Anyone else see the Hypocracy in NY state and Gov. Cuomo?

[Magox]

All drugs should be legalized immediately. Why? Sound cost/benefit analysis. Keeping them illegal costs us more, actually, way more. Period.

 

The government should not promote anything. Why? Sound cost/benefit analysis. The government money spent on sending this message does not return the required benefit to justify the expenditure, not even close. Besides, the pea and carrot trade associations both have access to the capital and the various media methods required for getting their messages across to consumers.

 

I have no problem with public safety announcements like telling you to wear a seat belt, or STOP DWI, Why? Sound cost/benefit analysis. The costs of not doing these things far outweigh the costs of the ads. But, Government needs to learn what it is good at, and stick to only that. Government sucks at prohibition, as we saw in the 20s and see now. Government also sucks at telling you how to live, because nobody listens anyway.

 

We should never support and sign up for continued failure simply because it gives the misguided, on any side, an opportunity to emote and have their Hallmark moment with Oprah, or, because it gives a business the opportunity to get free advertising on our dime.

Well, I disagree completely regarding the government not promoting anything. Why? (you like that?) Because the government, you and I all have a stake in the game. Rising medical costs affect all of us, as these costs go up, guess what OC? the government falls further in debt, you and I both have to pay higher taxes. Do you know why? There are these government programs you might know about called Medicare and Medicaid, and the more people that enter into these programs and that live unhealthy, do you believe that the likelyhood of your taxes go up or down as a result of that?

 

It doesnt just stop there, more unhealthy people that go to the ER's whether theyhave health insurance or not means higher premiums, or if theydont have insurance costs get consumed by hospitals which means our premiums go higher.

 

So yes, since the government, you and I all have an interest in people living healthier, there is nothing wrong with the government trying to promote healthy foods and attempt to deter people from consuming unhealthy products. I didnt say ban, I said attempt to deter, sort ofl like the ones we see with cigarrettes.

[ieatcrayonz]

From what, 10 to 30?

 

 

 

There are over 3000 (identified) chemicals in cigarette smoke, and the reason you get more tar (I'd love to hear someone try and explain what that word really means. Winner gets a prize!) with a doob is because it is compared to a FILTERED cigarette, which is the point of adding a filter in the first place. It's like saying that drinking unfiltered water exposed you to five times the chemicals as filtered water. No ****!

How many loser hippy stoner potheads filter their joint? How many cigarettes are filtered? Duh.

 

The bottom line is that pot smoking losers hit people with their cars, are useless in their job, start taking stronger drugs, push their agenda on kids, and are an overall scourge on our society. The good news is they usually can't remember bupkus so they can continue their habit unimpaired by guilt for their lost potential. Yes they have Hollywood on their side proving their underlying guilt and hammering their indefensible case into the minds of children. The draw of the drug is so strong it leads to the pro pot zealotry so strong that even simple apples to apples comparisons like those made in this thread are verbally attacked without mercy.

 

All the OP said was that it did not make sense to glorify one drug while attacking another, milder, drug. This makes sense but the hippy parade started attacking an entirely different argument. Some may have been actually stoned while writing their response because all they can manage for a reply is something like " :lol: ". Others are just lashing out at the prospect of losing their precious pot. Their use has made them angry.

 

I do like the comparison made to alcohol. Of course there are as many drunked out losers as there are stoned out hippy losers but why add to our problem? We should try to get rid of problems, not create new ones. Look at it this way. If all of your friends decided to jump off a bridge, would you? No. Think of that as alcohol use and assume jumping off a bridge was legal. Now imagine those same bridge jumping friends telling you they were going to jump off a cliff. Is that a better idea? No. Would you stop just because jumping off a bridge was legal but jumping off a cliff was not? I doubt it. You would stop because you are smart. Would you lobby to make cliff jumping legal? I doubt it, but if you had illegally jumped off cliffs a bunch of times and got addicted then maybe.

[GG]

I do like the comparison made to alcohol. Of course there are as many drunked out losers as there are stoned out hippy losers but why add to our problem? We should try to get rid of problems, not create new ones. Look at it this way. If all of your friends decided to jump off a bridge, would you? No. Think of that as alcohol use and assume jumping off a bridge was legal. Now imagine those same bridge jumping friends telling you they were going to jump off a cliff. Is that a better idea? No. Would you stop just because jumping off a bridge was legal but jumping off a cliff was not? I doubt it. You would stop because you are smart. Would you lobby to make cliff jumping legal? I doubt it, but if you had illegally jumped off cliffs a bunch of times and got addicted then maybe.

 

This logic has certainly worked during the Prohibition.

 

No one is going to argue that drugs are generally bad for humans. But it's equally futile to argue that prohibiting drugs is going to work, when it hasn't worked during humanity's existence. Maybe it's because people are naturally wired to desire a mind and body altering susbtance. Trouble is, some can control the impulse, some can't. But trying to eliminate the supply, when the demand is still very strong, is beyond futile. End the stupid charade already.

[ieatcrayonz]

This logic has certainly worked during the Prohibition.

 

No one is going to argue that drugs are generally bad for humans. But it's equally futile to argue that prohibiting drugs is going to work, when it hasn't worked during humanity's existence. Maybe it's because people are naturally wired to desire a mind and body altering susbtance. Trouble is, some can control the impulse, some can't. But trying to eliminate the supply, when the demand is still very strong, is beyond futile. End the stupid charade already.

 

I never said pot should be banned or illegal. I am just saying that two wrongs don't make a right. All of these people fighting for pot to be legal are basically fighting for the right to be stoned out hippy losers with no ambition. So they are basically using the only ambition they have left to fight for the ability to kill their own ambition. If they weren't stoned they would just turn off their ambition all by themselves and go sit in a corner and stop flooding the legislative and legal system.

 

And yes there are tons of people arguing about pot being generally bad for people. They like think it is like totally uncool to be like not enlightened enough to like smoke pot and like imagine if green were red and red were like green.

[GG]

I never said pot should be banned or illegal. I am just saying that two wrongs don't make a right. All of these people fighting for pot to be legal are basically fighting for the right to be stoned out hippy losers with no ambition. So they are basically using the only ambition they have left to fight for the ability to kill their own ambition. If they weren't stoned they would just turn off their ambition all by themselves and go sit in a corner and stop flooding the legislative and legal system.

 

And yes there are tons of people arguing about pot being generally bad for people. They like think it is like totally uncool to be like not enlightened enough to like smoke pot and like imagine if green were red and red were like green.

 

Just like the drunks in the '20s were fighting for their right to abuse their bodies to have a legal alcoholic drink.

 

Let's just say that I know a lot of smart ambitious people who enjoy lighting up once in a while, and it hasn't slowed down their ambition at all.

[ieatcrayonz]

Just like the drunks in the '20s were fighting for their right to abuse their bodies to have a legal alcoholic drink.

 

But they already got their cry baby loser goal accomplished. Big whoop for them. At least they don't have to bottleneck the legal system with their pathetic rants.

 

 

Let's just say that I know a lot of smart ambitious people who enjoy lighting up once in a while, and they don't realize it hasn't slowed down their ambition at all.

Fixed

[GG]

But they already got their cry baby loser goal accomplished. Big whoop for them. At least they don't have to bottleneck the legal system with their pathetic rants.

 

The pot lobby is simply looking for equal treatment.

 

Each person's ambition is up to them, and they're the ones to decide how to channel the ambition. Chances are, the burnt out sleepy potheads, would have turned out lazy sleepy washouts with or without pot. Pot probably just makes them grow longer hair and wear colorful t-shirts.

[ieatcrayonz]

The pot lobby is simply looking for equal treatment.

 

Each person's ambition is up to them, and they're the ones to decide how to channel the ambition. Chances are, the burnt out sleepy potheads, would have turned out lazy sleepy washouts with or without pot. Pot probably just makes them grow longer hair and wear colorful t-shirts.

It makes some other people violent though. Just like alcohol.

 

I guess what I am saying is that we shouldn't waste our energy on legalizing or criminalizing anything like liquor or pot because it is a waste of time. Do pot heads feel like second class citizens because their drug is illegal while boozers can be legal? Sure. Guess what: THEY'RE POT HEADS......SO THEY ARE SECOND CLASS CITIZENS.......a class know as LOSERS. Alkies are second class citizens too. I don't think it is worth our time or money to either make one group of losers feel better about themselves even though they are still losers or to spend time making the other group of losers feel worse about themselves when they are already losers anyway.

 

Think of it like Canada. Sure we call them a country and make that area a different color on a map, but really? They're still Canadians. Does making them feel better with maps actually serve a productive purpose or is it a waste of time and ink?

Edited July 26, 2011 by ieatcrayonz

[GG]

It makes some other people violent though. Just like alcohol.

 

I guess what I am saying is that we shouldn't waste our energy on legalizing or criminalizing anything like liquor or pot because it is a waste of time. Do pot heads feel like second class citizens because their drug is illegal while boozers can be legal? Sure. Guess what: THEY'RE POT HEADS......SO THEY ARE SECOND CLASS CITIZENS.......a class know as LOSERS. Alkies are second class citizens too. I don't think it is worth our time or money to either make one group of losers feel better about themselves even though they are still losers or to spend time making the other group of losers feel worse about themselves when they are already losers anyway.

 

Think of it like Canada. Sure we call them a country and make that area a different color on a map, but really? They're still Canadians. Does making them feel better with maps actually serve a productive purpose or is it a waste of time and ink?

 

If you don't raise Canadians' self-esteemed, they'll fall deeper into drink and pollute the US, thus dragging more down. It's a domino down the Horseshoe falls.

[ieatcrayonz]

If you don't raise Canadians' self-esteemed, they'll fall deeper into drink and pollute the US, thus dragging more down. It's a domino down the Horseshoe falls.

I will admit that I don't begrudge Canadians drinking so much. They sort of have to drink quickly before everything freezes and goes to waste.

[Fingon]

The anti-smoking campaign in New York boarders on assault with the graphic TV spots and ads depicting cigarette smoke as a major cause of cancer, heart and other health related problems. At the same time that these ads are running all over the state, Cuomo is coming out in favor of "medical" Marijuana. Marijuana smoke is much worse for your health than tobacco smoke:

 

* In recent years there has been a dramatic increase in the number of emergency room mentions of marijuana use. From 1993-2000, the number of emergency room marijuana mentions more than tripled.

 

* There are also many long-term health consequences of marijuana use. According to the National Institutes of Health, studies show that someone who smokes five joints per week may be taking in as many cancer-causing chemicals as someone who smokes a full pack of cigarettes every day.

 

* Marijuana contains more than 400 chemicals, including most of the harmful substances found in tobacco smoke. Smoking one marijuana cigarette deposits about four times more tar into the lungs than a filtered tobacco cigarette.

 

* Harvard University researchers report that the risk of a heart attack is five times higher than usual in the hour after smoking marijuana.

 

* Smoking marijuana also weakens the immune system and raises the risk of lung infections. A Columbia University study found that a control group smoking a single marijuana cigarette every other day for a year had a white-blood-cell count that was 39 percent lower than normal, thus damaging the immune system and making the user far more susceptible to infection and sickness.

Is this post a joke?

 

* Emergency room visits for marijuana are on the rise? Who cares. That's like being concerned about more people going to the emergency room because of stubbed toes. There is no legitimate medical reason to go to the emergency room for marijuana. In fact, the CDC records exactly 0 deaths directly attributable to marijuana

 

* Cancer.gov says marijuana will not only not give you cancer, but it has anti-tumor properties as well. In fact, it was shown that cannabinoids reduced lung cancer cell growth by 50%.

 

Antitumor Effects

 

One study in mice and rats suggested that cannabinoids may have a protective effect against the development of certain types of tumors.[3] During this 2-year study, groups of mice and rats were given various doses of THC by gavage. A dose-related decrease in the incidence of hepatic adenoma tumors and hepatocellular carcinoma was observed in the mice. Decreased incidences of benign tumors (polyps and adenomas) in other organs (mammary gland, uterus, pituitary, testis, and pancreas) were also noted in the rats. In another study, delta-9-THC, delta-8-THC, and cannabinol were found to inhibit the growth of Lewis lung adenocarcinoma cells in vitro and in vivo .[4] In addition, other tumors have been shown to be sensitive to cannabinoid-induced growth inhibition.[5-8]

 

Cannabinoids may cause antitumor effects by various mechanisms, including induction of cell death, inhibition of cell growth, and inhibition of tumor angiogenesis and metastasis.[9-11] Cannabinoids appear to kill tumor cells but do not affect their nontransformed counterparts and may even protect them from cell death. These compounds have been shown to induce apoptosis in glioma cells in culture and induce regression of glioma tumors in mice and rats. Cannabinoids protect normal glial cells of astroglial and oligodendroglial lineages from apoptosis mediated by the CB1 receptor.[12]

 

In an in vivo model using severe combined immunodeficient mice, subcutaneous tumors were generated by inoculating the animals with cells from human non-small cell lung carcinoma cell lines.[13] Tumor growth was inhibited by 60% in THC-treated mice compared with vehicle-treated control mice. Tumor specimens revealed that THC had antiangiogenic and antiproliferative effects. However, research with immunocompetent murine tumor models has demonstrated immunosuppression and enhanced tumor growth in mice treated with THC.[14,15]

 

In addition, both plant-derived and endogenous cannabinoids have been studied for anti- inflammatory effects. A mouse study demonstrated that endogenous cannabinoid system signaling is likely to provide intrinsic protection against colonic inflammation.[16] As a result, a hypothesis that phytocannabinoids and endocannabinoids may be useful in the prevention and treatment of colorectal cancer has been developed.[17-20

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4

 

* The largest study ever done on marijuana concluded that it does not increase the risk of lung cancer, but those who smoked had a slightly LESS risk of developing the disease

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html

 

* And your last point? There isn't even a citation for it. The DEA simply cites Dr. James Dobson, a well known Evangelist who has never had anything to do with Columbia University.

 

Just for good measure:

 

Think marijuana makes you stupid? Nope

 

http://healthland.time.com/2011/07/19/study-marijuana-not-linked-with-long-term-cognitive-impairment/

 

You cannot find one credible scientist that will list marijuana as more dangerous than tobacco... not one. You idiotically claim that pot is more dangerous that tobacco, but guess what? One substance has 400,000+ deaths per year attributed to it, and another has 0.

[OCinBuffalo]

Well, I disagree completely regarding the government not promoting anything. Why? (you like that?) Because the government, you and I all have a stake in the game. Rising medical costs affect all of us, as these costs go up, guess what OC? the government falls further in debt, you and I both have to pay higher taxes. Do you know why? There are these government programs you might know about called Medicare and Medicaid, and the more people that enter into these programs and that live unhealthy, do you believe that the likelyhood of your taxes go up or down as a result of that?

 

It doesnt just stop there, more unhealthy people that go to the ER's whether theyhave health insurance or not means higher premiums, or if theydont have insurance costs get consumed by hospitals which means our premiums go higher.

 

So yes, since the government, you and I all have an interest in people living healthier, there is nothing wrong with the government trying to promote healthy foods and attempt to deter people from consuming unhealthy products. I didnt say ban, I said attempt to deter, sort ofl like the ones we see with cigarrettes.

You have accurately characterized some dependencies. But telling me "this leads to that" without including all the inputs and outputs for the entire system is pointless. Yes of course I am aware of the inner workings of the system. The difference between me and you is: apparently I am aware of ALL of them. When I say: cost benefit analysis I mean, cost benefit analysis of the entire system. In this case, the health care system, the part of government that interfaces with it, and the consumer. That is the only proper context in which any evaluations can be made. In that context, you are simply wrong. The government has no business promoting anything, and here's why:

 

1. It will fail. The government simply will not be successful in promoting healthy foods, because it never has. The behavior change you seek will not come from the tactic you support. The government, whenever it is put in a position of picking winners and losers in the marketplace, inevitably makes things FUBAR. Why am I explaining this concept to f'ing trader? In addition, we have all heard "you can't legislate morality". That is a truism. But the following is just as true: "you can't legislate desire". In fact, the more you try to limit something, the more desirable you make it.

 

2. Why don't you see the obvious parallel between drugs and unhealthy food? Both are bad for you, both can make many "feel good", both represent serious health risks. Because all of these things, and more, are attributed to these products, rightly or wrongly, the are: desirable. To be sure they have different levels of utility for different people, but so does every other product in every other market. How is pigging out on McDonalds any different than scoring an 8-ball? If you do either once a month for the rest of your life, the effects are negligible. If you do either every day, the effects are relatively immediate and life-threatening.

 

3. Please don't quote Medicare/Medicaid scripture to me because it makes you sound like an idiot and you're not. One, of many, ways you are wrong here is: The CMS average #s say 90% of ALL the health care costs we expend on anyone will be in the last 6 months of their life. This is why they are pushing palliative care(the government pushing, not the care, now that's a waste of tax dollars-->which cardiologist is not going to perform that heart surgery and get paid?) instead of the full spectrum of interventions, orders, procedures, prescriptions. The machinations you describe above are correct, but, the resolution of them, which will fail anyway, represent pennies and perhaps nickels. The $1, $5, and $20 bills are being spent on the last 6 months of life, and mostly on the HEALTHY people. The unhealthy people simply drop dead of a heart attack, etc., without the 6 month, hyper expensive science experiment. As it stands right now, your correctly defined problem is blown out of the water by 5 orders of magnitude by my correctly defined problem.

 

So, you are ultimately wrong: the problem you have defined won't be solved by government, is made irrelevant by other problems. Therefore, 0 $ should be spent on promoting it. You are right about how some of the system works, but, your lack of understanding of the system on the whole tricks you into thinking your conclusions are valid. They are not.

[GG]

The CMS average #s say 90% of ALL the health care costs we expend on anyone will be in the last 6 months of their life.

 

I've seen this thrown around a lot, but never saw the source of the actual studies. Link?

[whateverdude]

Is this post a joke?

 

* Emergency room visits for marijuana are on the rise? Who cares. That's like being concerned about more people going to the emergency room because of stubbed toes. There is no legitimate medical reason to go to the emergency room for marijuana. In fact, the CDC records exactly 0 deaths directly attributable to marijuana

 

* Cancer.gov says marijuana will not only not give you cancer, but it has anti-tumor properties as well. In fact, it was shown that cannabinoids reduced lung cancer cell growth by 50%.

 

 

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4

 

* The largest study ever done on marijuana concluded that it does not increase the risk of lung cancer, but those who smoked had a slightly LESS risk of developing the disease

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html

 

* And your last point? There isn't even a citation for it. The DEA simply cites Dr. James Dobson, a well known Evangelist who has never had anything to do with Columbia University.

 

Just for good measure:

 

Think marijuana makes you stupid? Nope

 

http://healthland.time.com/2011/07/19/study-marijuana-not-linked-with-long-term-cognitive-impairment/

 

You cannot find one credible scientist that will list marijuana as more dangerous than tobacco... not one. You idiotically claim that pot is more dangerous that tobacco, but guess what? One substance has 400,000+ deaths per year attributed to it, and another has 0.

WOW, a study on mice you know it's got to be true because anatomically and biochemically we are just like mice. Also, how did they get the mice to smoke the joints...because we are talking about pot SMOKE not THC and CBD there is a big difference. You not only get THC when you smoke pot but you also get all the bad chemicals and 5 times the lung killing tar in pot SMOKE

Edited July 29, 2011 by whateverdude

[DC Tom]

Also, how did they get the mice to smoke the joints...

 

Peer pressure, usually. "C'mon...all the cool mice are doing it. Don't be a gerbil, man..."

[Fingon]

WOW, a study on mice you know it's got to be true because anatomically and biochemically we are just like mice. Also, how did they get the mice to smoke the joints...because we are talking about pot SMOKE not THC and CBD there is a big difference. You not only get THC when you smoke pot but you also get all the bad chemicals and 5 times the lung killing tar in pot SMOKE

They implanted human lung cancer cells in the mice, and I've already proven it false that marijuana smoke is "lung killing". Can you show me one person that has ever died from lung cancer caused by marijuana? Oh wait, you can't. Funny, 50 years of people smoking the stuff, and not one person has died.

 

 

If you can quote any actual science, I'm here listening. Please leave the evangelists at the door, though.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Fingon

[3rdnlng]

They implanted human lung cancer cells in the mice, and I've already proven it false that marijuana smoke is "lung killing". Can you show me one person that has ever died from lung cancer caused by marijuana? Oh wait, you can't. Funny, 50 years of people smoking the stuff, and not one person has died.

 

If you can quote any actual science, I'm here listening. Please leave the evangelists at the door, though.

 

I don't come down on this deal one way or the other but making a statement like the bolded one is preposterous. No pot smoker has died of lung cancer for the last 50 years? I had a friend who would occasionaly smoke a joint and he died of lung cancer. He didn't smoke cigarettes either. Was it the pot? Who knows?

[DC Tom]

They implanted human lung cancer cells in the mice, and I've already proven it false that marijuana smoke is "lung killing". Can you show me one person that has ever died from lung cancer caused by marijuana? Oh wait, you can't. Funny, 50 years of people smoking the stuff, and not one person has died.

 

 

If you can quote any actual science, I'm here listening. Please leave the evangelists at the door, though.

 

Smoke in general is "lung killing".

[Fingon]

I don't come down on this deal one way or the other but making a statement like the bolded one is preposterous. No pot smoker has died of lung cancer for the last 50 years? I had a friend who would occasionaly smoke a joint and he died of lung cancer. He didn't smoke cigarettes either. Was it the pot? Who knows?

The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.

 

The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.

 

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect." Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought.

 

Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html

[OCinBuffalo]

I've seen this thrown around a lot, but never saw the source of the actual studies. Link?

Heh. You dare question the CMS Grand Inquisition's #s? They have legions of Ph.D nurses and physicians who do nothing but research....

...and not one of them knows the first thing about cost accounting. Its entirely possible that they don't even know how to calculate cost, other than financial allocation, meaning they don't know how to calculate cost.

 

So, is it possible the numbers are dubious? You betcha. Look, I have already posted numerous "deliverables" from CMS on this board. They are laughable, and would get you fired immediately from any corporate consulting or research firm.

 

What I can tell you is that this concept has long been accepted as common knowledge in the industry, by pretty much every provider I have every spoken with, so there's a fairly good chance that its close, if not exactly accurate. However, the providers don't know cost either, so...that's why I am working in this industry now. Nobody can prove what they say when it comes to care/$. We can make it so they can.