On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 9:11:55 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2022 16:27:31 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
> wrote:
> >J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> writes:

> >>One of the biggest problems our society has is trusting scientists.

> >Bull.

> >Republicans have been denigrating scientists and science (just as you do
> >above) without reason for decades. Look at climate science for an
> >example.

> So ... your theory is that Mary Shelley was a Republican?

> Herr Doktor Frankenstein is, after all, the poster boy for scientists
> who are not to be trusted.

He didn't say the Republican Party had been denigrating scientists for
_centuries_ so he hasn't committed the error of saying they were doing so
prior to 1492 or at least 1776.

Conservative forces in the U.S. *did* have an anti-science bias for
decades; this is why the United States ended up having to dramatically
change course, and temporarily, at least, correct this corrosive trend,
following October 4, 1957. Of course, back then, they didn't have
climate change or COVID-19 to kick around; the main thing that
conservative forces didn't like about science was that it encouraged
people to believe atheistic theories from people like Darwin.

John Savard

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 12:10:24 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, 27 May 2022 08:20:01 -0700, Paul S Person
> <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

> >The problem with the opioid crisis is that they were misused because
> >(IIRC) the legal drug cartel (pharmaceutical company) lied about its
> >product, claiming it was not addictive.

> In what universe did that happen? I have never seen any hint of a
> suggestion that any opioid was nonaddictive. If you have a source
> that supports any company making such an assertion after, say, 1925,
> please present it.

Yes, he phrased that wrong.

The claim regarding the popular brand of opioid pills was that they
were packaged in such a way that the opioid couldn't be extracted
from them to make a much more easily abused _injectable_
liquid. A similar claim was made for the fentanyl patches.

In the case of the fentanyl patches, the claim _did_ have some
substance; it _was_ difficult to extract the opioid from them. However,
that didn't stop drug dealers from trying anyways; this led to
injectable fentanyl that varied widely in actual dosage, and
hence to a lot of overdoses.

Imputing high ethical character to criminal drug dealers is definitely
a rather obvious mistake to avoid.

Opioids are, indeed, inherently addictive. But addiction is the result
of taking a high dose; the risk of addiction can be minimized if the
drug is not abused, but only taken in appropriate doses at appropriate
frequency.

This is why coedeine isn't as heavily regulated as morphine. The liver
*turns coedeine into morphine* in order for it to work. But it does so at
a limited rate, below the threshold for addiction.

And on the other hand, this is why the natural opioids that the human
body produces, while not causing addiction when produced naturally,
are still addictive when used as medicines to be injected or ingested -
and so they weren't the solution that was hoped for.

John Savard

On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 2:39:09 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> On 29 May 2022 20:30:45 GMT, Jaimie Vandenbergh
> <jai...@usually.sessile.org> wrote:

> >Regulate the shit out of your idiot corporations.
> >
> >Which is never the answer Americans want, despite it working quite well
> >elsewhere. Not amazingly well, but quite well.

> We do regulate the shit out of them. That's why we are constantly
> being bomarded with shit. The idea is to make the shit _stop_ not
> squeeze yet more shit out.

It is true that honest, conscientious U.S. corporations are hamstrung
by excessive government regulation that hampers competitiveness
and productivity.

Unfortunately, it is _also_ true that corrupt, dishonest U.S. corporations
are getting away with malfeasance because the regulations that would
at least minimize that are either not enforced, or never enacted because
of the power that corporate lobbyists wield in Washington.

He was focusing on the latter problem.

John Savard