It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
Well, I could teach you economics but it seems no matter who I source my information from, unless it's one of Trump's quacks like Navarro, you wouldn't care.
Open borders wouldn't change the flow of heroin, it's basic economics.
So long as the cost of supplying a product is less than profit, people will find a way to get said product.
And the heroin epidemic has only become worse because of the opioid crisis. If it was due to open borders, and solely open borders, this issue wouldn't have just started to increase in the past 5-10 years.
Three out of four heroin addicts started out by using prescription drugs, according a recent survey, which is part of a growing body of evidence that many of today’s heroin users are shifting from prescription pill addiction to heroin addiction.
Prescriptions opioids may have been the primary problem before, but now the supply is highly regulated, with strict enforcement of the law.
As such, those with opioid problems have turned to a cheaper, widely available alternative, heroin from Mexico. People like you fight to keep the borders open, which allows the easy flow of heroin to continue.
You are the problem.
Also, the true irony lies in a weak-minded NE leftist like yourself pretending to care about working-class white people in the heartland. No one buys it.
On an average US day:
-More than 650,000 opioid prescriptions are dispensed.
-3,900 people initiate non-medical use of opioids
-580 people initiate heroin use.
Yes, far more so than before but not nearly enough in my opinion.
It's great when the information you post contradicts your argument. The two years in your chart (2013) show a decline.
It's still a serious problem, I don't remember ever saying it wasn't. It's also true that each year the access to prescription opioids is becoming more difficult. Again, not nearly enough though.
That said, there has been a spike in heroin use more recently that I attribute to its cheaper price and easy access, relative to synthetics.
Your argument seems to be that there is no point in controlling the flow of heroin across the border because "pill mills" are the real problem.
That's an asinine argument. Both problems need to be dealt with seriously.
Also, I'm always entertained when you post long studies or reports that you haven't even read, usually from the first page of a Google search.
Oh, and this relates to work, those articles are taken from my work folders. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that HHS and .gov websites often have the best data for drug statistics.
.MASSHOLE.Bolded and underlined indicates that you think it is no longer the primary problem.
It is.
The rise in opioid addictions and prescription coincides with the rise in heroin. But the rise in opioid addiction preceded heroin by a few years.
Hence why if you want to prevent new addicts, you control the opioids, not the heroin. The data shows that 3/4 opioid users turn to heroin.
Oh, and that graph reduction is due to the reduction in methadone, not all opioids. Look at the graphs in the second post. Synthetic are on the rise.
At this point you're simply arguing semantics and interpretation.
According to the data heroin overdose deaths are still significantly above the rate for synthetic opioids.
Though you have a point that synthetic opioid use is also significant, as is the death rate, whether one considers heroin or synthetic opioids to be the primary problem is up to interpretation and opinion.
Given the increasing level of government regulation on synthetic opioids (though still insufficient), in comparison to the complete lack of action on heroin with its recent spikes, I consider heroin to be the primary problem. That does not mean the other is by any means not a very serious problem as well. However, heroin causes more deaths from overdose and funds Mexican drug cartels.
Heroin is being allowed to flood across the southern border. Even with perfect enforcement of synthetic opioid laws, the opioid epidemic will still remain so long as heroin smuggling is easy and the supply is abundant and cheap.
How can you argue that you care at all about heroin addiction when you're in favor of policies that keep it cheap and abundant?
You haven't even bothered deny that you don't support open borders, and the heroin that comes with it.
CampeadorAt this point you're simply arguing semantics and interpretation.
According to the data heroin overdose deaths are still significantly above the rate for synthetic opioids.
Though you have a point that synthetic opioid use is also significant, as is the death rate, whether one considers heroin or synthetic opioids to be the primary problem is up to interpretation and opinion.
Given the increasing level of government regulation on synthetic opioids (though still insufficient), in comparison to the complete lack of action on heroin with its recent spikes, I consider heroin to be the primary problem. That does not mean the other is by any means not a very serious problem as well. However, heroin causes more deaths from overdose and funds Mexican drug cartels.
Heroin is being allowed to flood across the southern border. Even with perfect enforcement of synthetic opioid laws, the opioid epidemic will still remain so long as heroin smuggling is easy and the supply is abundant and cheap.
How can you argue that you care at all about heroin addiction when you're in favor of policies that keep it cheap and abundant?
You haven't even bothered deny that you don't support open borders, and the heroin that comes with it.
You don't even know what you're talking about.
I'll post this again.
Percentage of drug overdose deaths involving selected drug categories
Here are some actual figures.
Heroin deaths rose 23 percent in one year, to 12,989, slightly higher than the number of gun homicides, according to government data released Thursday.
Deaths from synthetic opioids, including illicit fentanyl, rose 73 percent to 9,580. And prescription painkillers took the highest toll, but posted the smallest increase. Abuse of drugs like Oxycontin and Vicodin killed 17,536, an increase of 4 percent.
Combine synthetic opioids with prescription painkillers (also opioids) you have over double the amount of deaths. Remove synthetic opioids (because some do come from overseas illegally) and you still have almost 50% more.
Prescription painkillers bring in new addicts. Most people don't jump straight to heroin, they start off with painkillers.
If you mean open borders a la Europe, then no, I don't support that in the US on our southern border. Northern, perhaps.
But if you mean open like what we have now, then yes. I do.
You have no idea how many tonnes of heroin make it through the international mail system on a daily basis. The border has nothing to do with the opiate epidemic.
RparrYou have no idea how many tonnes of heroin make it through the international mail system on a daily basis. The border has nothing to do with the opiate epidemic.
For simple-minded people like our friend Campy, it's just easier to blame Mexicans and Muslims for everything.
.MASSHOLE.You don't even know what you're talking about.
I'll post this again.
Percentage of drug overdose deaths involving selected drug categories
Here are some actual figures.
Heroin deaths rose 23 percent in one year, to 12,989, slightly higher than the number of gun homicides, according to government data released Thursday.
Deaths from synthetic opioids, including illicit fentanyl, rose 73 percent to 9,580. And prescription painkillers took the highest toll, but posted the smallest increase. Abuse of drugs like Oxycontin and Vicodin killed 17,536, an increase of 4 percent.
Combine synthetic opioids with prescription painkillers (also opioids) you have over double the amount of deaths. Remove synthetic opioids (because some do come from overseas illegally) and you still have almost 50% more.
Prescription painkillers bring in new addicts. Most people don't jump straight to heroin, they start off with painkillers.
If you mean open borders a la Europe, then no, I don't support that in the US on our southern border. Northern, perhaps.
But if you mean open like what we have now, then yes. I do.
It's funny, you keep posting something you cannot read properly.
Heroin, by your own data, causes more deaths per year than natural and synthetic opioids (that encompasses all of the other ones, no?).
You can twist and contort all you like, but really your whole argument is that prescription opioids are gateway drugs, which is valid. However, from here your argument falls apart into semantics, as to whether the number of deaths from heroin or gateway drug opioids, are the primary problem. It's a matter of opinion.
Also, is this really what you do late at night on a Friday?
Lastly, your full-throated support for open-borders in the U.S. is pathetic and disgusting. You should go move back in with your German "countrymen", Klaus, preferably to a more "diverse" neighborhood. There you can experience the wondrous results of your ideological cancer.
On behalf of the American people, I would like to wish all Muslims a joyful Ramadan.
During this month of fasting from dawn to dusk, many Muslims in
America and around the world will find meaning and inspiration in acts
of charity and meditation that strengthen our communities. At its core,
the spirit of Ramadan strengthens awareness of our shared obligation to
reject violence, to pursue peace, and to give to those in need who are
suffering from poverty or conflict.
This year, the holiday begins as the world mourns the innocent
victims of barbaric terrorist attacks in the United Kingdom and Egypt,
acts of depravity that are directly contrary to the spirit of Ramadan.
Such acts only steel our resolve to defeat the terrorists and their
perverted ideology.
On my recent visit to Saudi Arabia, I had the honor of meeting
with the leaders of more than 50 Muslim nations. There, in the land of
the two holiest sites in the Muslim world, we gathered to deliver
together an emphatic message of partnership for the sake of peace,
security, and prosperity for our countries and for the world.
I reiterate my message delivered in Riyadh: America will always
stand with our partners against terrorism and the ideology that fuels
it. During this month of Ramadan, let us be resolved to spare no measure
so that we may ensure that future generations will be free of this
scourge and able to worship and commune in peace.
Thrilled. This takes us out of a situation where other countries have power to guide our industry outside the free market. This move takes us back to George Washington when he counseled us to avoid foreign entanglements.
Stop being so reactionary and just have a little faith in the long game. America will stand taller on its own than by slouching with the globalists.
cbalkmanThrilled. This takes us out of a situation where other countries have power to guide our industry outside the free market. This move takes us back to George Washington when he counseled us to avoid foreign entanglements.
Stop being so reactionary and just have a little faith in the long game. America will stand taller on its own than by slouching with the globalists.
Not if everyone loses. I cannot believe the number of people lacking even the most basic understanding of chemistry and physics around here.
TheDoughAbidesNot if everyone loses. I cannot believe the number of people lacking even the most basic understanding of chemistry and physics around here.
How are you sure everyone will lose? It's not over. The renegotiations have just begun, and we may yet end up with a new agreement even better for the planet.
And I appreciate the absurd absolute you provided. I assume you are casting me in the group of those who don't understand even the most basic chemistry and physics? I don't know it all, but I don't lack the most basic understanding of the sciences. I am earning a Masters of science at the moment. Doesn't mean everything, but it might be enough to put me above those who lack the most basic understanding of chemistry and physics.
What concerns me is people attacking anyone who is skeptical of the shoddy climate models (which much of the hype is based on) a "climate denier". The spirit of science is to be skeptical! Not to group up around a consensus and then use that consensus as self-existing evidence of the hypothesis you are consenting to. Consensus, Especially the Cooke consensus, means little.
Labeling people a "climate denier", which is so common these days (and not a phrase you used), is cultish and backwards.
cbalkmanThrilled. This takes us out of a situation where other countries have power to guide our industry outside the free market. This move takes us back to George Washington when he counseled us to avoid foreign entanglements.
Stop being so reactionary and just have a little faith in the long game. America will stand taller on its own than by slouching with the globalists.
Oh jesus fucking christ.
Do you even know what the Paris Climate Accords stated?
The plans are not legally binding, but developing and developed countries are treated differently because developed countries, on a per capita basis, often produce more greenhouse gases than developing countries.
Each country set its own commitments under the Paris Accord.
The agreement is nonbinding and each nation sets its own targets.
But you know what is going to happen now?
China and India are going to take away market share from the US solar industry. Coal is dying, it doesn't matter what Trump spews. It's a fact. China themselves have started moving away from coal, they canceled over 100 new plants this year alone.
That $3t loss that Trump talked about? Over the 2+ decades, it's a mere 6%.
How's that for your fucking "long-game"?
If you're more concerned about "the long game", you'd stay as far fucking away from Trump as you can.
cbalkmanHow are you sure everyone will lose? It's not over. The renegotiations have just begun, and we may yet end up with a new agreement even better for the planet.
And I appreciate the absurd absolute you provided. I assume you are casting me in the group of those who don't understand even the most basic chemistry and physics? I don't know it all, but I don't lack the most basic understanding of the sciences. I am earning a Masters of science at the moment. Doesn't mean everything, but it might be enough to put me above those who lack the most basic understanding of chemistry and physics.
What concerns me is people attacking anyone who is skeptical of the shoddy climate models (which much of the hype is based on) a "climate denier". The spirit of science is to be skeptical! Not to group up around a consensus and then use that consensus as self-existing evidence of the hypothesis you are consenting to. Consensus, Especially the Cooke consensus, means little.
Labeling people a "climate denier", which is so common these days (and not a phrase you used), is cultish and backwards.
It would be naive to believe that we pulled out of the deal because trump didnt think it was good enough for the planet.
The spirit of science is certainly to be skeptical but what specefically are you skeptical of? What "shoddy models" are you refering too? Are we 100% certain of what will happen in our future? No. But at this point, if you question the underlying science of anthropogenic climate change you are also challenging basic molecular bond science.
fuckmekevinOur country is literally falling apart. Infrastructure is shit, the economy is shit, homelessness is on the rise, poverty on the rise, debt is ever increasing, societal unrest/tension. Endless wars, an encroaching police state noose ever tightens, but yeah... what's a good idea? A good idea is to stop meddling in other countries but that won't ever happen; war is a racket.
We can't even take care of the people we already have. Let's get education back up to the top 10 in the world instead of this Frankfurt bullcrap. Our physics score is on the level of retardation, probably why most people think WTC7 fell due to fires. Let's build a safer and better mass transit, put stock in alternative energy as this is clearly the future. I don't need to tell you. We pay an obscene amount of income tax, something the founding fathers and Jefferson would laugh at in utter disbelief. And much of our debt is making its way back to the Fed reserve and this massive corporate government whose sole purpose is to simply create more poverty, destruction, mass hysteria, suffering and love. Trump is my savior.
Circle jerking our way to destruction, division is key. At least in the 60s people knew what to protest about.
cbalkmanThrilled. This takes us out of a situation where other countries have power to guide our industry outside the free market. This move takes us back to George Washington when he counseled us to avoid foreign entanglements.
Stop being so reactionary and just have a little faith in the long game. America will stand taller on its own than by slouching with the globalists.
Yeah its great for climate denying sheep like yourself. You're playing right into trumps and the conservatives hands, congratulations. Trump tried to claim it was about the US economy but in reality he made the USA a laughing stock and turned us into the followers of other countries. The rest of the world is going to move forward and we're going to be stuck in the late 1990s/2000s until something changes, aka a real fucking president that's not a fucking clown. Live it up while you can, there is no way the american people will let Trump continue after 4 years.
cbalkmanHow are you sure everyone will lose? It's not over. The renegotiations have just begun, and we may yet end up with a new agreement even better for the planet.
And I appreciate the absurd absolute you provided. I assume you are casting me in the group of those who don't understand even the most basic chemistry and physics? I don't know it all, but I don't lack the most basic understanding of the sciences. I am earning a Masters of science at the moment. Doesn't mean everything, but it might be enough to put me above those who lack the most basic understanding of chemistry and physics.
What concerns me is people attacking anyone who is skeptical of the shoddy climate models (which much of the hype is based on) a "climate denier". The spirit of science is to be skeptical! Not to group up around a consensus and then use that consensus as self-existing evidence of the hypothesis you are consenting to. Consensus, Especially the Cooke consensus, means little.
Labeling people a "climate denier", which is so common these days (and not a phrase you used), is cultish and backwards.
This attitude is so infuriating. I wholeheartedly embrace your (or anybody's) right to be skeptical. Skepticism of any and all information handed down to you by an authority figure is inherently American, and it serves to keep the powers that be in check. However, I would seriously re-evalutate what you're skeptical about.
Has it ever occurred to you to be skeptical of people who serve to profit from telling you anthropogenic climate change is a myth? Has it ever occurred to you to be skeptical of creationists who tell you God would never allow such a tragedy to befall his chosen people? That we should sit around and wait for a miracle, and if it doesn't happen, then its our reckoning for becoming so liberal? Has it ever occurred to you to be skeptical of conservative politicians who rallied around bi-partisan environmental reform under GW Bush who have now rescinded all of their previous beliefs? Has it ever occurred to you to be skeptical of a political system that (ever since Citizens United) has allowed corporate conglomerates to hemorrhage money into public office in order to protect their bottom line? Has it ever occurred to you that people like the Kochs and their vast network of donors are skull-fucking these supposed "public servants" into silence with cash for their election campaigns?
If there is anybody to be skeptical of in this whole issue I can absolutely guarantee you it is not the hardworking, underpaid scientists who have dedicated their lives and careers to this issue. Is every climate model 100% accurate? No. Can we predict with absolute certainty what will happen and how our atmosphere will react? No. That being said, there is scientific consensus on what is going on, that WE are causing it and we have a VERY small window to correct for it and that window is right now. If there was even a 20% chance of a FRACTION of the consequences were facing happening, you should be very fucking worried about it. Problem is, without action the chances are closer to 100% that this planet will no longer be able to support civilization. That means your grandkids stand the chance to grow up scraping a "living" together in an America that looks like a combination of Mad Max and the war torn Horn of Africa.
Even a slight chance of global famine, drought, resource wars and massive population movement should scare you. As I said before, without action, chances are not slight. If you want to call the current situation in Europe with Syrian refugees a "crisis," just wait until the rest of Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and South America are clamoring at the gates to get in after fleeing from war, famine, and drought. But it doesn't matter to people like Trump, because after ramming their deregulatory agenda down America's throat, they'll have enough to ride it out to the end in their Ivory towers, laughing at the plight of the plebeians.
Let's get this straight, everything in the current Trumpian/GOP agenda is about the consolidation of money and power into the hands of the .01 percent. Even the "1%" that everyone rails against is really just a petty bourgeoisie rewarded for doing the oligarchs' bidding. It is absolutely laughable to consider Trump a man of the people. He was born a billionaire and he'll die one, without ever having spent time in the real world with real people who face real problems like providing for their kids and paying their bills. He was able to tap into the anger of a certain segment of the population, but nothing he has suggested will do anything to help them. If you think he's not actively fucking over middle America and main street, then you're delusional.
They are already using geoengineering and Atmospheric Spraying to cool the planet. You can google articles and think tanks talking about what they've done and what is planned for the future. Aluminum and sulphur spraying in stratosphere supposedly works, no long term studies on its safety yet.
fuckmekevinThey are already using geoengineering and Atmospheric Spraying to cool the planet. You can google articles and think tanks talking about what they've done and what is planned for the future. Aluminum and sulphur spraying in stratosphere supposedly works, no long term studies on its safety yet.
What's infowars? You could google the patents and think tanks talking about this stuff but no, instead you retort to fallacies. Geoengineers appointed by the Obama admin. already state that they test stratosphere spraying with various natural and artificial chemicals order to reflect the sun, which would supposedly cool the planet. They've been doing geoengineering since the late 1940's, not sure why you are so against its possibility?
____
One end in which people would try to influence specific weather events and the other end in which people would try to influence weather statistics (i.e., climate). There is no rebranding here. Second: You seem to think "weather modification is unproven science". Science does not try to prove nouns. Scientists try to falsify statements. Scientists work only on the unproven.
____
Just Google geoengineers and they will tell you that they can and do manipulate weather, you'll have to go into .gov archives to watch them. Some even claiming that they can manipulate the track of a hurricanes, which could help to prevent disasters. Which is pretty awesome. In 1978 ENMOD prohibited military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques, this included in the talk weather modification. However, defensive purposes were not banned.
Cloud seeding is a real thing. Not saying infowars is legit, but there's a difference between the conspiracy of the government using "chemtrails" to poison us and geo-engineering, which is actually something people are researching.
fuckmekevinWhat's infowars? You could google the patents and think tanks talking about this stuff but no, instead you retort to fallacies. Geoengineers appointed by the Obama admin. already state that they test stratosphere spraying with various natural and artificial chemicals order to reflect the sun, which would supposedly cool the planet. They've been doing geoengineering since the late 1940's, not sure why you are so against its possibility?
____
One end in which people would try to influence specific weather events and the other end in which people would try to influence weather statistics (i.e., climate). There is no rebranding here. Second: You seem to think "weather modification is unproven science". Science does not try to prove nouns. Scientists try to falsify statements. Scientists work only on the unproven.
____
Just Google geoengineers and they will tell you that they can and do manipulate weather, you'll have to go into .gov archives to watch them. Some even claiming that they can manipulate the track of a hurricanes, which could help to prevent disasters. Which is pretty awesome. In 1978 ENMOD prohibited military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques, this included in the talk weather modification. However, defensive purposes were not banned.
Apologies for the semi- and poor baiting, this is actually interesting. I didn't realize planting trees counted as geoengineering. I had no idea about a lot of this stuff. However, it seems as though no amount of geoengineering could actually "cool" the planet without a steep decrease in emissions, but could instead be an option as a part of a broader strategy portfolio.
I would expect that changing the energy landscape should be much easier than geoengineering in terms of cost and effectiveness.
mikemacCloud seeding is a real thing. Not saying infowars is legit, but there's a difference between the conspiracy of the government using "chemtrails" to poison us and geo-engineering, which is actually something people are researching.
Also very interesting. Was being an asshole but appreciate learning more. Didn't know they used this at airports all the time to suppress fog.
fuckmekevinWhat's infowars? You could google the patents and think tanks talking about this stuff but no, instead you retort to fallacies. Geoengineers appointed by the Obama admin. already state that they test stratosphere spraying with various natural and artificial chemicals order to reflect the sun, which would supposedly cool the planet. They've been doing geoengineering since the late 1940's, not sure why you are so against its possibility?
____
One end in which people would try to influence specific weather events and the other end in which people would try to influence weather statistics (i.e., climate). There is no rebranding here. Second: You seem to think "weather modification is unproven science". Science does not try to prove nouns. Scientists try to falsify statements. Scientists work only on the unproven.
____
Just Google geoengineers and they will tell you that they can and do manipulate weather, you'll have to go into .gov archives to watch them. Some even claiming that they can manipulate the track of a hurricanes, which could help to prevent disasters. Which is pretty awesome. In 1978 ENMOD prohibited military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques, this included in the talk weather modification. However, defensive purposes were not banned.
mikemacCloud seeding is a real thing. Not saying infowars is legit, but there's a difference between the conspiracy of the government using "chemtrails" to poison us and geo-engineering, which is actually something people are researching.
They can manipulate the weather to a minuscule degree. A single hurricane can be the product of enough latent heat to power the world for 200 years, anyone claiming to have a cost effective solution to change the direction of such of force is probably wrong.
Cloud seeding is used but not with much success, theyre trying to put them all over colorado to solve the oncoming water shortage but its not gonna do nearly enough to fill the gap. We really don't understand jack shit about the atmosphere and I'm extremely hesitant to believe that spewing a ton of chemicals into the stratosphere wouldn't carry unforeseeable negative consequences. Ultimately the truth is that we have to change our behavior as a species or tragically consume our own habitat to exhaustion.
TheDoughAbidesThey can manipulate the weather to a minuscule degree. A single hurricane can be the product of enough latent heat to power the world for 200 years, anyone claiming to have a cost effective solution to change the direction of such of force is probably wrong.
Cloud seeding is used but not with much success, theyre trying to put them all over colorado to solve the oncoming water shortage but its not gonna do nearly enough to fill the gap. We really don't understand jack shit about the atmosphere and I'm extremely hesitant to believe that spewing a ton of chemicals into the stratosphere wouldn't carry unforeseeable negative consequences. Ultimately the truth is that we have to change our behavior as a species or tragically consume our own habitat to exhaustion.
I'm super skeptical of the technique also, I'm definitely not a scientist but it seems like tampering with the atmosphere by just spraying shit up there to make it rain more could definitely have some unintended consequences. I live up in Jackson and there's tons of research going on in Wyoming about it. Here's some links for anyone interested in the subject:
TheDoughAbidesThey can manipulate the weather to a minuscule degree. A single hurricane can be the product of enough latent heat to power the world for 200 years, anyone claiming to have a cost effective solution to change the direction of such of force is probably wrong.
Cloud seeding is used but not with much success, theyre trying to put them all over colorado to solve the oncoming water shortage but its not gonna do nearly enough to fill the gap. We really don't understand jack shit about the atmosphere and I'm extremely hesitant to believe that spewing a ton of chemicals into the stratosphere wouldn't carry unforeseeable negative consequences. Ultimately the truth is that we have to change our behavior as a species or tragically consume our own habitat to exhaustion.
Yup, geoengineers talk about stratosphere spraying all the time, honestly, god knows what they're spraying. It would potentially reflect the sun but why not attack it at its source? Oh that's right, they just want to keep exploiting mother natures resources to increase profit margins. There hasn't been any long term studies on safety and I know they already test in some places. Still, this will only help minutely, basically masking the source and slowing down the process.
mirozApologies for the semi- and poor baiting, this is actually interesting. I didn't realize planting trees counted as geoengineering. I had no idea about a lot of this stuff. However, it seems as though no amount of geoengineering could actually "cool" the planet without a steep decrease in emissions, but could instead be an option as a part of a broader strategy portfolio.
I would expect that changing the energy landscape should be much easier than geoengineering in terms of cost and effectiveness.
Also very interesting. Was being an asshole but appreciate learning more. Didn't know they used this at airports all the time to suppress fog.
Vail uses cloud seeding for about purported as well.
