4863 replies to this topic

[Nparker]

I disagree with you generally but that was pretty funny imagery.

It was a bit Monty Python-esque.

[JoshRH]

I'll keep this in mind the next time I step on a potentially lethal sugar packet lying in the grass of a city park or when an insurance salesman viciously yells at me when I am walking down the street simply for glancing in his direction. And let's not forget the hordes of bankers dashing into the street without warning putting themselves and drivers in danger. It's a corporate jungle out there folks!

I know it's fun to neglect relativity in favour of your own anecdotal-based ideology, but you'll never get anywhere without understanding the real causes and consequences of poverty. 

 

Take the 2008 economic collapse, for example. We all know that it was caused by bankers. Did you know that over 500,000 additional cancer deaths from 2008 to 2010 are attributed to the collapse? Rise in unemployment, less access to healthcare, more cancer deaths. Simple and irrefutable. 

 

Do you think the 2008 economic collapse that caused an additional 500,000 cancer deaths in a couple of years may have also played a role in increased levels of homelessness and substance use disorders? But silly me for finding bankers to be more offensive than low-level drug dealers, right? Because drugs are bad, right?

[LeoVictoria]

^ You are serious right? Half of this threat is discussing how drug abuse had left to poverty and homelessness and you think that it is no big deal?

 

I have no objection at all to someone snorting or shooting anything they want or living in a ditch if that is their choice - right up until the point where they expect me to start paying for their treatment or care.

 

I too have no problem with someone getting cancer and needing some high power drugs to treat them - right up until the point where they expect me to start paying for it!

[LeoVictoria]

Because drugs are bad, right?

 

Drugs are bad mmmmmkay?

[Nparker]

...Did you know that over 500,000 additional cancer deaths from 2008 to 2010 are attributed to the collapse? Rise in unemployment, less access to healthcare, more cancer deaths. Simple and irrefutable.

OK that's pushing it a bit. I'd like to see some verifiable medical studies that support this theory. Whose to say that some, if not all, of those people would have developed cancer regardless of the financial collapse? A good deal of evidence today suggests that many cancers have a genetic link and that lifestyle and access to health care won't stop the cancer from manifesting.  

 

I lost a good chunk of change in the economic downturn (about 1/4 of my net worth) and you know what I did? I just kept on working and hoped my investments would come back. I also lost thousands of dollars in the leaky condo crisis some 15 years ago and to the best of my knowledge have not developed cancer from that.

I am far from capitalism's biggest champion, but for heaven's sake not every single negative event in human existence can be blamed on banks and for-profit businesses.

[Layne French]

OK that's pushing it a bit. I'd like to see some verifiable medical studies that support this theory. Whose to say that some, if not all, of those people would have developed cancer regardless of the financial collapse? A good deal of evidence today suggests that many cancers have a genetic link and that lifestyle and access to health care won't stop the cancer from manifesting.  

 

I lost a good chunk of change in the economic downturn (about 1/4 of my net worth) and you know what I did? I just kept on working and hoped my investments would come back. I also lost thousands of dollars in the leaky condo crisis some 15 years ago and to the best of my knowledge have not developed cancer from that.

I am far from capitalism's biggest champion, but for heaven's sake not every single negative event in human existence can be blamed on banks and for-profit businesses.

I'd imagine you lived in a location that had a single pay healthcare system? Victoria. I lived in SF at the time and there were thousands who lost their jobs which by extension resulted in loosing access to their health benefits and medical insurance. I would say it would be nearly impossible to quantify the amount of this happening but it surely happened.

Would some of the cancer deaths have happen at some point? yes.  but I feel what he is saying is that a certain amount of deaths from cancer can be tied to the downturn in the economy, in that it was the economy that allowed for the death to happen at that point. 

The other way of looking at what he is saying is? If the downturn hadn't have happened would those facing cancer have had the ability to attain medical treatment prolonging their lives? did they forego treatment due to economic constraint?

 

*Opps I only skimmed his argument my bad, however I left this response up anyways. Disregard some of the cross over.

Edited by Layne French, 22 September 2016 - 09:30 AM.

[lanforod]

Everything in moderation gets destroyed by addiction. Addiction to something that harms you is bad. Drugs are bad. Drug dealers are bad for feeding that addiction. I strongly believe we are far too lenient on drug dealers.

[Nparker]

... I would say it would be nearly impossible to quantify the amount of this happening....

this

[JoshRH]

OK that's pushing it a bit. I'd like to see some verifiable medical studies that support this theory. Whose to say that some, if not all, of those people would have developed cancer regardless of the financial collapse? A good deal of evidence today suggests that many cancers have a genetic link and that lifestyle and access to health care won't stop the cancer from manifesting.  

 

I lost a good chunk of change in the economic downturn (about 1/4 of my net worth) and you know what I did? I just kept on working and hoped my investments would come back. I also lost thousands of dollars in the leaky condo crisis some 15 years ago and to the best of my knowledge have not developed cancer from that.

I am far from capitalism's biggest champion, but for heaven's sake not every single negative event in human existence can be blamed on banks and for-profit businesses.

Oh neat, a layperson discounting peer-reviewed science because it doesn't fit into his narrative. 

 

http://www.thelancet...0577-8/abstract

 

http://www.telegraph...according-to-l/

[spanky123]

Are you high? 

 

The USA has done little to protect domestic manufacturing post-WW2, and as the world's largest economy goes, so too goes it's largest trading partner. Since then, growth in executive compensation has outpaced worker's wages exponentially, and the large corporations have increasingly used tax loopholes to move profit offshore. All while corporate tax rates, once nearly equal to personal tax rates, have fallen and fallen and fallen. And while all of that is going on, the ruling class in the USA has manufactured war after war, transferring trillions of taxpayer dollars into the pockets of the military industrial complex. Top it off with bankers stealing billions and billions of dollars from the middle class and their pension funds, getting caught, getting bailed out by the taxpayers, and doing it all over again.

 

And you blame "the welfare state" for the plight of the middle class? Good grief. 

 

The tax loopholes, corporate rates and thieving bankers all exist because people keep electing the politicians who allow it to happen. You are right, the rich don't pay for anything as they know how to protect their assets, it is the middle class that is supporting the welfare state and the more that we hand out to the poor the more poor people we create.

 

The anger and violence we see in the US is what Trump is feeding on. The entitlement system is a huge component of that.

Edited by spanky123, 22 September 2016 - 11:15 AM.

[JoshRH]

The tax loopholes, corporate rates and thieving bankers all exist because people keep electing the politicians who allow it to happen. You are right, the rich don't pay for anything as they know how to protect their assets, it is the middle class that is supporting the welfare state and the more that we hand out to the poor the more poor people we create.

 

The anger and violence we see in the US is what Trump is feeding on. The entitlement system is a huge component of that.

People don't want to be poor, homeless, and addicted to drugs. 

 

There is clear evidence of wealth aggregating upwards into the hands of fewer people, and staying there. That is why we have more poor people, not because they are lazy or want to be that way. 

 

[Layne French]

this

 

you do realize I was referencing that having a simple number (quantifying) to describe a social phenomenon is missing a large portion of the story. Those that attempt to project a figure is just that a projection which if we looked into the peer reviewed journals would probably suggest the number was higher than his estimate right? 

I wasn't discounting his story as much as discounted the fallacy created when one attempts to applying strictly quantitative data to social phenomenon, which would require a mixed methods approach in either Qual-quant or at minimum Quant-qual to be really inclusive. By inclusive it looks at not just deaths from government cut backs but looks at deaths from social factors related to economic crisis such as those questions i posted earlier.  

Would the individual have survived if he didn't feel an economic constraint to health care costs etc. Getting that info is very difficult as how many people want to admit they are too poor to get a life saving medical treatment etc.

Edited by Layne French, 22 September 2016 - 12:37 PM.

[SimonH]

'Bionic' opioid 100 times stronger than fentanyl may already be on Canadian streets

 

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...ealth-1.3769774

 

Sadly it looks like many more lives will be put at risk.

[RFS]

I know it's fun to neglect relativity in favour of your own anecdotal-based ideology, but you'll never get anywhere without understanding the real causes and consequences of poverty.

Take the 2008 economic collapse, for example. We all know that it was caused by bankers. Did you know that over 500,000 additional cancer deaths from 2008 to 2010 are attributed to the collapse? Rise in unemployment, less access to healthcare, more cancer deaths. Simple and irrefutable.

Do you think the 2008 economic collapse that caused an additional 500,000 cancer deaths in a couple of years may have also played a role in increased levels of homelessness and substance use disorders? But silly me for finding bankers to be more offensive than low-level drug dealers, right? Because drugs are bad, right?

Too bad those cancer victims didn't live in the socialist paradises of the world like north Korea or Venezuela. Then they could die of starvation long before they got cancer.
Capitalism is responsible for the best medical technology and advances in human history.
Josh you live in an alternate universe and you have an abrasive way of talking to others. My 2 cents

[Greg]

There's an international meeting taking place regarding drugs, and they're looking to the Portugal model as an example of a better way to handle substance use disorders rather than criminalization. The police are just smarter than you, and they know that no matter how many dealers they arrest, there will be more to take their place, because there's money to be made. That's why the Portugal model works, because by regulating and controlling all drugs, you eliminate the need for dealers. If you want to stay clean, less likely to have someone 'pushing' the drug on you when the government controls a clean and reliable supply.

 

You seem to be throwing the "Portugal model" about without any real effort to accurately describe it. I am unaware of any manner in which the model could be said to "regulate and control all drugs." It merely makes simple possession into an administrative offense (but does not make it "legal"). People cited for an administrative offense and deemed to be addicts are very strongly pushed towards a treatment program. People who are determined to be addicts and unwilling to enter rehabilitation can be fined, banned from certain locations, and have their public assistance taken away.

 

Portugal still arrests, prosecutes, and jails drug dealers.

 

So really, a lot of what folks in this thread have suggested, from pushing harder for rehab to hassling dealers is completely congruent with the Portugal model, right?

[JoshRH]

So really, a lot of what folks in this thread have suggested, from pushing harder for rehab to hassling dealers is completely congruent with the Portugal model, right?

A lot of folks in this thread are not putting forward anything congruent with the Portugal model and I'll explain why. 

 

Portugal shifted their entire drug policy to treat substance use disorders as a disease, and they flipped their funding on it's head. In a country like the USA, $9 out of every $10 spent on drug policy is for the criminal aspect, policing and jailing. The other $1 is for prevention and treatment. In Portugal, the $9 goes towards prevention and treatment, and the $1 goes towards policing. What that bought them was a huge decline in transmission of disease, mainly HIV/AIDS, and a huge decline in overdose deaths, to one of the lowest rates in Europe. 

 

In this thread, we still have a bunch of dinosaurs arguing that substance use disorders are not a mental illness. 

[A Girl is No one]

Josh, I'm sorry but the fact that you resort to insulting anyone who has a different perspective from you certainly points to a lack of open mindedness. You mentioned before that science itself has a way of changing its mind (what's good for you today may become tomorrow's must not). Good science that is. And good science must always continue to seek the truth and answers. It never rests until something has been proven without a doubt and even then....

We are light years away from having proven anything about addiction and homelessness so it's highly premature to declare you have "the truth".

Your behaviour is right up there with that of members of the Flat Earth Society. IMHO.

Please respect others' point of view. Healthy sharing of ideas is the best way to evolve as a society.

[JoshRH]

The scientific and medical communities agree that substance use disorders are a mental illness, but stating that as a fact puts me right up there with members of the Flat Earth Society? 

 

You can't make this stuff up...

[LeoVictoria]

The scientific and medical communities agree that substance use disorders are a mental illness, but stating that as a fact puts me right up there with members of the Flat Earth Society? 

 

You can't make this stuff up...

 

Don't go into the global warming thread, your head would explode.   

Unfortunately an understanding or even acceptance of scientific findings is not this forum's strong suit.   

[A Girl is No one]

Most of the scientists of that time also agreed that the earth was flat and laughed and insulted (and worse) those that didn't agree. The point is, it's important to keep an open mind.