Ha! China is a perfect example of what companies will do without regulation.

[techs]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02...ast&st=nyt&oref=slogin

When a caterer working for the United States Olympic Committee went to a supermarket in China last year, he encountered a piece of chicken ? half of a breast ? that measured 14 inches. ?Enough to feed a family of eight,? said Frank Puleo, a caterer from Staten Island who has traveled to China to handle food-related issues.

?We had it tested and it was so full of steroids that we never could have given it to athletes. They all would have tested positive.?

Exactly what American meat producers would do if we stopped regulating them.
You may also recall that China will be banning cars from Beijing during the Olympics because the air is so poisoinous many people from other countries wouldn't attend.

All I hear Republicans and Neo-Cons scream is how regulation is killing American business.
I submit the lack of regulation would just plain kill Americans.

Hey, you know what I think about China?
No country is completely useless. It can at least serve as a bad example.

 

[blackllotus]

Libertarians work off of thought-experiments. They don't need data.

 

[Dari]

I hear they also fill pigs ( a popular meat) with sewage water to make it look bigger. I could never live in China.

 

[blackangst1]

Nice. AFAIK FDA doesnt allow steroids to used in poultry. At least the government can do SOME things right 🙂

 

[nonameo]

I'm not for total deregulation, but I think price fixing and subsidies are a bad idea in most cases.(Mostly subsidies. Ripe for corruption)

Safety and honesty regulations, FTW though.

 

[ScottyB]

[Republican] No way! Capitalism, Capitalism, Capitalism. Capitalism! Capitalism, Capitalism. Capitalism, Capitalism, Capitalism, Capitalism. Capitalism, Capitalism. Capitalism. 9/11, Capitalism. Capitalism. Capitalism, Capitalism, Capitalism, Capitalism. Communism :| Capitalism, Capitalism, Capitalism, Capitalism. Capitalism! [/Republican]

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: ScottyB
[Republican] No way! Capitalism, Capitalism, Capitalism. Capitalism! Capitalism, Capitalism. Capitalism, Capitalism, Capitalism, Capitalism. Capitalism, Capitalism. Capitalism. 9/11, Capitalism. Capitalism. Capitalism, Capitalism, Capitalism, Capitalism. Communism :| Capitalism, Capitalism, Capitalism, Capitalism. Capitalism! [/Republican]

Do you really think China is a communist country? It may have a communist party but it is not a communist country by any means. It is as close as the world will come to unbridled capitalism, where there are literally no rules.

 

[BoberFett]

Before discussing whether it should be in food or not, tell me why should the federal government be allowed to outlaw steroids or any drug for that matter.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Before discussing whether it should be in food or not, tell me why should the federal government be allowed to outlaw steroids or any drug for that matter.

The same logical reason why they outlawed them in the first place: public safety. THere was a time when cocaine, morphine, and a host of other drugs were legal. But people, especially housewives, became addicted to them, using them for everything from painkillers to relaxers. Overconsumption and addiction can be dangerous when 5-20% of the GENERAL POPULATION is held captive to these drugs.

Don't forget, these synthetic drugs are highly addictive.

 

[BrownTown]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Before discussing whether it should be in food or not, tell me why should the federal government be allowed to outlaw steroids or any drug for that matter.

The same logical reason why they outlawed them in the first place: public safety. THere was a time when cocaine, morphine, and a host of other drugs were legal. But people, especially housewives, became addicted to them, using them for everything from painkillers to relaxers. Overconsumption and addiction can be dangerous when 5-20% of the GENERAL POPULATION is held captive to these drugs.

It should also be noted that when people go out to by meat they aren't looking to get tons of dangerous drugs too. If you want to do steroids thats one thing, but having food filled with drugs and then not telling anyone about it is COMPLETELY different than someone just choosing to do drugs on their own.

 

[Moonbeam]

China has no religion. People are properly seen as things you step on. They don't have their vision clouded by fairy tails.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
China has no religion. People are properly seen as things you step on. They don't have their vision clouded by fairy tails.

Fairy TAILS? Is that a gay man's butt?

 

[Jaskalas]

The concept of dissolving centralized authority isn?t to remove all authority. You?re digging for strawmen Techs.

It goes back to a couple principals. The larger a democracy is, the less democratic it is. Your state can maintain safety regulation and such mandates, the states can pool research together to give the Feds centralized research and recommendations, but leaving the states with the FREEDOM to decide to fund their own studies or even whether they will follow the recommendations or not.

It?s about freedom of choice and competition. I realize this is a foreign concept to you, but you should look into given our centralized corruption and the inability to escape from its horrors.

 

[1EZduzit]

Due to it's size, I have to wonder if that chicken hadn't been "caponized".

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Before discussing whether it should be in food or not, tell me why should the federal government be allowed to outlaw steroids or any drug for that matter.

The same logical reason why they outlawed them in the first place: public safety. THere was a time when cocaine, morphine, and a host of other drugs were legal. But people, especially housewives, became addicted to them, using them for everything from painkillers to relaxers. Overconsumption and addiction can be dangerous when 5-20% of the GENERAL POPULATION is held captive to these drugs.

Don't forget, these synthetic drugs are highly addictive.

laughable, honestly. So while you save those housewives from themselves the drug war decimates inner city neighborhood while supplying thugs with billions in cold hard cash to build vast empires.

The drug war is a failed attempt at public safety if that is your case. The % of drug offenders in our prisons and the turf wars that get innocent people killed is poof enough that it failed.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Before discussing whether it should be in food or not, tell me why should the federal government be allowed to outlaw steroids or any drug for that matter.

The same logical reason why they outlawed them in the first place: public safety. THere was a time when cocaine, morphine, and a host of other drugs were legal. But people, especially housewives, became addicted to them, using them for everything from painkillers to relaxers. Overconsumption and addiction can be dangerous when 5-20% of the GENERAL POPULATION is held captive to these drugs.

Don't forget, these synthetic drugs are highly addictive.

laughable, honestly. So while you save those housewives from themselves the drug war decimates inner city neighborhood while supplying thugs with billions in cold hard cash to build vast empires.

The drug war is a failed attempt at public safety if that is your case. The % of drug offenders in our prisons and the turf wars that get innocent people killed is poof enough that it failed.

How do you know how worthless the drug war is considering there is no nation on earth that legalizes all these drugs. Like I said before, they use to be legal and they were a catastrophe because people became addicted. When you have 20% of the general population addicted to a drug, it can rip apart families, companies, and the nation. Nobody wants that.

The fantasy notion the men are rational has long been debunked. You may have a point when it comes to natural drugs, but synthetics are in another league altogether. You do not want to legalize legal drugs. It's a recipe for institutional disaster.

EDIT: The drug war may be something everybody can criticize but it is minimizing the damage. Letting the floodgates open would create a disaster on an unimaginable scale.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: techs
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02...ast&st=nyt&oref=slogin

When a caterer working for the United States Olympic Committee went to a supermarket in China last year, he encountered a piece of chicken ? half of a breast ? that measured 14 inches. ?Enough to feed a family of eight,? said Frank Puleo, a caterer from Staten Island who has traveled to China to handle food-related issues.

?We had it tested and it was so full of steroids that we never could have given it to athletes. They all would have tested positive.?

Exactly what American meat producers would do if we stopped regulating them.
You may also recall that China will be banning cars from Beijing during the Olympics because the air is so poisoinous many people from other countries wouldn't attend.

All I hear Republicans and Neo-Cons scream is how regulation is killing American business.
I submit the lack of regulation would just plain kill Americans.

Hey, you know what I think about China?
No country is completely useless. It can at least serve as a bad example.

Ive seen chicken drumsticks the size of turkey drumsticks. Ive seen split breasts almost the size of footballs.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Nice. AFAIK FDA doesnt allow steroids to used in poultry. At least the government can do SOME things right 🙂

I believe they do.

Some chicken producers advertise no hormones. I saw some huge chicken legs/breasts when i worked in the chicken biz.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Before discussing whether it should be in food or not, tell me why should the federal government be allowed to outlaw steroids or any drug for that matter.

The same logical reason why they outlawed them in the first place: public safety. THere was a time when cocaine, morphine, and a host of other drugs were legal. But people, especially housewives, became addicted to them, using them for everything from painkillers to relaxers. Overconsumption and addiction can be dangerous when 5-20% of the GENERAL POPULATION is held captive to these drugs.

Don't forget, these synthetic drugs are highly addictive.

laughable, honestly. So while you save those housewives from themselves the drug war decimates inner city neighborhood while supplying thugs with billions in cold hard cash to build vast empires.

The drug war is a failed attempt at public safety if that is your case. The % of drug offenders in our prisons and the turf wars that get innocent people killed is poof enough that it failed.

How do you know how worthless the drug war is considering there is no nation on earth that legalizes all these drugs. Like I said before, they use to be legal and they were a catastrophe because people became addicted. When you have 20% of the general population addicted to a drug, it can rip apart families, companies, and the nation. Nobody wants that.

The fantasy notion the men are rational has long been debunked. You may have a point when it comes to natural drugs, but synthetics are in another league altogether. You do not want to legalize legal drugs. It's a recipe for institutional disaster.

EDIT: The drug war may be something everybody can criticize but it is minimizing the damage. Letting the floodgates open would create a disaster on an unimaginable scale.

The easiest evidence is the fact millions of people are still addicted to them regardless of the drug war. In the process we allowed thugs to erect huge empires that had revenues rivaling many states in central and south America. The result is these thugs were able to control or push aside the states in the host countries which resulted in thousands of deaths. Either from the cartels directly, or through the civil unrest created.

On the home front you have laws that toss people into jail creating career criminals for a habit. A habit of their own choosing no less. This has decimated the neighborhoods in the inner city and helps keep the perpetual poverty we see today. The turf wars have killed thousands in the process. While this happens billions of tax payers hard earned money is sent into the toilet, never to be recovered.

The people who are going to abuse these drugs still abuse them regardless of our drug laws. This is nothing but prohibition of alcohol all over again. The result of prohibition was the mafia was a direct beneficiary of that legislation and had similar results.

Why people continue to pound their head against the wall and expect a different result baffles me.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Before discussing whether it should be in food or not, tell me why should the federal government be allowed to outlaw steroids or any drug for that matter.

The same logical reason why they outlawed them in the first place: public safety. THere was a time when cocaine, morphine, and a host of other drugs were legal. But people, especially housewives, became addicted to them, using them for everything from painkillers to relaxers. Overconsumption and addiction can be dangerous when 5-20% of the GENERAL POPULATION is held captive to these drugs.

Don't forget, these synthetic drugs are highly addictive.

laughable, honestly. So while you save those housewives from themselves the drug war decimates inner city neighborhood while supplying thugs with billions in cold hard cash to build vast empires.

The drug war is a failed attempt at public safety if that is your case. The % of drug offenders in our prisons and the turf wars that get innocent people killed is poof enough that it failed.

How do you know how worthless the drug war is considering there is no nation on earth that legalizes all these drugs. Like I said before, they use to be legal and they were a catastrophe because people became addicted. When you have 20% of the general population addicted to a drug, it can rip apart families, companies, and the nation. Nobody wants that.

The fantasy notion the men are rational has long been debunked. You may have a point when it comes to natural drugs, but synthetics are in another league altogether. You do not want to legalize legal drugs. It's a recipe for institutional disaster.

EDIT: The drug war may be something everybody can criticize but it is minimizing the damage. Letting the floodgates open would create a disaster on an unimaginable scale.

The easiest evidence is the fact millions of people are still addicted to them regardless of the drug war. In the process we allowed thugs to erect huge empires that had revenues rivaling many states in central and south America. The result is these thugs were able to control or push aside the states in the host countries which resulted in thousands of deaths. Either from the cartels directly, or through the civil unrest created.

On the home front you have laws that toss people into jail creating career criminals for a habit. A habit of their own choosing no less. This has decimated the neighborhoods in the inner city and helps keep the perpetual poverty we see today. The turf wars have killed thousands in the process. While this happens billions of tax payers hard earned money is sent into the toilet, never to be recovered.

The people who are going to abuse these drugs still abuse them regardless of our drug laws. This is nothing but prohibition of alcohol all over again. The result of prohibition was the mafia was a direct beneficiary of that legislation and had similar results.

Why people continue to pound their head against the wall and expect a different result baffles me.

Drugs is not the inner-cities biggest problem. It has more to do with lack of father-figure and poor education. Drugs are everywhere. However, to release the floodgates and let people buy and abuse synthetic drugs is a recipe for disaster. The situation is like the US military in Iraq right now. We all know the place would blow up if we left, but Americans are keeping that from reaching a boiling point. As most people acknowledge, if we were to leave today chaos would reign. The situation is the same with synthetic drugs. If we legalize it people would become addicted on an unimaginable level and reduce the addicts to laggards of the American fabric. Remember, it happened in America 100 years ago and it can easily happen again.

Synthetic drugs with their extremely high level of addictiveness is not something you want to give to irrational human beings. You can talk about man's right all you want but leaders have an obligation to society that's far greater than independence: order and stability. Do you want upwards of 10-20% of the general population addicted to synthetic drugs? If you were a leader, would you be able to cope with the ramifications of such a problem?

 

[StageLeft]

People talk of the drug war as a failure. We don't know that it is because as mentioned no country worth crap has legalized all these hardcore drugs. For all I know, the drug war is a good way of indicating the people who would create other crimes anyway, so it streamlines us toward throwing them behind bars. Who knows?

The people who are going to abuse these drugs still abuse them regardless of our drug laws.

I disagree with that. Legality does affect access, which affects people's liklihood to try something. If I wanted to try crack _right now_ I honestly wouldn't know where to get it, so that would make me less likely to try it.

Drugs is not the inner-cities biggest problem.

True, inner-city will find some way to fail regardless of its medium.

Dari speaks somewhat of an overbearing government but I have to agree. I would not want to see what would happen to the US if all drugs were immediately legalized. Parents now have to worry about their teenager drinking, maybe doing some weed and possibly some ecstacy. Do we want to worry about them doing lines as well because they just bought a gram at Walgreen's for $19.99? Kids in particular are stupider than rusty nails and God knows what they would do with even more freedom to fvck their future up.

 

[Genx87]

Skoorb, I dont know where you grew up. But even when I went to highschool in one of the nicer suburbs of Minneapolis kids had easy access to any drug they wanted. I am sure 15 years later things havent gotten harder for kids to gain access to drugs.

legalizing and regulating the drugs will cut out the black market and allow the state to highly tax the substance and regulate its quality.

The idea because the state says it is bad people will shy away doesnt hold water imo. How many people disregard other actions deemed "harmful" by the state?

Drunk driving
Driving over the speed limit
driving on ice
eating too much fast food
not excercising.
binge drinking

the list can go on and on.

 

[Genx87]

Drugs is not the inner-cities biggest problem. It has more to do with lack of father-figure and poor education.

And where are the fathers? Many are behind bars because they sold or used a substance deemed illegal by some politician thousands of miles away. The cycle continues.

Drugs are everywhere. However, to release the floodgates and let people buy and abuse synthetic drugs is a recipe for disaster.

That is conjecture. I'd venture to guess just like you are that the % of people who will be addicted may rise slightly. But the people who are addicted now will be the majority who are addicted tomorrow. But the drug wars and cartels will have their source of income ripped out from beneath them.

The situation is like the US military in Iraq right now. We all know the place would blow up if we left, but Americans are keeping that from reaching a boiling point. As most people acknowledge, if we were to leave today chaos would reign. The situation is the same with synthetic drugs. If we legalize it people would become addicted on an unimaginable level and reduce the addicts to laggards of the American fabric. Remember, it happened in America 100 years ago and it can easily happen again.

It is happening right now. The question becomes do we want to fund thug cartels that help oppress people in opposing countries while also fund a crinimal element within this country?

Or do we want to regulate the drugs, generate a tax stream, and deal with the addiction side of it?

Synthetic drugs with their extremely high level of addictiveness is not something you want to give to irrational human beings. You can talk about man's right all you want but leaders have an obligation to society that's far greater than independence: order and stability. Do you want upwards of 10-20% of the general population addicted to synthetic drugs? If you were a leader, would you be able to cope with the ramifications of such a problem?

caffeine is one of the most addictive stimulants in the world. We drink billions of dollars worth of it in this country yearly. Should we go shat the bed and outlaw it as well?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Drugs is not the inner-cities biggest problem. It has more to do with lack of father-figure and poor education.

And where are the fathers? Many are behind bars because they sold or used a substance deemed illegal by some politician thousands of miles away. The cycle continues.

Drugs are everywhere. However, to release the floodgates and let people buy and abuse synthetic drugs is a recipe for disaster.

That is conjecture. I'd venture to guess just like you are that the % of people who will be addicted may rise slightly. But the people who are addicted now will be the majority who are addicted tomorrow. But the drug wars and cartels will have their source of income ripped out from beneath them.

The situation is like the US military in Iraq right now. We all know the place would blow up if we left, but Americans are keeping that from reaching a boiling point. As most people acknowledge, if we were to leave today chaos would reign. The situation is the same with synthetic drugs. If we legalize it people would become addicted on an unimaginable level and reduce the addicts to laggards of the American fabric. Remember, it happened in America 100 years ago and it can easily happen again.

It is happening right now. The question becomes do we want to fund thug cartels that help oppress people in opposing countries while also fund a crinimal element within this country?

Or do we want to regulate the drugs, generate a tax stream, and deal with the addiction side of it?

Synthetic drugs with their extremely high level of addictiveness is not something you want to give to irrational human beings. You can talk about man's right all you want but leaders have an obligation to society that's far greater than independence: order and stability. Do you want upwards of 10-20% of the general population addicted to synthetic drugs? If you were a leader, would you be able to cope with the ramifications of such a problem?

caffeine is one of the most addictive stimulants in the world. We drink billions of dollars worth of it in this country yearly. Should we go shat the bed and outlaw it as well?

I wouldn't mind the legalization of natural drugs such as marijuana or cocoa leaves. But the synthetic, hard stuff should never be freely available. Why? Because the natural drugs have a lower, tolerable level of the addictive stuff. The synthetic versions are, well, far more potent. As Skoorb mentions, access is key. Most folks are law-abiding human beings. You grant them more access and they will take more.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Opiates and other illegal drugs are a bad example IMO.

The FDA (which isn't perfect) does require a series of trials to determine safety and efficacy. Even after release there are side effect reporting mechanisms in place to determine long term problems. We want this kind of thing.