Super duper hype fast FET driver?

[Les Cargill]

Bill Sloman wrote:

On Aug 25, 9:47 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:16:45 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky

nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

It's a matter of preventing a great deal of very real
public harm, a matter of protecting the young and the weak against
professional predators.

Weak, irresponsible and stupid don't survive. That is what they call an
evolution.

That's a pretty mean attitude.

But realistic. US society protects people - none too effectively -
against the illegal drugs of addiction, but does nothing to prevent
them eating themselves into lethal obesity or drinking themselves to
death. you might want to think about what a self-consistent public
health policy might look like.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

We know next to nothing about the pathologies of obesity. When doctors
take insulin production into account it begins to look like carbs,
*all* carbs contribute mightily to it - and a "healthy diet" as
it's presently advertised by gummint is thick in carbs.

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/carbs-weight-gain.html

I've dropped 20 pounds myself by emphasizing frozen veggies and meat
and cutting back on carbs.

A truly self-consistent public health policy would be *FAR* too
invasive.

--
Les Cargill

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:59:17 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Aug 25, 7:02 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:09:33 -0500, John S <soph...@invalid.org
wrote:



On 8/24/2011 3:00 PM, Joerg wrote:
John S wrote:
On 8/23/2011 9:38 AM, Joerg wrote:

That's the thing, I never took any drugs

Why not? Did you simply choose not to take drugs? But those you observed
had no choice?

Everybody had that choice. I chose to say no.

The woman that wept a lot because her son (whom I knew) died from drugs.
The guy who'd stare through you if you said "goede morgen". The guy in
the space suit who cleaned street gutters all day long although they
were clean. He couldn't talk at all anymore. Should I go on? This was
back then a village of about 5000 people, so families knew each other
quite well.

I wonder who forced them to use drugs?

Nobody. But some people's will power is not high enough to say no when
stuff is highly available. That's why drug problems in "free drug"
countries are usually massively worse than elsewhere.

If you really believe that, then it is like me arguing against a
religion. I concede that I cannot win against faith.

Not at all. It's a matter of preventing a great deal of very real
public harm, a matter of protecting the young and the weak against
professional predators.

Legalising soft drugs drop the profit margin on supplying them, and
makes the people who supply the drug a part of the community.

Nobody talks about liquor store owners, Starbucks, or the people who
sell cigarettes as "professional predators".

Wrong. In the case of cigarettes, I call them predators and murderers.
And I'm not alone.

John

 

[Les Cargill]

Bill Sloman wrote:

On Aug 25, 7:02 am, John Larkin
snip

Legalising soft drugs drop the profit margin on supplying them, and
makes the people who supply the drug a part of the community.

They are running the experiment right now in Northern California.
The people who participate are making pretty good money.

Nobody talks about liquor store owners, Starbucks, or the people who
sell cigarettes as "professional predators".

The tobacco companies? Yeah, they do.

They do have an interest in selling more of their - addictive -
products, but they are better integrated into their communities than
dealers in illegal drugs and have more to lose if they are seen to
trying to encourage people into addiction.

Economists know that demand largely exists independent of supply...

Lenny Bruce used to claim that the war on drugs represented a
conspiracy between the FBI and Maffia to keep the price of drugs high.
It's a bit too close to the truth for comfort.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

--
Les Cargill

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 19:04:24 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Aug 25, 7:00 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:00:52 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:



John S wrote:
On 8/23/2011 9:38 AM, Joerg wrote:

That's the thing, I never took any drugs

Why not? Did you simply choose not to take drugs? But those you observed
had no choice?

Everybody had that choice. I chose to say no.

The woman that wept a lot because her son (whom I knew) died from drugs.
The guy who'd stare through you if you said "goede morgen". The guy in
the space suit who cleaned street gutters all day long although they
were clean. He couldn't talk at all anymore. Should I go on? This was
back then a village of about 5000 people, so families knew each other
quite well.

I wonder who forced them to use drugs?

Nobody. But some people's will power is not high enough to say no when
stuff is highly available. That's why drug problems in "free drug"
countries are usually massively worse than elsewhere.

Right. It's a simple matter of public safety. We can't let
professional designer-drug experts prey on people with limited
resources of self-control.

So much for the tobacco industry.

Grandfathered in, unfortunately. And the states have been bought off,
so are now willing partners in the killing machine.

John

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

It's a matter of preventing a great deal of very real
public harm, a matter of protecting the young and the weak against
professional predators.

Weak, irresponsible and stupid don't survive. That is what they call an
evolution. I would be more concerned about protection against
professional champions for the public good.

Then explain why you're still here.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:06:19 -0500, John S <sophi.2@invalid.org> wrote:

On 8/24/2011 4:00 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:00:52 -0700, Joerg<invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John S wrote:
On 8/23/2011 9:38 AM, Joerg wrote:

That's the thing, I never took any drugs

Why not? Did you simply choose not to take drugs? But those you observed
had no choice?


Everybody had that choice. I chose to say no.


The woman that wept a lot because her son (whom I knew) died from drugs.
The guy who'd stare through you if you said "goede morgen". The guy in
the space suit who cleaned street gutters all day long although they
were clean. He couldn't talk at all anymore. Should I go on? This was
back then a village of about 5000 people, so families knew each other
quite well.


I wonder who forced them to use drugs?


Nobody. But some people's will power is not high enough to say no when
stuff is highly available. That's why drug problems in "free drug"
countries are usually massively worse than elsewhere.

Right. It's a simple matter of public safety. We can't let
professional designer-drug experts prey on people with limited
resources of self-control.

John


What happened to the "Just Say NO" campaign?

It was too Republican.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 25, 7:02 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:09:33 -0500, John S <soph...@invalid.org
wrote:



On 8/24/2011 3:00 PM, Joerg wrote:
John S wrote:
On 8/23/2011 9:38 AM, Joerg wrote:

That's the thing, I never took any drugs

Why not? Did you simply choose not to take drugs? But those you observed
had no choice?

Everybody had that choice. I chose to say no.

The woman that wept a lot because her son (whom I knew) died from drugs.
The guy who'd stare through you if you said "goede morgen". The guy in
the space suit who cleaned street gutters all day long although they
were clean. He couldn't talk at all anymore. Should I go on? This was
back then a village of about 5000 people, so families knew each other
quite well.

I wonder who forced them to use drugs?

Nobody. But some people's will power is not high enough to say no when
stuff is highly available. That's why drug problems in "free drug"
countries are usually massively worse than elsewhere.

If you really believe that, then it is like me arguing against a
religion. I concede that I cannot win against faith.

Not at all. It's a matter of preventing a great deal of very real
public harm, a matter of protecting the young and the weak against
professional predators.

Legalising soft drugs drop the profit margin on supplying them, and
makes the people who supply the drug a part of the community.

Nobody talks about liquor store owners, Starbucks, or the people who
sell cigarettes as "professional predators".

They do have an interest in selling more of their - addictive -
products, but they are better integrated into their communities than
dealers in illegal drugs and have more to lose if they are seen to
trying to encourage people into addiction.

Lenny Bruce used to claim that the war on drugs represented a
conspiracy between the FBI and Maffia to keep the price of drugs high.
It's a bit too close to the truth for comfort.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 25, 7:00 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:00:52 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:



John S wrote:
On 8/23/2011 9:38 AM, Joerg wrote:

That's the thing, I never took any drugs

Why not? Did you simply choose not to take drugs? But those you observed
had no choice?

Everybody had that choice. I chose to say no.

The woman that wept a lot because her son (whom I knew) died from drugs.
The guy who'd stare through you if you said "goede morgen". The guy in
the space suit who cleaned street gutters all day long although they
were clean. He couldn't talk at all anymore. Should I go on? This was
back then a village of about 5000 people, so families knew each other
quite well.

I wonder who forced them to use drugs?

Nobody. But some people's will power is not high enough to say no when
stuff is highly available. That's why drug problems in "free drug"
countries are usually massively worse than elsewhere.

Right. It's a simple matter of public safety. We can't let
professional designer-drug experts prey on people with limited
resources of self-control.

So much for the tobacco industry.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 25, 9:47 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:16:45 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky

nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

It's a matter of preventing a great deal of very real
public harm, a matter of protecting the young and the weak against
professional predators.

Weak, irresponsible and stupid don't survive. That is what they call an
evolution.

That's a pretty mean attitude.

But realistic. US society protects people - none too effectively -
against the illegal drugs of addiction, but does nothing to prevent
them eating themselves into lethal obesity or drinking themselves to
death. you might want to think about what a self-consistent public
health policy might look like.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 21:28:40 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Aug 25, 1:04 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:59:17 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman



bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Aug 25, 7:02 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:09:33 -0500, John S <soph...@invalid.org
wrote:

On 8/24/2011 3:00 PM, Joerg wrote:
John S wrote:
On 8/23/2011 9:38 AM, Joerg wrote:

That's the thing, I never took any drugs

Why not? Did you simply choose not to take drugs? But those you observed
had no choice?

Everybody had that choice. I chose to say no.

The woman that wept a lot because her son (whom I knew) died from drugs.
The guy who'd stare through you if you said "goede morgen". The guy in
the space suit who cleaned street gutters all day long although they
were clean. He couldn't talk at all anymore. Should I go on? This was
back then a village of about 5000 people, so families knew each other
quite well.

I wonder who forced them to use drugs?

Nobody. But some people's will power is not high enough to say no when
stuff is highly available. That's why drug problems in "free drug"
countries are usually massively worse than elsewhere.

If you really believe that, then it is like me arguing against a
religion. I concede that I cannot win against faith.

Not at all. It's a matter of preventing a great deal of very real
public harm, a matter of protecting the young and the weak against
professional predators.

Legalising soft drugs drop the profit margin on supplying them, and
makes the people who supply the drug a part of the community.

Nobody talks about liquor store owners, Starbucks, or the people who
sell cigarettes as "professional predators".

Wrong. In the case of cigarettes, I call them predators and murderers.
And I'm not alone.

But you haven't persuaded the FBI to arrest them and lock them up in
prison for decades, as you would be doing if your policies against
dangerous addictive drugs were even vaguely internally consistent.

How do you suggest I persuade the FBI to do that?

Moron.

John

 

[Les Cargill]

Bill Sloman wrote:

On Aug 25, 1:02 pm, Les Cargill<lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On Aug 25, 9:47 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:16:45 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky

nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

It's a matter of preventing a great deal of very real
public harm, a matter of protecting the young and the weak against
professional predators.

Weak, irresponsible and stupid don't survive. That is what they call an
evolution.

That's a pretty mean attitude.

But realistic. US society protects people - none too effectively -
against the illegal drugs of addiction, but does nothing to prevent
them eating themselves into lethal obesity or drinking themselves to
death. you might want to think about what a self-consistent public
health policy might look like.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

We know next to nothing about the pathologies of obesity. When doctors
take insulin production into account it begins to look like carbs,
*all* carbs contribute mightily to it - and a "healthy diet" as
it's presently advertised by gummint is thick in carbs.

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/carbs-weight-gain.html

I've dropped 20 pounds myself by emphasizing frozen veggies and meat
and cutting back on carbs.

A truly self-consistent public health policy would be *FAR* too
invasive.

It would probably have to be pretty invasive to be particularly
effective, but self-consistency is always to be recommended, even if
it doesn't actually minimise damage.

That's just... no, self-consistency is only useful in the service of a
well established set of principles. Even then, the result
may well be Mandarinism.

You cannot impute proper behavior from first or even second order
principles. Life is not a theorem. A theorem is arguably
the least ... interesting form of knowledge. Don't get me wrong,
I like theorems in the proper context, but people are far too
complex to be tractable in that manner.

I could not have provided a better example of purist mandarin
technocracy if asked. You *just don't know enough*, Bill. Not
"you" you - nobody does. What's it like in there? Nobody knows.

And it's not like the people who do work with things like
nutrition standards can really be reliable - they don't know
what your system works like.

Getting excited about the damage drug addicts do to themselves while
ignoring the way food addicts wreck their health is distinctly silly.

So howzabout we ignore both of those unless we have a personal
stake in it? Is that so hard?

My personal experience was a doctor ready to put me on statins when
I have never had high cholesterol in my life. *Low* cholesterol. I made
her get a different test at a different lab, and sonofagun, the first
test was off a lot.

The only thing that really does seem to help with obesity is surgical
adjustments of the stomach

No! I actually have a friend who has beaten morbid obesity, and that
was not the right thing to do at all. He's taken a *specific* dietary
regime ( which doesn't include carbs, interestingly enough - so his
glucose and insulin levels are amazing ) and very specific
exercise.

That's like "gee, kinda looks like plumbing in there, don't it Bob?
Lets put a flow restrictor in."

No! It's a control/feedback problem and that's how it has been managed
in his case. it works. it was terrifyingly difficult, and may
fail at any moment.

You and I are among the first or second generation that *has never
really been hungry*. It's all outta calibration in there. Doesn't
that make more sense?

and the top of the digestive system and
that is seriously invasive. If we get a better grip on the way
appetite control works in people who don't get fat - and fails to work
in people who do - we may come up with less invasive treatments that
do work, but it may take a while.

I can't disagree there. But when people mare some sort of Social
Darwinist... or even moderately Dickensian approach, it's just
plain wrong.

Again: we know *very little* about either of these problems. If
you use the right angle on it, they may not really even *be* problems,
At least not problems for which there is a general public
goods solution.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

--
Les Cargill

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 21:27:36 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Aug 25, 7:00 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:00:52 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:







John S wrote:
On 8/23/2011 9:38 AM, Joerg wrote:

That's the thing, I never took any drugs

Why not? Did you simply choose not to take drugs? But those you observed
had no choice?

Everybody had that choice. I chose to say no.

The woman that wept a lot because her son (whom I knew) died from drugs.
The guy who'd stare through you if you said "goede morgen". The guy in
the space suit who cleaned street gutters all day long although they
were clean. He couldn't talk at all anymore. Should I go on? This was
back then a village of about 5000 people, so families knew each other
quite well.

I wonder who forced them to use drugs?

Nobody. But some people's will power is not high enough to say no when
stuff is highly available. That's why drug problems in "free drug"
countries are usually massively worse than elsewhere.

Right. It's a simple matter of public safety. We can't let
professional designer-drug experts prey on people with limited
resources of self-control.

But you seem to be perfectly happy to let professional purveyors of
financially advantageous mis-information prey on people with a limited
capacity for critical thinking.

In fact you seem to think that denialist propaganda miniminising the
dangers of persisting anhtropogenic global warming is some kind of
useful public service, rather than a cynical exercise by the fossil-
carbon extraction industry designed to let them keep on digging up and
selling fossil-carbon until the damage it causes is blatant enough to
be undeniable.

You are very tedious and very stupid, and have very little to say
about electronics.

John

 

[Les Cargill]

Bill Sloman wrote:

On Aug 25, 1:05 pm, Les Cargill<lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On Aug 25, 7:02 am, John Larkin
snip

Legalising soft drugs drops the profit margin on supplying them, and
makes the people who supply the drug a part of the community.

They are running the experiment right now in Northern California.
The people who participate are making pretty good money.

So?

So yeah. Until the feds get involved...

Nobody talks about liquor store owners, Starbucks, or the people who
sell cigarettes as "professional predators".

The tobacco companies? Yeah, they do.

My wife gave up cigarettes many years ago, but she remains addicted to
coffee. Tobacco clearly does more harm than coffee, so people get
less upset about the dealers who make money from selling coffee, but
they are equally guilty of "professional predation' in the sense of
exploiting a human weakness for their own profit.

Cigarettes didn't do that much harm either. That was
never the point. The people who put the Surgeon's
General report more or less admitted that - they could
quantify it only at a level of rough order of magnitude.
If you died of something they'd kill you with, you
had at most a 50% chance of the smokes having
actually caused it. This against specific pathologies
with mortality rates in the 20% range.

Chemotherapy has much higher mortality rates.

*Of course* people who could quit should, but it's not
like the epidemiology of it all really ever made sense.
That didn't matter; there was a narrative and that
replaced facts.

People lived in houses painted with lead paint, with
asbestos fireproofing, coal heating, in cities with massive
quantities of lead from ethyl gasoline. They worked in machine
shops with particulates at ... many times the "safe" level, or
with chemicals like methylene chloride.

Prior to say, what, 1950, nobody even *thought* about
this stuff. Probably later.

They do have an interest in selling more of their - addictive -
products, but they are better integrated into their communities than
dealers in illegal drugs and have more to lose if they are seen to
trying to encourage people into addiction.

Economists know that demand largely exists independent of supply...

Most of them have - however - noticed that modern advertising
techniques can increase demand.

Or not. Modern advertising is largely playing to an empty room.

Nobody seems to have seriously tried
to use the same techniques to reduce demand. The "Just Say No"
campaing may have been conceived as a step in that direction but the
campaign money doesn't seem to have been spent on buying even
minimally competent advertising talent.

Gee, I ran into some druggies when young and they were the best "Just
Say No" thing I ever ran into. Worked like a champ.

Lenny Bruce used to claim that the war on drugs represented a
conspiracy between the FBI and Maffia to keep the price of drugs high.
It's a bit too close to the truth for comfort.

Lenny Bruce was full of it.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

--
Les Cargill

 

[Les Cargill]

Bill Sloman wrote:

On Aug 25, 7:00 am, John Larkin
snip

In fact you seem to think that denialist propaganda miniminising the
dangers of persisting anhtropogenic global warming is some kind of
useful public service, rather than a cynical exercise by the fossil-
carbon extraction industry designed to let them keep on digging up and
selling fossil-carbon until the damage it causes is blatant enough to
be undeniable.

All one must really do is note that fossil fuels replaced
*slavery* in our civilization. One can admit all manner of
horrible things caused by them, but that's the basis of a pretty
compelling reductio ad absurbum.

Whether it's true or not is almost beside the point.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

--
Les Cargill

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:59:17 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Aug 25, 7:02 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:09:33 -0500, John S <soph...@invalid.org
wrote:



On 8/24/2011 3:00 PM, Joerg wrote:
John S wrote:
On 8/23/2011 9:38 AM, Joerg wrote:

That's the thing, I never took any drugs

Why not? Did you simply choose not to take drugs? But those you observed
had no choice?

Everybody had that choice. I chose to say no.

The woman that wept a lot because her son (whom I knew) died from drugs.
The guy who'd stare through you if you said "goede morgen". The guy in
the space suit who cleaned street gutters all day long although they
were clean. He couldn't talk at all anymore. Should I go on? This was
back then a village of about 5000 people, so families knew each other
quite well.

I wonder who forced them to use drugs?

Nobody. But some people's will power is not high enough to say no when
stuff is highly available. That's why drug problems in "free drug"
countries are usually massively worse than elsewhere.

If you really believe that, then it is like me arguing against a
religion. I concede that I cannot win against faith.

Not at all. It's a matter of preventing a great deal of very real
public harm, a matter of protecting the young and the weak against
professional predators.

Legalising soft drugs drop the profit margin on supplying them, and
makes the people who supply the drug a part of the community.

Nobody talks about liquor store owners, Starbucks, or the people who
sell cigarettes as "professional predators".

They do have an interest in selling more of their - addictive -
products, but they are better integrated into their communities than
dealers in illegal drugs and have more to lose if they are seen to
trying to encourage people into addiction.

Lenny Bruce used to claim that the war on drugs represented a
conspiracy between the FBI and Maffia to keep the price of drugs high.
It's a bit too close to the truth for comfort.

Lenny Bruce died of a morphine overdose, most likely
self-administered.

"He was also a jailtime regular for drug-related offenses, heroin and
morphine chief among them."

Hardly an objective observer.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 00:12:53 -0500, Les Cargill
<lcargill99@comcast.com> wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:
On Aug 25, 7:00 am, John Larkin
snip

In fact you seem to think that denialist propaganda miniminising the
dangers of persisting anhtropogenic global warming is some kind of
useful public service, rather than a cynical exercise by the fossil-
carbon extraction industry designed to let them keep on digging up and
selling fossil-carbon until the damage it causes is blatant enough to
be undeniable.


All one must really do is note that fossil fuels replaced
*slavery* in our civilization. One can admit all manner of
horrible things caused by them, but that's the basis of a pretty
compelling reductio ad absurbum.

Whether it's true or not is almost beside the point.

Technology in general and fossil fuels in particular changed our
world. Unions take credit for "the weekend" but it was actually
engineers, and productivity, that changed civilization.

John

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 25, 6:00 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

John S wrote:
On 8/23/2011 9:38 AM, Joerg wrote:

<snip>

Nobody. But some people's will power is not high enough to say no when
stuff is highly available. That's why drug problems in "free drug"
countries are usually massively worse than elsewhere.

And your example countries are?

The only countries that I've adduced - France versus the Netherlands,
has the less permisive Frence regime stuck with a slightly worse drug
problem than the more permissive Netherlands.

The US has a bigger drug problem than either, and its the world leader
in the - misconceived - "war on drugs".

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 25, 1:02 pm, Les Cargill <lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:
On Aug 25, 9:47 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com>  wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:16:45 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky

nos...@nowhere.com>  wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

It's a matter of preventing a great deal of very real
public harm, a matter of protecting the young and the weak against
professional predators.

Weak, irresponsible and stupid don't survive. That is what they call an
evolution.

That's a pretty mean attitude.

But realistic. US society protects people - none too effectively -
against the illegal drugs of addiction, but does nothing to prevent
them eating themselves into lethal obesity or drinking themselves to
death. you might want to think about what a self-consistent public
health policy might look like.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

We know next to nothing about the pathologies of obesity. When doctors
take insulin production into account it begins to look like carbs,
*all* carbs contribute mightily to it - and a "healthy diet" as
it's presently advertised by gummint is thick in carbs.

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/carbs-weight-gain.html

I've dropped 20 pounds myself by emphasizing frozen veggies and meat
and cutting back on carbs.

A truly self-consistent public health policy would be *FAR* too
invasive.

It would probably have to be pretty invasive to be particularly
effective, but self-consistency is always to be recommended, even if
it doesn't actually minimise damage.

Getting excited about the damage drug addicts do to themselves while
ignoring the way food addicts wreck their health is distinctly silly.

The only thing that really does seem to help with obesity is surgical
adjustments of the stomach and the top of the digestive system and
that is seriously invasive. If we get a better grip on the way
appetite control works in people who don't get fat - and fails to work
in people who do - we may come up with less invasive treatments that
do work, but it may take a while.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 25, 1:05 pm, Les Cargill <lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:
On Aug 25, 7:02 am, John Larkin
snip

Legalising soft drugs drops the profit margin on supplying them, and
makes the people who supply the drug a part of the community.

They are running the experiment right now in Northern California.
The people who participate are making pretty good money.

So?

Nobody talks about liquor store owners, Starbucks, or the people who
sell cigarettes as "professional predators".

The tobacco companies? Yeah, they do.

My wife gave up cigarettes many years ago, but she remains addicted to
coffee. Tobacco clearly does more harm than coffee, so people get
less upset about the dealers who make money from selling coffee, but
they are equally guilty of "professional predation' in the sense of
exploiting a human weakness for their own profit.

They do have an interest in selling more of their - addictive -
products, but they are better integrated into their communities than
dealers in illegal drugs and have more to lose if they are seen to
trying to encourage people into addiction.

Economists know that demand largely exists independent of supply...

Most of them have - however - noticed that modern advertising
techniques can increase demand. Nobody seems to have seriously tried
to use the same techniques to reduce demand. The "Just Say No"
campaing may have been conceived as a step in that direction but the
campaign money doesn't seem to have been spent on buying even
minimally competent advertising talent.

Lenny Bruce used to claim that the war on drugs represented a
conspiracy between the FBI and Maffia to keep the price of drugs high.
It's a bit too close to the truth for comfort.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 25, 7:00 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:00:52 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:







John S wrote:
On 8/23/2011 9:38 AM, Joerg wrote:

That's the thing, I never took any drugs

Why not? Did you simply choose not to take drugs? But those you observed
had no choice?

Everybody had that choice. I chose to say no.

The woman that wept a lot because her son (whom I knew) died from drugs.
The guy who'd stare through you if you said "goede morgen". The guy in
the space suit who cleaned street gutters all day long although they
were clean. He couldn't talk at all anymore. Should I go on? This was
back then a village of about 5000 people, so families knew each other
quite well.

I wonder who forced them to use drugs?

Nobody. But some people's will power is not high enough to say no when
stuff is highly available. That's why drug problems in "free drug"
countries are usually massively worse than elsewhere.

Right. It's a simple matter of public safety. We can't let
professional designer-drug experts prey on people with limited
resources of self-control.

But you seem to be perfectly happy to let professional purveyors of
financially advantageous mis-information prey on people with a limited
capacity for critical thinking.

In fact you seem to think that denialist propaganda miniminising the
dangers of persisting anhtropogenic global warming is some kind of
useful public service, rather than a cynical exercise by the fossil-
carbon extraction industry designed to let them keep on digging up and
selling fossil-carbon until the damage it causes is blatant enough to
be undeniable.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen