Interesting Video From Canada On Socialized Healthcare

[hosker]

i agree, those are the rights of the consumer and smart businesses would comply, but for me, that doesn't change the fact that there should be warning labels on products.

[SOCALHUSKER]

i agree, those are the rights of the consumer and smart businesses would comply, but for me, that doesn't change the fact that there should be warning labels on products.

 

Which is exactly my point. As a consumer you have the right to only buy products with warning labels. You don't have the right to tell others that they have to also. You destroy accountability and personal responsibility if you start forcing your opinions on others, through laws and other political regulation.

[huskertim]

Just a thought, these warning labels, doesn't a lack of a warning label now imply a tacit endorsement by the government. IE a new product is on the market, the consumer has no information on it, but the government hasn't labeled it as harmful (yet). Is it safe. the problem is that people have become so expectant that the govenment will protect them that they will assume these products have been tested and are safe, yet every few weeks, something that was considered safe is brought into question (acetmetaphine comes to mind). Furthermore, people ignore common sense and warnings in favor of personal preducies. How many times has the government told us that pot is bad for your health, yet people choose to believe it is a magical elixer that will heal all ills. Common sense would seem to ditate that inhaleing any foreign matter into ones lungs is frought with peril, but who wants to hear that?

[HuskersNow]

Just a thought, these warning labels, doesn't a lack of a warning label now imply a tacit endorsement by the government. IE a new product is on the market, the consumer has no information on it, but the government hasn't labeled it as harmful (yet). Is it safe. the problem is that people have become so expectant that the govenment will protect them that they will assume these products have been tested and are safe, yet every few weeks, something that was considered safe is brought into question (acetmetaphine comes to mind). Furthermore, people ignore common sense and warnings in favor of personal preducies. How many times has the government told us that pot is bad for your health, yet people choose to believe it is a magical elixer that will heal all ills. Common sense would seem to ditate that inhaleing any foreign matter into ones lungs is frought with peril, but who wants to hear that?

 

As soon as I realized what it was, I never considered acetemetaphine safe.

 

In regards to pot, the government is just a propoganda machine that will say anything to get people to stop using anything they consider bad becasue of their personal prejudices. There are health benefits to using it and there is little evidence to suggest that it is dangerous.

 

 

Benefits

"Though the medicinal value of cannabis has been debated, it does have several well-documented beneficial effects. Cannabis is indicated for treating and preventing nausea and vomiting, for treatment of glaucoma due to its lower of intraocular pressure, as well as a general analgesic. Individual studies also have been conducted indicating cannabis to a gamut of conditions running from multiple sclerosis to depression. Extracts of cannabis have also been created and sold as prescription drugs in the United States, primarily for the treatment of pain and nausea."

 

 

Debate on health effects

"The smoking of cannabis is the most harmful method of consumption, since the inhalation of smoke from organic materials such as cannabis, tobacco, and rolling papers can cause various health problems.[26]

 

In comparison, study on cannabis vaporizing found that subjects were "only 40% as likely to report respiratory symptoms as users who do not vaporize, even when age, sex, cigarette use, and amount of cannabis consumed are controlled."[27] Another study found vaporizers to be "a safe and effective cannabinoid delivery system."[28][29]

 

 

Comparison of physical harm and dependence regarding various drugs (the British medical journal The Lancet).[30]A 2007 study by the Canadian government found cannabis smoke contained more toxic substances than tobacco smoke.[31] The study determined that marijuana smoke contained 20 times more ammonia, and five times more hydrogen cyanide and nitrogen oxides than tobacco smoke. In spite of this, recent studies have been unable to demonstrate a direct link between lung cancer and frequent direct inhalation of marijuana smoke. While many researchers have failed to find a correlation,[32][33] some researchers still conclude that cannabis smoke poses a higher risk of lung cancer than tobacco.[34] Some studies have even shown that the non-intoxicating ingredient cannabidiol found in marijuana may be useful in treating breast cancer.[35]

 

Cannabis use has been assessed by several studies to be correlated with the development of anxiety, psychosis, and depression,[36][37] however, no causal mechanism has been proven, and the meaning of the correlation and its direction is a subject of debate that has not been resolved in the scientific community. Some studies assess that the causality is more likely to involve a path from Cannabis use to psychotic symptoms rather than a path from psychotic symptoms to cannabis use,[38] while others assess the opposite direction of the causality, or hold cannabis to only form parts of a "causal constellation", while not inflicting mental health problems that would not have occurred in the absence of the cannabis use.[39][40]

 

Though cannabis use has at times been associated with stroke, there is no firmly established link, and potential mechanisms are unknown.[41] Similarly, there is no established relationship between cannabis use and heart disease, including exacerbation of cases of existing heart disease.[42] Though some fMRI studies have shown changes in neurological function in long term heavy cannabis users, no long term behavioral effects after abstinence have been linked to these changes."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug)

 

 

In regards to the government's position, they can pick and use any statistics they want to prove their point. Even though information gathered in this manner is usually inaccurate, that won't stop them. Many drugs have negative side-effects but that does not stop people from using them, and pot's side-effects are harmless in moderation.

[sarge87]

Just a thought, these warning labels, doesn't a lack of a warning label now imply a tacit endorsement by the government. IE a new product is on the market, the consumer has no information on it, but the government hasn't labeled it as harmful (yet). Is it safe. the problem is that people have become so expectant that the govenment will protect them that they will assume these products have been tested and are safe, yet every few weeks, something that was considered safe is brought into question (acetmetaphine comes to mind). Furthermore, people ignore common sense and warnings in favor of personal preducies. How many times has the government told us that pot is bad for your health, yet people choose to believe it is a magical elixer that will heal all ills. Common sense would seem to ditate that inhaleing any foreign matter into ones lungs is frought with peril, but who wants to hear that?

 

As soon as I realized what it was, I never considered acetemetaphine safe.

 

In regards to pot, the government is just a propoganda machine that will say anything to get people to stop using anything they consider bad becasue of their personal prejudices. There are health benefits to using it and there is little evidence to suggest that it is dangerous.

 

 

Benefits

"Though the medicinal value of cannabis has been debated, it does have several well-documented beneficial effects. Cannabis is indicated for treating and preventing nausea and vomiting, for treatment of glaucoma due to its lower of intraocular pressure, as well as a general analgesic. Individual studies also have been conducted indicating cannabis to a gamut of conditions running from multiple sclerosis to depression. Extracts of cannabis have also been created and sold as prescription drugs in the United States, primarily for the treatment of pain and nausea."

 

 

Debate on health effects

"The smoking of cannabis is the most harmful method of consumption, since the inhalation of smoke from organic materials such as cannabis, tobacco, and rolling papers can cause various health problems.[26]

 

In comparison, study on cannabis vaporizing found that subjects were "only 40% as likely to report respiratory symptoms as users who do not vaporize, even when age, sex, cigarette use, and amount of cannabis consumed are controlled."[27] Another study found vaporizers to be "a safe and effective cannabinoid delivery system."[28][29]

 

 

Comparison of physical harm and dependence regarding various drugs (the British medical journal The Lancet).[30]A 2007 study by the Canadian government found cannabis smoke contained more toxic substances than tobacco smoke.[31] The study determined that marijuana smoke contained 20 times more ammonia, and five times more hydrogen cyanide and nitrogen oxides than tobacco smoke. In spite of this, recent studies have been unable to demonstrate a direct link between lung cancer and frequent direct inhalation of marijuana smoke. While many researchers have failed to find a correlation,[32][33] some researchers still conclude that cannabis smoke poses a higher risk of lung cancer than tobacco.[34] Some studies have even shown that the non-intoxicating ingredient cannabidiol found in marijuana may be useful in treating breast cancer.[35]

 

Cannabis use has been assessed by several studies to be correlated with the development of anxiety, psychosis, and depression,[36][37] however, no causal mechanism has been proven, and the meaning of the correlation and its direction is a subject of debate that has not been resolved in the scientific community. Some studies assess that the causality is more likely to involve a path from Cannabis use to psychotic symptoms rather than a path from psychotic symptoms to cannabis use,[38] while others assess the opposite direction of the causality, or hold cannabis to only form parts of a "causal constellation", while not inflicting mental health problems that would not have occurred in the absence of the cannabis use.[39][40]

 

Though cannabis use has at times been associated with stroke, there is no firmly established link, and potential mechanisms are unknown.[41] Similarly, there is no established relationship between cannabis use and heart disease, including exacerbation of cases of existing heart disease.[42] Though some fMRI studies have shown changes in neurological function in long term heavy cannabis users, no long term behavioral effects after abstinence have been linked to these changes."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug)

 

 

In regards to the government's position, they can pick and use any statistics they want to prove their point. Even though information gathered in this manner is usually inaccurate, that won't stop them. Many drugs have negative side-effects but that does not stop people from using them, and pot's side-effects are harmless in moderation.

Your quote reminds me of the second-hand smoke study commissioned by the WHO in the 90s. When the anti-smoking lobby didn't get the desired result from the study, the report was suppressed and buried.

 

And don't get me started on global warming.............

 

It's about money and control.

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

Your quote reminds me of the second-hand smoke study commissioned by the WHO in the 90s. When the anti-smoking lobby didn't get the desired result from the study, the report was suppressed and buried.

 

And don't get me started on global warming.............

 

It's about money and control.

 

I hadn't heard of this study, do you know the name of it?

[hosker]

Which is exactly my point. As a consumer you have the right to only buy products with warning labels. You don't have the right to tell others that they have to also. You destroy accountability and personal responsibility if you start forcing your opinions on others, through laws and other political regulation.

 

and thats my point... no one would have opinions forced on them, and no ones having decisions made for them. it would be facts, informative labels, not opinions. all of which would make it easier for the average person to make well informed responsible decisions.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Which is exactly my point. As a consumer you have the right to only buy products with warning labels. You don't have the right to tell others that they have to also. You destroy accountability and personal responsibility if you start forcing your opinions on others, through laws and other political regulation.

 

and thats my point... no one would have opinions forced on them, and no ones having decisions made for them. it would be facts, informative labels, not opinions. all of which would make it easier for the average person to make well informed responsible decisions.

 

That would all be good except that you are proposing to use the government to "force" business to comply instead of merely allowing the "voluntary" free market to make businesses comply. If allowed to function, the free market would take care of this problem at a far more efficient and fair rate.

[hosker]

That would all be good except that you are proposing to use the government to "force" business to comply instead of merely allowing the "voluntary" free market to make businesses comply. If allowed to function, the free market would take care of this problem at a far more efficient and fair rate.

 

 

"use the government to "force" businesses to comply"

 

yeah, if you want to look at it that way. but the way i see it is that facts, stats, and truth would be "forced" all the way up to the fingertips of the consumers... whether they choose to use it or not, is up to them.

 

yes, the market would do the job. but i just prefer a system with some checks and balances, for when corporate america inevitably pulls some strings.

[SOCALHUSKER]

That would all be good except that you are proposing to use the government to "force" business to comply instead of merely allowing the "voluntary" free market to make businesses comply. If allowed to function, the free market would take care of this problem at a far more efficient and fair rate.

 

 

"use the government to "force" businesses to comply"

 

yeah, if you want to look at it that way. but the way i see it is that facts, stats, and truth would be "forced" all the way up to the fingertips of the consumers... whether they choose to use it or not, is up to them.

 

yes, the market would do the job. but i just prefer a system with some checks and balances, for when corporate america inevitably pulls some strings.

 

1. That's how government functions, through the use of coercion and force. There's no other way to describe it. Also how do you figure in a free market consumers are "forced" to do anything. If they can voluntarily choose, force does not exist. Force is not voluntary.

 

2. The free market has a system of checks and balances, it's called profit and loss. If the consumer is happy, the business profits. If not, losses occur. Those who lose enough go out of business. There is no need for interpretation, debate or a vote. The system works. And as for pulling strings, how do you percieve this happening in a free market system without the benefit of a coercive or forceful entity? Does the current system or the system of Lmtd. Govt, which you support, stop businesses from pulling strings? No it doesn't. In fact, it supports and advocates it.

[hosker]

1. That's how government functions, through the use of coercion and force. There's no other way to describe it. Also how do you figure in a free market consumers are "forced" to do anything. If they can voluntarily choose, force does not exist. Force is not voluntary.

 

yeah, if you want to look at it that way. but what im saying is, a government made up of citizens, working together, for the betterment of the all citizens(not bankers), by way of laws("force"). as long as such laws are in accordance with The Constitution, would be the best form of ensuring freedom, other than anarchy..... agian, this requires a shift in policy and philosophy in DC

 

anarchy can't sustain itself... unless everyone wants anarchy, which wont happen.

 

i never said consumers would be forced to do anything. i said factual information would be forced, not onto them, but to the point where they can choose to use it or not.

 

 

2. The free market has a system of checks and balances, it's called profit and loss. If the consumer is happy, the business profits. If not, losses occur. Those who lose enough go out of business. There is no need for interpretation, debate or a vote. The system works. And as for pulling strings, how do you percieve this happening in a free market system without the benefit of a coercive or forceful entity? Does the current system or the system of Lmtd. Govt, which you support, stop businesses from pulling strings? No it doesn't. In fact, it supports and advocates it.

 

the string pulling im talking about are for example: companies bribing product researchers, companies lying about whats in there product, companies lying about side effects, ect, ect, ect...

 

yes, absolutely it works. now if we could just have an group of people that make sure all the players play fair. i think a government of elected representatives could handle the job... again, for success, there needs to be change in DC.

 

a Constitutional gov. has nothing to gain from a free market.... other than economic "success" by the very people that made the gov.

 

 

i'll apologize in advance for not answering any more of your posts, im done with this debate.

[SOCALHUSKER]

1. That's how government functions, through the use of coercion and force. There's no other way to describe it. Also how do you figure in a free market consumers are "forced" to do anything. If they can voluntarily choose, force does not exist. Force is not voluntary.

 

yeah, if you want to look at it that way. but what im saying is, a government made up of citizens, working together, for the betterment of the all citizens(not bankers), by way of laws("force"). as long as such laws are in accordance with The Constitution, would be the best form of ensuring freedom, other than anarchy..... agian, this requires a shift in policy and philosophy in DC

 

anarchy can't sustain itself... unless everyone wants anarchy, which wont happen.

 

i never said consumers would be forced to do anything. i said factual information would be forced, not onto them, but to the point where they can choose to use it or not.

 

 

2. The free market has a system of checks and balances, it's called profit and loss. If the consumer is happy, the business profits. If not, losses occur. Those who lose enough go out of business. There is no need for interpretation, debate or a vote. The system works. And as for pulling strings, how do you percieve this happening in a free market system without the benefit of a coercive or forceful entity? Does the current system or the system of Lmtd. Govt, which you support, stop businesses from pulling strings? No it doesn't. In fact, it supports and advocates it.

 

the string pulling im talking about are for example: companies bribing product researchers, companies lying about whats in there product, companies lying about side effects, ect, ect, ect...

 

yes, absolutely it works. now if we could just have an group of people that make sure all the players play fair. i think a government of elected representatives could handle the job... again, for success, there needs to be change in DC.

 

a Constitutional gov. has nothing to gain from a free market.... other than economic "success" by the very people that made the gov.

 

 

i'll apologize in advance for not answering any more of your posts, im done with this debate.

First of all, any defender of freedom should not condone, promote or defend the use of force on anyone at anytime!! This is a direct violation of the non-aggression axiom. To be more specific, Force, in the government sense of the word, is the initiation of violence to obtain an end. Self-defense is not initiated therefore it cannot be considered force. To promote, defend or use force is not only completely immoral but also contradictory to natural law. Those who view force as a valid means to any end have serious psychological issues and should receive help immediately.

 

Read this account from a sailor who recently came to this realization.

 

This debate may seem tedious and it is, but you do realize that you are actually promoting the very thing that you claim to be the problem, don't you?? This is one of the contradictions of promoting even a limited, constitutionally bound government. You claim that a group of men must be elected to ensure that men don't wrong one another. You claim that without those elected men, laws or whatever; men will cheat, bribe, etc... You also falsely claim that the market, which is made up entirely of men, does not provide sufficient oversight to keep this from happening.

 

If man himself cannot solve these problems, how then is it possible that men, when elected and in the form of a government, are suddenly able to solve these problems? Are the men elected just so much smarter than the average man? Do they have some magical election powers that allow them to solve problems? Are they more upstanding and honest if they are then elected? Does government have a magical crystal ball that has all the answers to societies ills? The answer is no, they are still simply men. Men who make mistakes just as every other human does. One cannot change the mistakes of man simply by electing a representative who is also a man.

 

When one elects a representative and creates a government, instead of creating a more level playing field or "bettering society," which is a falsehood in itself, one actually creates a tool, which allows the very problems it was created to destroy to gain legitimacy and power. There is no way to cure all of the world’s problems, because nature is unpredictable and men make mistakes. However, there are ways to limit the problems and that is to create an environment that fosters freedom, responsibility and prosperity; one that abolishes the mechanism that fosters problems and actually creates more of them.

 

You claim that force is ok, which I utterly refute, as long as it is in accordance with the Constitution. Do you believe the man-made Constitution really considers every citizen’s wants and needs? What about the people who don’t consent to or wish to partake in the constitutional system, what about people who don’t believe in the use of force, what happens to them? These are problems created by government that only individual choice can deter. Another common contradiction is how can an entity, created to secure rights of its citizens, even come into existence without requiring the same citizens to give up their rights? These are a few things you should really think about.

 

Also, to say that anarchy cannot sustain itself is to say that free individuals would not believe in freedom enough to sustain it. Do you really believe that? If you do, what details makes you believe that?

[SOCALHUSKER]

By the way, socialized medicine sucks!!

[hosker]

Audience Shouts Down Sebelius, Specter at Health Care Town Hall in Philadelphia

August 4, 2009

 

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Sen. Arlen Specter got a preview Sunday of the tough sell lawmakers will face over health care as audience members booed and jeered them during a town hall meeting in Philadelphia.

 

J-Bpshk5nX0

 

Among those at odds with the officials touting the $1 trillion, 10-year plan was a woman who earned loud applause when she said she doesn’t want Washington interfering with her health care choices.

 

“I look at this health care plan and I see nothing that is about health or about care. What I see is a bureaucratic nightmare, senator. Medicaid is broke, Medicare is broke, Social Security is broke and you want us to believe that a government that can’t even run a cash for clunkers program is going to run one-seventh of our U.S. economy? No sir, no,” she said.

 

LINK

 

 

****

 

"we divide up the bill, and we have to make judgments very fast"

 

[huskertim]

Just a thought, these warning labels, doesn't a lack of a warning label now imply a tacit endorsement by the government. IE a new product is on the market, the consumer has no information on it, but the government hasn't labeled it as harmful (yet). Is it safe. the problem is that people have become so expectant that the govenment will protect them that they will assume these products have been tested and are safe, yet every few weeks, something that was considered safe is brought into question (acetmetaphine comes to mind). Furthermore, people ignore common sense and warnings in favor of personal preducies. How many times has the government told us that pot is bad for your health, yet people choose to believe it is a magical elixer that will heal all ills. Common sense would seem to ditate that inhaleing any foreign matter into ones lungs is frought with peril, but who wants to hear that?

 

As soon as I realized what it was, I never considered acetemetaphine safe.

 

In regards to pot, the government is just a propoganda machine that will say anything to get people to stop using anything they consider bad becasue of their personal prejudices. There are health benefits to using it and there is little evidence to suggest that it is dangerous.

 

 

Benefits

"Though the medicinal value of cannabis has been debated, it does have several well-documented beneficial effects. Cannabis is indicated for treating and preventing nausea and vomiting, for treatment of glaucoma due to its lower of intraocular pressure, as well as a general analgesic. Individual studies also have been conducted indicating cannabis to a gamut of conditions running from multiple sclerosis to depression. Extracts of cannabis have also been created and sold as prescription drugs in the United States, primarily for the treatment of pain and nausea."

 

 

Debate on health effects

"The smoking of cannabis is the most harmful method of consumption, since the inhalation of smoke from organic materials such as cannabis, tobacco, and rolling papers can cause various health problems.[26]

 

In comparison, study on cannabis vaporizing found that subjects were "only 40% as likely to report respiratory symptoms as users who do not vaporize, even when age, sex, cigarette use, and amount of cannabis consumed are controlled."[27] Another study found vaporizers to be "a safe and effective cannabinoid delivery system."[28][29]

 

 

Comparison of physical harm and dependence regarding various drugs (the British medical journal The Lancet).[30]A 2007 study by the Canadian government found cannabis smoke contained more toxic substances than tobacco smoke.[31] The study determined that marijuana smoke contained 20 times more ammonia, and five times more hydrogen cyanide and nitrogen oxides than tobacco smoke. In spite of this, recent studies have been unable to demonstrate a direct link between lung cancer and frequent direct inhalation of marijuana smoke. While many researchers have failed to find a correlation,[32][33] some researchers still conclude that cannabis smoke poses a higher risk of lung cancer than tobacco.[34] Some studies have even shown that the non-intoxicating ingredient cannabidiol found in marijuana may be useful in treating breast cancer.[35]

 

Cannabis use has been assessed by several studies to be correlated with the development of anxiety, psychosis, and depression,[36][37] however, no causal mechanism has been proven, and the meaning of the correlation and its direction is a subject of debate that has not been resolved in the scientific community. Some studies assess that the causality is more likely to involve a path from Cannabis use to psychotic symptoms rather than a path from psychotic symptoms to cannabis use,[38] while others assess the opposite direction of the causality, or hold cannabis to only form parts of a "causal constellation", while not inflicting mental health problems that would not have occurred in the absence of the cannabis use.[39][40]

 

Though cannabis use has at times been associated with stroke, there is no firmly established link, and potential mechanisms are unknown.[41] Similarly, there is no established relationship between cannabis use and heart disease, including exacerbation of cases of existing heart disease.[42] Though some fMRI studies have shown changes in neurological function in long term heavy cannabis users, no long term behavioral effects after abstinence have been linked to these changes."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug)

 

 

In regards to the government's position, they can pick and use any statistics they want to prove their point. Even though information gathered in this manner is usually inaccurate, that won't stop them. Many drugs have negative side-effects but that does not stop people from using them, and pot's side-effects are harmless in moderation.

 

 

Me thinks you missed the point, while ironically demonstrating it. My rather obvious point is, that we are willing to accept the governments assesment on what is or isn't dangerous for us, unless it contradicts what we believe. Govt says pot bad, you say pot good. Govt says tylenol bad you say tylenol bad. See what I mean? Which facts do you choose to believe? If the govt is conspireing against pot (as you seem to believe), how come they couldn't be conspireing against tylenol.

 

BTW, I have made my pro-pot postion abundantly clear, so you can stop trying the snake oil sales pitch.