Another set of blatient lies from the media hype train...

[iooi]

source here The Sun

Criminals fork out £1,000 for a kilo of cannabis from illegal wholesalers then sell it on the streets for a £2,000 profit. Yet 190 blank DVDs (a kilo) cost £57 and, complete with pirated films, sell for £1,500.

Cant comment of the drugs but.......
True to from the sun cant even weigh a disk....
Just weighed a ritek Go4 Printable at 17 Grams.
17*59=1003
59 is kinda a long weigh (get it) off 190 in my book....
By my maths their disk were 5.5 grams each.
Dont think the printable surface will be 11.5 grams.
I guess the price is fair for 190 disks at 30p each..
but for 59 its a bit over the top at 96.5p a disk....

Dont know about others but i'm sick of the media lieing through their teeth...

The film industry — and cinema audiences — could do with real-life superheroes to defeat the pirates.

Me thinks we could do with a superhero to sort the media cirus into telling the truth....
This is more in the realms of the Daily Sport......

[Nilfennasion]

Usually when I discover such lies and blatant misinformation from a local paper in this country, I write to them and straighten it out for them. Around here, DVD+Rs do cost at least that much, but they sure as hell don't weigh that much.

I also doubt the veracity of their claims regarding the price of marijuana.

[BJ_M]

maybe they weighed them with the case ? i suspect that that would be about right then ...

[stiltman]

They need to find a new marijuana distributor, cause they're getting screwed. Then again, it also has to do with quality too.

[BJ_M]

that works out to $5,559 US for 2.2 lbs

thats $158 US a ounce .....


which may or may not be out of line depending on quality ...

[RottenFoxBreath]

shit there serously getting shafted by there dealers.
mind you the sun paper is the biggest load of shite on the planet.

[Nilfennasion]

I am willing to bet that if you legalised marijuana, the price for a kilo would come down to the point where you'd only have to go without five kilos of DVD±Rs.

Of course, they could also tax the hell out of it, keeping the price at the same level as tobacco. The possibilities are endless.

[Josef K]

mind you the sun paper is the biggest load of shite on the planet.

Thinking of The Sun reminds me of a joke Chubby Brown once said, though he was talking about The Sport but the principle is the same:

It's the only newspaper you can wipe your arse with and more shit comes off the paper than you can put on it.

The sad part of this story is the sheer number of people who take the time out of their lives to read (or look at the pictures) The Sun every day who will take this as gospel and use it in pub arguments all over the land. Gullibility on a mass scale.

[BJ_M]

I am willing to bet that if you legalised marijuana, the price for a kilo would come down to the point where you'd only have to go without five kilos of DVD±Rs.

Of course, they could also tax the hell out of it, keeping the price at the same level as tobacco. The possibilities are endless.

it IS legal here for certain uses -- even the gov. grows it ..

they sell it for $160 CND per 28grams with 12% - 15% THC content

[jaxxboss]

I farted.

[Nilfennasion]

It isn't legal here for pretty much any use, and people still get it. What I mean by legalisation is total decriminalisation and commercialisation. It would make usage much easier to control that way.

[BJ_M]

that is for sure -- also collect taxes on it's sale ..

[BJ_M]

were they not thinking about legalization in Australia?

[Nilfennasion]

They think about a lot of things in Australia that either never pan out or come in under the radar. In the case of legalising drugs, all it takes is some loony like Fred Nile to claim that it would offend some narcissistic fictional boogyman, and he basically can defeat any change of law. Just claim the majority is on your side, generally without even asking a tenth of the population, and you can make laws in this country.

[vitualis]

There was a case for legalising marijuana for specific medical purposes.

I believe that failed.

Regards.

[Nilfennasion]

I honestly believe that now is the best time to put forth a case to legalise marijuana for general usage. Simply tell the current government, one of the greediest the country has ever had, that they could buy the crops for say $100 per (just as a place to put our feet) then sell it on the open market for $1000 for the same amount, and watch them go.

[iooi]

I honestly believe that now is the best time to put forth a case to legalise marijuana for general usage.

I know we are pulling off topic here, but in light of the current goverments (world Wide) views and polices on smoking in general and its attempts to ban it in public places and stop people from smoking despite its a very good money earner for them in taxes.
I just cant see them legalising marijuana, no matter how the case is put forward.

[vitualis]

I don't know for certain, but I wouldn't think that gov't taxes on cigarettes would cover all the additional health care costs and economic losses as a result of people smoking...

Regards.

[DVD_Ripper]

They need to find a new marijuana distributor, cause they're getting screwed. Then again, it also has to do with quality too.

Mexican .... always a tad more expensive

[BJ_M]

canada - better quality

[Greg12]

schools would finally be properly funded by sales tax from sales of the drug.

[stiltman]

Hawaiian - Best quality

[Marvingj]

DVD's are illegal substances. I believe the + is more potent than the -, both can get you time if you are in possession of them. Thats the way of the world?

[gmatov]

Vitualis,

Do you know for certain that the puffery from legislators is designed to increase revenue to the extent needed to treat smoking related illness?

Consider this: From www.ash.org.uk

"Why tobacco taxes should be high and continue to increase

Clive Bates, Director, Action on Smoking and Health, London

It is true that NHS costs are lower than tobacco tax revenues. Tobacco taxation amounts to £10.5 billion per year whereas a figure for NHS spending on tobacco related disease is £1.7 billion. But so what? The comparison is a false one. Tobacco tax is not and never has been a down payment on the cost dealing with ill health caused by smoking. "

I particularly like the "But so what?"

Do you even think there is a deficit in the contribution from the smoker as to the costs incurred by the smoker?

Remember, we are supposed to be shortening our lifespans by smoking, so we "should" reqire less from the medical system, a net plus for you anti smokers, what we pay, you reap.

The following quote is from Michigan newspaper on raising the tax there to 2 USD per pack, at the time second only to New Jersey.

"House Democratic Leader Dianne Byrum of Onondaga said the House action “is a significant step forward to fulfilling our constitutional responsibility to balance the budget.” The tax hike generates about $313 million a year in tax revenue."

No mention of helping close the gap of cost caused by the smoker, and expenses related to the smoker's medical costs.

No one knows how many illnesses are caused by smoking, just that if you have any illness at all, the spin doctors will say it is smoking related.

Getting fat from eating at McD's and Type II diabetes are probably caused by smoking as well, in their spin.

As to marijuana, it is too big a business, legally, in the US to legalize it.

Consider, 700,000 arrests per year for marijuana. 600,000 for miniscule, personal amounts, a butt or 2.

Millions of US citizens with no arrests except marijuana possession.

10 to 15 billion a year in direct cost of enforcement.

At least 100,000 in prisons at this moment for marijuana convictions.

Big business? You betcha. Police, legal system, prison system, prison contractors, construction wise, suppliers to the same.

Every arrest would involve lawyers on both sides, defense and prosecition.

Not to mention, another 100,000 taken from the Rate of unemployment, looks a little better, percentage wise. And if we didn't have the jailers, unemployment would be higher, also.

Yep, it's good for the country to keep those laws in effect.

Refer to www.nationalreview.com july 12, 2004 issue, "An End to Marijuana Prohibition" to read the article.

Convicted thrice in Alabama, 15 years to life. Cruel and unusual punishment? Judge for yourself

Cheers,

George

[vitualis]

Remember, we are supposed to be shortening our lifespans by smoking, so we "should" reqire less from the medical system, a net plus for you anti smokers, what we pay, you reap.

Yes, but you are increasing the burden of disease.

No one knows how many illnesses are caused by smoking, just that if you have any illness at all, the spin doctors will say it is smoking related.

We don't need to know the obscure ones. Just the common ones.

Let's see:
- ischaemic heart disease (i.e., heart attacks and the like)
- ischaemic cerebrovascular accidents (i.e., strokes)
- peripheral vascular disease (i.e., bad circulation to your limbs -- particularly lower limbs)
- lung cancer
- chronic obstructive airways disease and emphysema

etc...

Apart from obesity, smoking is probably one of the largest contributors to morbidity and mortality in the Western World.

The problem is, once someone has a heart attack, they don't usually just die. They live with that illness for years. Same with stokes, PVD, and COAD.

These are often CHRONIC illnesses and even though smokers die earlier, if you get one of these disease, the later part of your life is consumed by that illness.

From a purely economic point of view, it isn't just the health care costs for smoking related illness (or their contribution to it), but also the loss of economic activity from illness. A 50 year old who has severe COAD doesn't just cost the health system for their hospital admissions, but between hospital admissions, they probably aren't able to work full time in their previous capacity either.

As for your other statements, they're just that little bit off topic...

[gmatov]

Vitualis,

You introduced the non-smoking thread; the thread had been about marijuana. You said with the anti-smoking crusade, none would condone marijuana as it is most commonly smoked, rather than taken by cookies, tea, or vapourizer, which are all viable delivery devices.

As to smoking tobacco, i don't think your points are all that well founded. I think you are going at it the same way the rest of the antis are, and that is that any given smoker is going to last so long that he is going to cost the government money.

I think that is pure hooey. My own life insurance policy costs me more than 4 times what a non-smoker would pay. Health insurance , I would bet you, has a built in rise in premium, also. I am charged what they say actuarially I will cost, plus a little, or maybe more, profit.

And, I will guarantee you, I will probably outlive some of those who are the models whom the actuaries use to factor their tables.

And the examples you pose, mortality and disability from our dirty habit are representational. You may find some of your patients whom you will tell will die next week who will be here next year,and by the same token, you may say "See you next year" to an entirely healthy patient who dro[s dead on the sidewalk outside your office..

I would like to see an unbiased arbitor, if there were such a thing, read the same data, and come up with the results the govs and the medicos spout.

Before you get onto my ass over this, I am not so stupid as to think that smoking is good for you. I have known that for at least 45 years, since I started. But you guys who spout that it is going to kill you, if you are a middle aged doctor, in many cases you have to leave instructions for the doctor who takes over after you die to tell that old fart that smoking is going to kill him.

A lot of smokers outlive their doctors. A lot die, to be sure, but by the same token, fitness freaks who have been notorious for preaching their regimen have died at an early age.

The body is a fragile thing, regardless if some heroic specimens have done fantastic things. It is not the norm, and to suggest that ALL smokers will die young, is an irresponsible thing to do. Politically correct, to be sure, but still wrong.

Cheers,

George

I have to rebut your list of illnesses. All of them occur in total non smokers, but you can, with a straight face tell people that smoking done it.

If a smoker has a heart attack, all well and good, you can say he has an obstruction, and the CO from the smokes is reducing the O carrying capacity of his blood.

If a non smoker has a heart attack, you tell him to reduce his fat intake, and reduce his cholesterol levels.

If a smoker has an ischaemic incident, you tell him smoking done it.

If a non smoker has, you tell him he should reduce his cholesterol levels.

Did you ever think to advise him/her to increase hie/her copper intake?

No, I doubt you, as a Dr. ever do any more than the standard recipes of school and gov say, smoking kills, 'nough said. Get rid of the smokers, the rest of us would live to at least 150.

[vitualis]

I think I'm a little bit of a better judge than you on the pathology of disease gmatov...

Smoking is not the be all and end all of diseases of course. But it is a significant risk factor. For coronary heart disease -- there are obviously other risk factors as well (of the ones you can change, diabetes, smoking, hypertension, cholesterol) and it is by reducing all of them that you maximise your benefit. Each of these are independent risk factors ... that is, they all contribute to the likelihood of disease independently of each other.

There are some diseases that are almost totally due to smoking though. For example, lung cancer is quite a rare cancer in non-smokers.

Similarly, COAD (aka COPD or CAL depending on where you live) is almost universally in smokers.

If a smoker has a heart attack, all well and good, you can say he has an obstruction, and the CO from the smokes is reducing the O carrying capacity of his blood.

The CO from the blood does absolutely squat all. Don't make up pathology on the run! Cigarette smoking is directly implicated in the pathogenesis of atherosclerotic plaques. Stop smoking, and your chance of cardiovascular diseases is significantly reduced.

If a non smoker has a heart attack, you tell him to reduce his fat intake, and reduce his cholesterol levels.

If a smoker has an ischaemic incident, you tell him smoking done it.

There are 5 recognised independent risk factors:
- hypertension
- hypercholesterolaemia
- diabetes mellitus
- smoking
- family history (i.e., genetics)

Hyperhomocysteinaemia is probably an independent risk factor as well.

If a non-smoker has a heart attack, you try to focus on the things that can be fixed (which is all the above apart from family history). That is, lower the blood pressure (drugs + lifestyle), lower the cholesterol (drugs + lifestyle), fix the diabetes if applicable.

If a smoker has a heart attack, it is the same as all the above, except that giving up smoking is a pretty darn good idea too.

What are some of the lifestyle changes that are particularly useful for lowering BP, lowering cholesterol and improving glucose control in diabetes? Simple stuff -- exercise more and eat a balanced diet.

People who smoke on average have somewhere between around 5 or 10 years reduced lifespan when matched to the non-smoking population. Your INCREASED risk of cardiovascular disease compared to the non-smoking population reduces back down to the baseline somewhere between 15-20 years after you STOP smoking I think.

gmatov, you are arguing this from a very emotive point of view. There is no doubt that smoking is detrimental for the health of an individual and to the community. HOW detrimental it is to any one person will depend on luck. Some people have no serious problems. Some people aren't so lucky.

That doesn't mean that people who smoke are bad or immoral. However, from a public health perspective, it is something that SHOULD be addressed.

Regards.

[flaninacupboard]

Gmatov,

Whenever you speak about smoking i just feel you have your head in the sand because -you- aren't dead. yet. there was a thread just recently, do you smoke near your computer, people said yes, it's dirty and sticky and black inside my computer. your sofa will smell forever, your walls will turn yellow and eventually black. this is AFTER you exhale the smoke! would you inhale handfuls of soil every day and expect no consequence?

Smokers cost far more than medical treatment. as Vitualis says, there's loss of productivity after an illness, and loss of productivity BEFORE your illness. smokers feel they have some right to slope off every half hour to have a cigarette, that adds up to a lot across your working life. what about the fires you cause in your own homes? someone has to pay for that and then insurance companies replace your stuff. and what about the people not qualified to do anything more than work in a bar? when they get lung cancer someone has to treat them, too.

[tekkieman]

Great! Thanks guys! Now I need to go

slope off

and go grab a smoke!

[rgs_uk]

I feel sorry for smokers. They are gullible people with addictive personalities who got into it in the mistaken belief that it is cool, rather than a filthy disgusting habit that is very likely to shorten their life (by an averegae of 10 years) and kill them. Threads like this make me laugh because you can hear the sheer desperation coming through from the potheads and other smokers. It is pitiful, but you will never realise how much until you actually give up. It is never too late. A recent survey showed that even if you have been smoking for a number of years, you can substantially lengthen your life by kicking the habit.