/time-consuming. 

16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

What constitutes "exposure?" Are we comparing people who visit a place that's very different politically for a short period of time (say two weeks) or is the research looking at long term exposure, which in my mind means immersion? 

The latter in the context of this discussion - I don't think I've seen any studies on exposure based on, like, a vacation - but what I was talking about there was that the null finding is reliable across a lot of different subfields, and thus a lot of different ways to design the study theoretically, substantively, and methodologically.

17 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Can't you micro-dose boomers these days? 

Also, quit being lazy, roll up your shirt sleeves and pant legs, and plant.

I have no idea.  And never!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of incentives:

Quote

De Blasio wants ‘Meatless Mondays’ for Riker’s Island inmates

New York Post, By Gabrielle Fonrouge December 2, 2019 At least gruel is vegetarian friendly.  An ambitious plan from Mayor Bill de Blasio to implement meatless Mondays is extending to inmates on Riker’s Island,

Not sure why Riker's Island only. But I think as a deterrence for criminal behaviour perhaps prisons should go 100% vegan. If the thought of being locked up for several years isn't enough to stop you from committing crime, perhaps the thought of being forced to be vegan have an effect. And if not, apparently one of the magical properties of being vegan is that you become a nicer person, so vegan prisons may help with rehabilitation.

Unintended consequence could be an increase in vegan crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Don’t be silly, the deaths and despair are the same. The paths were different. The heroin addicts were victims of criminal activity, and people passed laws against the sale of those drugs and spent, what, trillions of dollars over the years trying to end their use. We can discuss for a month of Sundays why the ‘war on drugs’ was an abject failure without being able to figure out a resolution.

The opioid addicts were victims of a legal substance, approved by the government, approved by the medical community. The same community that condemned the users of all the other street drugs previously discussed, the people who wanted the drug dealers and the drug users jailed, have had a lot more sympathy for the opioid users. You say that’s because they’re mostly white (I’m sure lots of PoC who got into accidents or injured themselves were prescribed opioids as well) and I think it’s because people have been angry over the big lie, ‘OxyContin is not addictive’, a lie their doctors fell for hook, line and sinker. There is no Big Pharma company that the heroin addict or the meth addict or the cocaine addict can sue for damages. Besides, they used illegal drugs. The legal channels used by the manufacturers of opioids is why it’s different.

This seems so fundamental to me I don’t understand why you can’t see it. The users of illegal drugs are viewed as dirt bags that many Americans don’t want to help. The victims of opioids were failed by corporate America, by the medical establishment and by the government. Ergo, it’s not their fault!

I'm gonna just assume this is some world class trolling, because the possibility that you're this ignorant about things isn't really worth considering. Kudos!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Don’t be silly, the deaths and despair are the same. The paths were different. The heroin addicts were victims of criminal activity, and people passed laws against the sale of those drugs and spent, what, trillions of dollars over the years trying to end their use. We can discuss for a month of Sundays why the ‘war on drugs’ was an abject failure without being able to figure out a resolution.

The opioid addicts were victims of a legal substance, approved by the government, approved by the medical community. The same community that condemned the users of all the other street drugs previously discussed, the people who wanted the drug dealers and the drug users jailed, have had a lot more sympathy for the opioid users. You say that’s because they’re mostly white (I’m sure lots of PoC who got into accidents or injured themselves were prescribed opioids as well) and I think it’s because people have been angry over the big lie, ‘OxyContin is not addictive’, a lie their doctors fell for hook, line and sinker. There is no Big Pharma company that the heroin addict or the meth addict or the cocaine addict can sue for damages. Besides, they used illegal drugs. The legal channels used by the manufacturers of opioids is why it’s different.

This seems so fundamental to me I don’t understand why you can’t see it. The users of illegal drugs are viewed as dirt bags that many Americans don’t want to help. The victims of opioids were failed by corporate America, by the medical establishment and by the government. Ergo, it’s not their fault!

i think part of the issue here is it’s unclear where you are making your own moral judgement here vs what might be called ‘commonly held attitude’ towards persons with substance use disorders. because reading it the way i assume kalbear is, it seems you are claiming a substantive distinction between two groups of predatory cartels driven completely by desire for maximum profits solely by dint of some minor technicalities 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

 

This seems so fundamental to me I don’t understand why you can’t see it. The users of illegal drugs are viewed as dirt bags that many Americans don’t want to help. The victims of opioids were failed by corporate America, by the medical establishment and by the government. Ergo, it’s not their fault!



Like there is truth in what you say but if you genuinely think there's no race element to the reactions and depiction of the opiod crisis I really dunno what to say. Especially given that white users of illegal drugs are given massively more sympathy by the system than PoC users, a truth that you don't have too look further than incarceration percentages for drug offences to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, parody account said:

black patients are less likely to be prescribed opioids than white patients, and more than twice as likely to be screened for ‘illicit’ drug use and have their prescription terminated if testing positive 

I believe I heard that research has shown that black patients are less likely to be believed by their doctors that they're in pain.  I came in initially to point out how messed up that is but all of the sudden wonder if it didn't, in a perverse way, spare a few folks from opiate addiction.  Doctor's racial bias helped you out and screwed the white kid, for once.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Kalbear said:

That's incorrect. While that's how many got hooked it isn't how they stay hooked or get their fix. They're doing illegal drugs now, long after their prescriptions are gone. 

Some do. Some don't.  My dad died of an accidental overdose and when the cops went to his bathroom they said he had enough prescribed opioids in there to kill everyone in the house.  He had been getting that prescription for over 2 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Harris dropping out, whatever you think of her merits as a candidate, I do find it a sad indictment of where the US Presidential race stands today. Harris wasn't perfect - I wish she'd been a better candidate, quite frankly - but she was a long way better than some of the people that remain. There's no doubt that part of the reason that she's gone is that a black woman finds it harder to get big donors to fork out, and for that matter to get favourable media coverage, than a white man does. And it should really worry people that an experienced senator from arguably the most important single state in the country is gone but the field still has two billionaire vanity candidates. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...