|
Xandu posted:If we changed this conversation to doctors rubberstamping requests for oxycodone in exchange for cash (which does happen, although not as often), I'm curious how people would feel about that. As someone with a large investment in Purdue Pharma, I feel that....
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 19:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 06:13 |
|
|
KingEup posted:Yes, it's easy to get a green card. So? I actually think $300 is prohibitive for a lot of people who may benefit from using it. In other words it's still too hard to get a green card. Mine was $140. My friends was $100 at a walk in place in Seattle that was rubber stamping them. I'm already getting reamed by a black market for something I could grow in my yard for almost free. What's another $150? If you go to enough dispensaries you can easily make your $150 back in first timer freebies. Xandu posted:If we changed this conversation to doctors rubberstamping requests for oxycodone in exchange for cash (which does happen, although not as often), I'm curious how people would feel about that. Oxycodone kills people. Marijuana doesn't. That makes a big difference for me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
Xandu posted:If we changed this conversation to doctors rubberstamping requests for oxycodone in exchange for cash (which does happen, although not as often), I'm curious how people would feel about that. While pill mills are obviously a hazard for the reasons outlined above, I think there's an argument to be made for giving the medical field a role in managing hazardous recreational drugs. Instead of having rubberstamped scrips for 'pain' the fact that it's recreational should be openly discussed and the supervising medical staff should focus on harm reduction strategies like teaching best-practices for safer use and monitoring the progression of addiction. Instead, what we have is a system where both physicians and patients are playing dangerous games of cat and mouse with the law and are not able to have the kind of frank communication needed for appropriate medical supervision. The relatively benign nature of marijuana compared to oxycodone suggests to me that physicians' role as gatekeepers ought to be less important than their role as advisers on medical use strategies. I've never been to a pill mill or to a MMJ consultation so this is speculation on my part, but it seems clear that the current systems for medical distribution of scheduled substances frequently emphasizes the physician's role as gatekeeper over their core function of providers of medical care.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
Xandu posted:I agree, I was just curious if that was the reason people didn't care what doctors did with marijuana prescriptions. Pretty much. Why bother getting upset that a pointless and unjustifiable barrier to purchase is being further attenuated?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
RichieWolk posted:So now it's not rubberstamping doctors, it's rubberstamping doctors who campaign against legalization? Way to move the goalposts. The problem is a system which encourages shady doctors to sign off on recreational "medicine," delegitimizes actual medical use, and fails to separate recreational and medicinal use. Yes, good doctors can exist under this system; acknowledging that is not moving the goalposts in a structural critique. Least-of-evils arguments in its favor are looking increasingly threadbare, because (as we've seen) a well-run campaign for actual legalization can succeed where the loosely regulated "medical" system exists. We should look to implement a system which makes life easy for good doctors (and their patients) but which addresses the problems caused by the pseudo-medicinal grey area surrounding it. Real legalization is politically feasible, and can solve the problems, but doesn't affect genuine medical providers and patients. As long as that's true, I have a hard time believing that the pseudo-medicinal system is a good option, or even an acceptable status quo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:The problem is a system which encourages shady doctors to sign off on recreational "medicine," delegitimizes actual medical use, and fails to separate recreational and medicinal use. What does any of this have to do with medical marijuana? I seriously hope nobody ever tells you about how doctors prescribe opiates and benzos.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:The problem is a system which encourages shady doctors to sign off on recreational "medicine," delegitimizes actual medical use, and fails to separate recreational and medicinal use. Yes, good doctors can exist under this system; acknowledging that is not moving the goalposts in a structural critique. Least-of-evils arguments in its favor are looking increasingly threadbare, because (as we've seen) a well-run campaign for actual legalization can succeed where the loosely regulated "medical" system exists. We should look to implement a system which makes life easy for good doctors (and their patients) but which addresses the problems caused by the pseudo-medicinal grey area surrounding it. Real legalization is politically feasible, and can solve the problems, but doesn't affect genuine medical providers and patients. As long as that's true, I have a hard time believing that the pseudo-medicinal system is a good option, or even an acceptable status quo. In reality, medical marijuana being a gateway to full legalization isn't so bad. Sure, it's an argument against medical marijuana being approved in the first place, but at this point the number of people who would be swayed by such an argument is probably smaller than the number who would tacitly approve of quasi-legal weed as a more realistic measure than outright legalization in the first place. It seems unlikely that abuse is going to affect anyone's access to legitimate use for a drug that, by legal definition, has no legitimate uses. And on top of all this, marijuana is safe enough that it really isn't so irresponsible to use it for minor pain or stress.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 23:07
|
|
|
the black husserl posted:What does any of this have to do with medical marijuana? I seriously hope nobody ever tells you about how doctors prescribe opiates and benzos. Yeah, there are a lot of problems with the way doctors prescribe other drugs with potential for recreational use (on both sides - my mom came home from jaw surgery with a grand total of six vicodin because her doctor was more concerned about nebulous diversion risks than care and pain management). But this is the marijuana thread, so I wasn't talking about opiates or benzodiazepines. As for what it has to do with medical marijuana, I've been posting about that for the past page or so. You can have a system like California's, where recreational weed is effectively legal (but if you're wealthy enough to pay off a third party for a medical "recommendation") and anyone seeking genuine medical treatment will have to wade through a bunch of doctors who exist to serve the recreational market. Or you could just follow in the footsteps of the two states who have already legalized marijuana. And yeah, the system isn't perfect right now - but if the cops stop somebody in WA or CO who just bought an eighth and can't really afford a medical recommendation, nothing will happen. You claim that full legalization is the goal. Why not actually stand up for it, instead of advocating for a stopgap system that has proven to get in the way of practical legalization efforts? eSports Chaebol posted:In reality, medical marijuana being a gateway to full legalization isn't so bad. Sure, it's an argument against medical marijuana being approved in the first place, but at this point the number of people who would be swayed by such an argument is probably smaller than the number who would tacitly approve of quasi-legal weed as a more realistic measure than outright legalization in the first place. It seems unlikely that abuse is going to affect anyone's access to legitimate use for a drug that, by legal definition, has no legitimate uses. And on top of all this, marijuana is safe enough that it really isn't so irresponsible to use it for minor pain or stress. Five years ago, I might have agreed with you. But it's pretty hard to argue that the quasi-legal system is a more realistic measure than outright legalization, these days. Washington and Colorado have legal weed, and we're in the middle of setting up storefront sales right now. California's legalization initiative failed by a narrow margin, with a poor campaign and a bunch of opposition from the current "medical" weed barons. You're pushing for stopgap measures when the gap hardly exists in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 23:22
|
|
|
I like the idea of decriminalization. The State doesn't have to say it endorses it, neither does the AMA, patients who need it get it, and no one is arrested. I find it shameful people actually go to jail for something a lot less worse than their mayor chasing an Alprazolam with a scotch n'tonic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 23:25
|
|
|
NurhacisUrn posted:I like the idea of decriminalization. The State doesn't have to say it endorses it, neither does the AMA, patients who need it get it, and no one is arrested. I find it shameful people actually go to jail for something a lot less worse than their mayor chasing an Alprazolam with a scotch n'tonic. Decriminalization doesn't imply that enforcement actions against producers and traffickers will stop. Sure, it's a step forward for the end-user, but decriminalization does nothing to dismantle the black market for recreational drugs that is practically speaking the cause for just about all the harm caused by marijuana (and to a lesser extent, other drugs). edit: Why is legalization an endorsement? Corn syrup is perfectly legal to put into food (and subsidized at that), while at the same time the same government that allows its legal status puts out nutritional guidelines and advertising that more or less say "don't eat this poo poo". Legalizing something is not the same as endorsing it, and coming to that conclusion requires some sort of odd starting assumption that something should default to being illegal unless specified otherwise, instead of the other way around. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Jul 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2013 20:25
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Decriminalization doesn't imply that enforcement actions against producers and traffickers will stop. Sure, it's a step forward for the end-user, but decriminalization does nothing to dismantle the black market for recreational drugs that is practically speaking the cause for just about all the harm caused by marijuana (and to a lesser extent, other drugs). Dutch style decriminalization has done just that, for example.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
If marijuana is still illegal but decriminalized, the government gets to keep their free probable-cause authorization via "I smelled pot". It also doesn't do anything to address the problem of poor black kids getting stopped and/or arrested proportionately more than non-minorities, or asset-forfeiture, or any of the other problems associated with prohibition. Better to just legalize it outright and be done with it, rather than skirting the issue by saying "oh we can't legalize because that'll give implicit approval to harmful activities hurrdurr".
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
RichieWolk posted:If marijuana is still illegal but decriminalized, the government gets to keep their free probable-cause authorization via "I smelled pot". It also doesn't do anything to address the problem of poor black kids getting stopped and/or arrested proportionately more than non-minorities, or asset-forfeiture, or any of the other problems associated with prohibition. Exactly. Decriminalization is ridiculous in the face of data like this: quote:Black Americans were nearly four times as likely as whites to be arrested on charges of marijuana possession in 2010, even though the two groups used the drug at similar rates, according to new federal data.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 00:38
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:As for the cases where clinics have been handing out MMJ recommendations to anyone who walks through the door, the DEA has conducted a number of high-profile dispensary busts for doing just that. 17 years that California has had their medicinal cannabis patient protection law and I haven’t been able to find even a single malpractice law suit filed against a doctor that has recommended cannabis. It’s not like California doesn’t have a thriving population of ambulance chasers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 23:37
|
|
|
RichieWolk posted:If marijuana is still illegal but decriminalized, the government gets to keep their free probable-cause authorization via "I smelled pot". It also doesn't do anything to address the problem of poor black kids getting stopped and/or arrested proportionately more than non-minorities, or asset-forfeiture, or any of the other problems associated with prohibition. I'll be honest. I want it legal so I can smoke it, because I enjoy smoking it, and I couldn't give less of a rat's rear end how medicinal it is, nor how much weed culture pisses off squares. It should be legal because America loving loves weed. The freaking Dutch don't even appreciate it and they complain about people giving them money for it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 17:32
|
|
|
I want it legal for the same reason and it is really lovely to have to look over my shoulder and feel like a criminal and have my piss analyzed to check if I'm doing something less harmful to my health than eating a fast food hamburger. I see no other reason necessary.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:Yes, good doctors can exist under this system; acknowledging that is not moving the goalposts in a structural critique. But the strength of your point is contingent on the fact that bad doctors do exist. I have some unfortunate news for you regarding the prescribing patterns of health-care providers. Doctors who abuse their position to the detriment of patient health did not spring fully-formed from the forehead of medicinal cannabis. Space Gopher posted:Or you could just follow in the footsteps of the two states who have already legalized marijuana. *nods furiously* mdemone fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Jul 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 18:11
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:I'll be honest. I want it legal so I can smoke it, because I enjoy smoking it, and I couldn't give less of a rat's rear end how medicinal it is, nor how much weed culture pisses off squares. It should be legal because America loving loves weed. The freaking Dutch don't even appreciate it and they complain about people giving them money for it. I look forward to the day when hitting the family bong before the thanksgiving feast is considered a proud american tradition. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 18:24
|
|
|
RichieWolk posted:If marijuana is still illegal but decriminalized, the government gets to keep their free probable-cause authorization via "I smelled pot". It also doesn't do anything to address the problem of poor black kids getting stopped and/or arrested proportionately more than non-minorities, or asset-forfeiture, or any of the other problems associated with prohibition. I had not really thought about it like that, but you are absolutely correct. Such a bunch of bullshit all this has to even be debated. When Francis Young said it was one of the safest substances known to man that should have ended the Big Pharma tyranny against the substance. I just hate seeing people addicted to opiates and such when their pain/condition relief could be had from their backyard. The injustices of this prohibition are staggering when viewed by a compassionate human being who has seen true addiction. e: The reason I say legalization is an endorsement is because of what I have heard from local politicians about why they will not legalize or make it acceptable for medicinal uses etc. "Buuuuh we can't be endorsing that and saying it is okay TO OUR CHILDREN by legalizing it!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 20:04
|
|
|
NurhacisUrn posted:e: The reason I say legalization is an endorsement is because of what I have heard from local politicians about why they will not legalize or make it acceptable for medicinal uses etc. "Buuuuh we can't be endorsing that and saying it is okay TO OUR CHILDREN by legalizing it!" That makes sense for medicinal use, but how is straight legalization an endorsement? As was pointed out to you earlier in the thread, production/consumption of corn syrup (for example) is not only legal but encouraged via subsidies, yet at the same time the government puts out nutritional standards, educational programs, and public service announcements that effectively say "stay away from this crap". There are all sorts of things that most people would agree we should be making every effort to keep children away from, yet you will get laughed at if you suggest banning it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 21:56
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:That makes sense for medicinal use, but how is straight legalization an endorsement? As was pointed out to you earlier in the thread, production/consumption of corn syrup (for example) is not only legal but encouraged via subsidies, yet at the same time the government puts out nutritional standards, educational programs, and public service announcements that effectively say "stay away from this crap". There are all sorts of things that most people would agree we should be making every effort to keep children away from, yet you will get laughed at if you suggest banning it. Corn syrup isn't encouraged by any specific subsidy. All major crops grown in the US get heavy subsidy, corn being one of them, corn syrup happens to be something that's made. There's also heavy tariffs on importing sugar from other countries, imposed in the 1970s, and there's no way to grow nearly enough sugar beets and sugarcane in US borders to meet sweetener demand. That is a system of many independent subsidies and anti-subsidies that happens to add up to "producing high fructose corn syrup is a profitable thing", but there's no particular thing that intentionally encourages it. There also aren't actually any government programs that say "stop eating corn syrup", are you confusing general "stop eating sugars" campaigns with that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 22:08
|
|
|
Sorry to interrupt the same old circular argument that has come and go in this thread for the past year and a half, but there is some news! Colorado Springs, infamous conservative distopia, has banned the retail sale of marijuana within their city boarders. http://gazette.com/video-colorado-springs-chooses-to-disallow-retail-marijuana-sales/article/1503881 Now the city council is free to talk about their traditional American values and rugged independent conservatism right up until the moment retail sales happen in Denver and then they'll quietly pass through legislation allowing retail shops when they need the money to keep their street lights on and blame it on "libtards" and Obama.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 22:09
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:That makes sense for medicinal use, but how is straight legalization an endorsement? As was pointed out to you earlier in the thread, production/consumption of corn syrup (for example) is not only legal but encouraged via subsidies, yet at the same time the government puts out nutritional standards, educational programs, and public service announcements that effectively say "stay away from this crap". There are all sorts of things that most people would agree we should be making every effort to keep children away from, yet you will get laughed at if you suggest banning it. I completely agree, I was just citing what the powers that be have relayed to me. The people in power are the ones with the problem. You would need to explain this to them. I am in complete agreement with you, you will find no disagreement from me since it was explained to me so eloquently as to why decriminalization would still allow the civil rights abuses to continue. I have no say in the matter one way or the other, I am just tired of seeing the complete disconnect from logic and facts amongst our elected representatives and supposed stewards of our health. Francis Young won the debate yet it has been ignored.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 22:14
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:Sorry to interrupt the same old circular argument that has come and go in this thread for the past year and a half, but there is some news! My brother and I were talking about this one day, and he came up with something that I wholeheartedly agree with: If a city or town in CO forbids pot sales within the city limits, then that city's schools should not benefit from the revenue generated.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 22:15
|
|
|
How about if a city bans retail sales of marijuana, then that city's schools have their budgets doubled in the hopes of fixing the problem for the next generation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Corn syrup isn't encouraged by any specific subsidy. All major crops grown in the US get heavy subsidy, corn being one of them, corn syrup happens to be something that's made. There's also heavy tariffs on importing sugar from other countries, imposed in the 1970s, and there's no way to grow nearly enough sugar beets and sugarcane in US borders to meet sweetener demand. Why is that different? Install Gentoo posted:There also aren't actually any government programs that say "stop eating corn syrup", are you confusing general "stop eating sugars" campaigns with that? Why is that different?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 23:22
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Why is that different? Different from what? There are no subsidies for corn syrup specifically. On the other hand, there's a common and wrong belief that there is specific subsidy to create corn syrup. Different from what? There are no government campaigns against corn syrup specifically.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 23:26
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Different from what? There are no subsidies for corn syrup specifically. On the other hand, there's a common and wrong belief that there is specific subsidy to create corn syrup. As you mentioned, there are generous subsidies for corn and tariffs on sugar (and not great conditions to grow it domestically). Calling this environment anything but the subsidization of corn syrup is just petty nitpicking. Install Gentoo posted:Different from what? There are no government campaigns against corn syrup specifically. Corn syrup is a type of sugar, there are plenty of campaigns speaking to the consumption of sugar. Again with the nitpicking, especially in the context of the comparison being made: "{Harmful substance} is legal, that does not mean it is encouraged. In fact, here is an example of how the government discourages the consumption of perfectly legal {harmful substance}." e: Or do you think that if marijuana was legalized and there was a PSA that said "don't do drugs", this would somehow mean the PSA wasn't referring to marijuana? AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Jul 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 23:34
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:As you mentioned, there are generous subsidies for corn and tariffs on sugar (and not great conditions to grow it domestically). Calling this environment anything but the subsidization of corn syrup is just petty nitpicking. No it's pretty loving relevant because it implies certain things. Like how making ethanol from corn is explicitly aubsidized on top of subsidizing corn in general. There was also no intention to hype up corn with the passing of the sugar tariffs in the 70s, the domestic sugar crop producers just claimed they'd be able to meet demand without those mean ol' foreign producers. Turned out they definitely couldn't. The Japanese had invented the method to easily convert regular corn syrup to high fructose corn syrup for suitable sweetening in the 50s though, so corn ended up being the next crop to sustain the demand - it could have been any crop we make a lot of really. It's not nitpicking, it's the facts. You specified a certain thing, you don't get to go "oh well I meant the general thing". Corn syrup is factually not a harmful substance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 23:44
|
|
|
I remember seeing somewhere that proved it sort of is subsidized, but I could have misinterpreted the data, or heard a skewed source. However propaganda for HFCS is present anyone remember this gem? "Well my doctor says, SUGAR IS SUGAR!" This statement gives me a chuckle when I heard it on television a few years back. It is truly efficient doublespeak that states HFCS is not harmful, especially when viewed in terms of its rapid breakdown and correlations to glucose, liver function, and long term health effects of consumption. e: I find the science shows HFCS is technically safe in terms of "is it safe" but moderation of this gunk is key. It begins a snowball effect to your health when frequently consumed and I feel the effects of it have been understated. Of course, what do I know? I just stopped drinking soda and consuming any HFCS and saw an ALT go from 397 to 45 in a matter of months. This is the sort of thing I truly dislike, such a substance can be foisted upon the masses for our children to drink from their chubby little fingers from a 72 OZ "Big Sip" cup, but to hell with you, your family, and your goddamn dog if you choose to treat your neurological condition with a plant shown to have not killed a single human being in millenia of medicinal application. As a former member of the medical community the lack of distribution of such a cheap and efficient medicine truly breaks my heart for the afflicted and addicted. e: I'd also like to make note of the more effective use of hemp as a biofuel than corn. For economists out there, would not burning our corn for fuel be good for food prices or better? NurhacisUrn fucked around with this message at 23:48 on Jul 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 23:44
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Or do you think that if marijuana was legalized and there was a PSA that said "don't do drugs", this would somehow mean the PSA wasn't referring to marijuana? Yeah they probably would not be referring to marijuana anymore after full legalization? "Don't do drugs" campaigns tend to explicitly be about illegal drugs. You rarely see alcohol included in there, for example, except in a context of "kids can't do it (but adults are ok)". NurhacisUrn posted:I remember seeing somewhere that proved it sort of is subsidized, but I could have misinterpreted the data, or heard a skewed source. However propaganda for HFCS is present anyone remember this gem? It is in fact the same as sugar. It IS sugar. Shove massive amounts of sugar in your face every day and you get fat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 23:50
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:
Yes, I agree, but I would argue the rapid metabolism of HFCS contributes to negative health effects in a different way from a more complex sugar. From Insulin resistance to high triglycerides, I am simply stating there could be other factors to consider. The glycemic index is real, and if you follow it your liver is healthy, your glucose metabolism is healthy, and you lose a taste for processed garbage like HFCS. I consume raw sugars and stuff to no problem, I am healthier than ever. Used to be overweight, not obese, just overweight. I used to consume low amounts of HFCS, maybe one soda a day which, by reasoning, should be safe right? Wrong. Liver damage as demonstrated by my alanine aminotransferase I posted originally. I was not on any medications, had no viral interference, had a healthy diet, but I was under the mistaken impression soda was my only source of HFCS. Then I began looking through the rest of my foods and was astonished by how frequently the ingredient showed up. I began to postulate HFCS was a culprit of Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease. As I have always had a diet of lean protein and stuff not conducive to heart disease, drink in strict moderation, the fatty liver made little sense, so where else could it have come from? So I cut all the HFCS out, still drink one Coca-Cola Mexico with Cane Sugar a day, and have regular liver enzymes. I also am no longer overweight, so I find it disingenuous at best when someone says there are zero consequences to HFCS. It does do something different than other sugars.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 00:01
|
|
|
NurhacisUrn posted:Yes, I agree, but I would argue the rapid metabolism of HFCS contributes to negative health effects in a different way from a more complex sugar. From Insulin resistance to high triglycerides, I am simply stating there could be other factors to consider. The glycemic index is real, and if you follow it your liver is healthy, your glucose metabolism is healthy, and you lose a taste for processed garbage like HFCS. I consume raw sugars and stuff to no problem, I am healthier than ever. Used to be overweight, not obese, just overweight. I used to consume low amounts of HFCS, maybe one soda a day which, by reasoning, should be safe right? Wrong. Liver damage as demonstrated by my alanine aminotransferase I posted originally. I was not on any medications, had no viral interference, had a healthy diet, but I was under the mistaken impression soda was my only source of HFCS. Then I began looking through the rest of my foods and was astonished by how frequently the ingredient showed up. You would be wrong to argue this, because the science does not back this up. Including the experiences of people in countries that aren't the US, where it's simply regular sugar being put in to things instead. NurhacisUrn posted:
You have significantly changed what you eat by avoiding all things with HFCS in them. Eating what you ate before but with sucrose instead would likely not have changed anything. For example if you moved to Canada or Australia, most of the same foods would be available but the default recipes would be using sucrose instead of HFCS. You would almost certainly have the same health effects you had before. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Jul 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 00:07
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:You would be wrong to argue this, because the science does not back this up. Including the experiences of people in countries that aren't the US, where it's simply regular sugar being put in to things instead. This whole derail started over the idea that the government can say something is legal and still be against it, which you think is not possible? What about anti-alcohol and anti-tobacco government programs?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
I do concur with simple sugars being the problem, I get what you mean about sucrose. e: my apologies for the minor derail. I do feel the general silence about the subject of things that are truly bad for your health and the persecution of something proven to be medically beneficial make this somewhat related and intertwined however. NurhacisUrn fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Jul 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 00:16
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:This whole derail started over the idea that the government can say something is legal and still be against it, which you think is not possible? What about anti-alcohol and anti-tobacco government programs? That isn't what I said though? I said that using HFCS was an absolutely horrible example to use, because it had no bearing. The government is definitely not against consumption of it, at best it says "don't eat too much of any sugars". Anti-alcohol government programs tend to be rather minimal, and more focused towards specifically reducing things like children drinking, or drinking and then driving. And with regards to tobacco, its got wildly varying government reactions. Even down to stuff like how the state excise tax on a pack of cigarettes in Missouri is $0.17 per pack, but in New York it's $4.35 per pack. It's clear which state seems to be pretty much ok with cigarettes and which state is actively trying to stamp it out but doesn't have the authority or willpower to ban it straight up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 00:25
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:You would be wrong to argue this, because the science does not back this up. Including the experiences of people in countries that aren't the US, where it's simply regular sugar being put in to things instead. The problem with HFCS is that it's so highly subsidized that it's in loving everything as a flavor/filler, not just the things you would normally find sugar in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 00:56
|
|
|
Slapping a tax on tobacco sends the right message, but in drug war wonderland slapping a tax on cannabis sends the wrong message. Go figure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 01:02
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:I don't think anyone dumps a bunch of regular sugar into things like bread or soup. Yeah they do in places that don't use HFCS. Though many of them will do it by combining regular sugar with small amounts of regular corn syrup instead (hfcs and plain corn syrup is a liquid solution after all, and it's particalrly useful for maintaining "moistness" in baked goods). HFCS's cost has been within 2% above or below sucrose for the past 20 years. These prices are also rather higher then the price of sucrose globally and more specifically in Mexico and Canada. For example, in June 2013 a pound of refined sugar in Canada is $0.16 US, a pound of refined sugar in the US is $0.26 US, and the equivalent amount of HFCS in the US was $0.25. Incidentally, a lot of candy and confectionery makers set up plants in Canada to supply US markets - they can use sugar there cheaper and the finished products aren't subject to the high import tariffs on raw and refined sugar. Edit: fixed mismatched prices. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Jul 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 01:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 06:13 |
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Yeah they do in places that don't use HFCS. Though many of them will do it by combining regular sugar with small amounts of regular corn syrup instead (hfcs and plain corn syrup is a liquid solution after all, and it's particalrly useful for maintaining "moistness" in baked goods). While I'm not really arguing against your main premise, it's worth keeping in mind that a 2% difference in the price of a major ingredient can lead to large amounts of savings across entire industries. If they can save 2 cents a pound on something they use thousands of tons of each year, they'll do it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 04:07
|
|
