chucK

Where did you get this ridiculous idea? I believe that it is quite reasonable to prohibit some kinds of "rights" while holding up others. I just wanted to get an idea of where you "rage against the nanny machine" guys fall. I thought a good place to start was if you thought the restriction on heroin was an unreasonable govt. incursion into our liberties. I will assume that your statement "I am all for complete legalization of all drugs, for prostitution, etc. ", implies an answer in the affirmative. Thank you for your reply. Now to move down the ladder a little bit. What about offering heroin for sale to consenting adults?

Exactly. Big pharma is all for drug patenting law (another egregious case of govt. intervention into the free market?)

I think it's a privacy issue more than a fear of government issue. If you're really worried about The Man framing you, they are going to be able to frame you with or without this DNA program. In fact, once people understand how this works, DNA might even be less incriminating than fingerprints. It could place you at the crime scene, but it will also place every other individual that has ever dropped a hair there. Now, if your DNA is somewhere less universally accessible (say, the vagina of a rape victim), well, maybe you got a problem. Anyway, the real escalation of the DNA sampling over the fingerprint sampling is all the myriad of information that the DNA is going to tell about you. The information that can be gleaned from DNA is ever growing. Some people don't want the govt. to have access to a lot of the stuff that DNA can tell or will be able to tell soon. The part about DNA samples exonerating people is a total red herring. Your DNA may get you exonerated, but you don't need it to be in a federal database a priori. Once you're up to your neck in a false accusation, you can voluntarily give up your DNA sample. And in fact, if there is probable cause, you will probably already have had to give it up!

He could go to a church. Jesus loves you Kevbone. Join us.

eliminated this thread it looks like! I was just wondering what these decriers of the nanny state think of the governmental limitation of distribution of prescription drugs to anybody but licensed providers. This sure seems like a case of the government stepping into our business of what we do with our bodies. They are forcibly affecting the decisions we make. It is not a "voluntary" agreement with industry as is this egregious Spanish model case. It is a mandatory governmental regulation trying to protect us from making uninformed decisions. Why shouldn't we let the free market take care of prescription drug distribution?

oh,

I don't understand your logic here.

"Some of the crimes that are identified in this bill are not only misdemeanors, but those that are known to move on to greater crimes," Miloscia said. By this argument I think you could also advocate taking the DNA of someone whenever they buy a gun. I think an amendment of this kind should be offered.

By your friends, family and children argument then we certainly shouldn't be climbing Mt. Hood in the WINTER . By your costing taxpayers a cent argument, then you certainly shouldn't eat sweets if you qualify for dental care under medicare. Hell, by your not costing taxpayers a cent argument, we certainly shouldn't be driving on the roads and wearing them down. And STUDDED TIRES!!!! OMFG don't even get me started.

OMFG!!!! Another govt. intrusion on my right to eat toxic

OMFG!!!! I just heard an ad on the radio saying you should watch your diet and eat a lot of fruits and vegetables!!! MIND CONTROL!!!!!! NANNY STATE!!!!! WHY ISN'T THE GOVERNMENT PROTECTING ME FROM THESE PEOPLE TRYING TO PROTECT ME?

Seems like if we were to restrict the media glorifying ultra-thin people, we also better make sure we restrict any shows glorifying morbidly obese people. We could call it the John Madden law. This seems like something of a strawman. I don't think this "no thin models" thing is very controversial. It's not a government mandate is it? Sounds like an "agreement" with the clothes manufacturers. What do you guys think of the voluntary ban on liquor advertising? Do you think the govt. should be restricted from trying to encourage businesses to voluntary comply with a public-health initiative? Speaking of heroin chic...what do you guys think about the government ban on heroin? What about the govt. restrictions on morphine? I'm only killing myself if I get addicted. Why shouldn't businesses be able to advertise and sell it?

This is a similar issue to the voluntary ban on alcohol and cigarette advertising on TV (is cigarette still voluntary?). If government can try to influence decisions of people in a way that they honestly believe will help them, I have no problem with that. Once they start passing mandatory compliance, that's when I'd rather have a lot better evidence than what they've got wrt heroin chic causing anorexia. WRT the alcohol advertising, I have recently been noting lots of booze ads on Discovery Channel (cable TV). Is the alcohol advertising ban only limited to airwaves?

Not discussing China was for the same reason that I'll note that the light switch is broken and get it fixed by the end of the weekend, but I don't really want to talk about and try not to think about those tiles in the shower that wiggle. i.e. head in the sand, hope it will fix itself method of tackling difficult problems

Here's another example of class 3. The Finger Traverse, Mt. Constance. Way exposed, not very technically difficult, but tripping on your shoelaces could be fatal.

Just thought I'd quickly drop in that the Latona sucks. Their beer chooser seems to prefer skunky sour-tasting brews, and their fridges are set wrong so the beer is not quite cold. It used to have the no-smoking thing going for it, but of course they are now no longer unique in that respect. This is the end of my unfriendly unsolicited pub review.

When you pound a lot of water you are still carrying it.

I'm not talking about a certain parent and what they should do. Of course parents should do right by their kids. Floridation is a public health deal (saving everybody's kids, not just your own). Look, a lot a people have no access to dental care. A lot of people are downright afraid of the dentist. A lot of people have no idea that putting your baby to bed with a bottle in her mouth is the best way give her ECC. Of course the government should attempt to educate as to good pediatric dental practices. This is a funded goal in many places. It is a difficult task to reach many people, and sometimes people will feel they are being told they are bad parents, and thus shut out whatever you say. Another effective method which can be used is floridation. Send them prevention for their dental maladies right through the pipe. Seems like a good idea to me.

Ha! Never thought I'd see you making a post that I'd expect to read from KKfuckhead or JayB. Everyone needs to take care of themselves and it's not my responsibility. They should pull themselves up by the bootstraps.

Well, you see, you've just stated the argument for floridation. Basically, floridation provides James, and all kids in the water district, with some protection versus early childhood caries. It is completely analogous to Santa leaving James a toothbrush.

Dude! If you don't want anybody to read or reply to your posts, who exactly is the one masturbating here?

Man! I must not be communicating well. (or you are drunk again ) First off, (though this is not really important to the discussion) we climbed Black Orpheus, once. Never climbed Solar Slab. Since we made fast work of Black O that day, I was hoping to be able to downclimb the Solar Slab descent then quickly knock off Solar Slab too. Well, the Solar Slab descent took much longer than I hoped and we weren't able to link up . We basically downclimbed the big gully right of Solar Slab (I did one rap, Otto did more, single 60m-rope raps in case anyone's interested), and you can easily exit this big gully at the Solar Slab terrace level. Perhaps one could continue in this gully (the one to the right of Solar Slab Gulley) all the way down, but it looked pretty ugly. So, from the terrace we completed the descent by downclimbing the Solar Slab Gulley (the 5.3 one that is in the Swain book). Seemed prudent. Descending the big gully to the right of Solar Slab to the terrace was pretty fun in terms of scrambling, exploration and crazy exposed wilderness, but I'd hate to be doing it if I was particularly concerned about time. From stuff I've read on the internet I would guess that the Painted Bowl descent's just about gotta be more expedient.

Thanks for those links Motomagik. Inspired me to check out some of this stuff. Here is a good page that discusses the geographic variations of cancer incidence. Particularly applicable quote: "In developed countries, the probability of being diagnosed with cancer is more than twice as high as in developing countries. However, in rich countries, some 50 per cent of cancer patients die of the disease, while in developing countries, 80 per cent of cancer victims already have late-stage incurable tumors when they are diagnosed, pointing to the need for much better detection programs. The main reasons for the greater cancer burden of affluent societies are the earlier onset of the tobacco epidemic, the earlier exposure to occupational carcinogens, and the Western nutrition and lifestyle. However, with increasing wealth and industrialization, many countries undergo rapid lifestyle changes that will greatly increase their future disease burden." Here's another good graph (shows distribution of various types of cancer) And here is one more interesting article (a little more brief and more to the point of geographical variations). Hmmm... that link seems to need some sort of registration, so here is the text: "Regional Variation in Cancer Incidence Incidence of cancer varies dramatically between geographic regions (Fig. 2); as some cancers are more common in people in the developed world (for example, breast and prostate), others occur more frequently in people who live in developing countries (for example, cervical and stomach). Cancers of the lung have high incidence in both developed countries and areas undergoing economic development such as China.[1] Although these regional differences might be explained by genetic differences among populations, variations in lifestyles, environmental exposures and medical practices such as screening are also likely to be important determinants of cancer risk. This assumption is reinforced by migration patterns that show that incidence of cancer among migrants changes to more closely reflect the rates in the adoptive country. This has been observed with the incidence of colon cancer in Japanese people emigrating to Hawaii and San Francisco.[2] Additionally, the incidence of prostate and breast cancers are low among Chinese people in Asia, but increases have been observed when these people move to the United States of America.[3] Dramatic increases in cancer incidence have also occurred within countries that experienced massive economic development in the past 50 years.[1] For instance, younger generations of Japanese (born after 1930) now have a similar if not greater incidence of colorectal cancers than their US Caucasian counterparts.[4] So as lifestyles also change in developing countries, we are likely to see a significant rise in the incidence of cancers that have previously been associated with developed countries, such as breast, colon, prostate and lung cancers."