Should the government nationalize food and issue us with GOVERNMENT MEALS? (2 Viewers)

[staticsiscool]

citation needed

 

[badquinton304]

Wikipedia has article on MDMA effects, Effects of MDMA on the human body - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , the ones about hyponatremia, hyperthermia and overdose are the main ones.
Don't get me wrong I'm fine with pot its practically harmless but the effects of this drug are not known well enough for me to support its legalisation and the ones we do know of are far too risky.

 

[John McCain]

David Nutt, chairman of the UK Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, stated in the Journal of Psychopharmacology in January 2009 that ecstasy use compared favorably with horse riding in terms of risk, with ecstasy leading to around 30 deaths a year in the UK compared to about 10 from horse riding, and "acute harm to person" occurring in approximately 1 in 10,000 episodes of ecstasy use compared to about 1 in 350 episodes of horse riding. Dr. Nutt notes the lack of a balanced risk assessment in public discussions of MDMA:

The general public, especially the younger generation, are disillusioned with the lack of balanced political debate about drugs. This lack of rational debate can undermine the trust in government in relation to drug misuse and thereby undermining the government’s message in public information campaigns. The media in general seem to have an interest in scare stories about illicit drugs, though there are some exceptions (Horizon, 2008). A telling review of 10-year media reporting of drug deaths in Scotland illustrates the distorted media perspective very well (Forsyth, 2001). During this decade, the likelihood of a newspaper reporting a death from paracetamol was in per 250 deaths, for diazepam it was 1 in 50, whereas for amphetamine it was 1 in 3 and for ecstasy every associated death was reported.

 

[John McCain]

MDMA has been widely available for recreational use for about 30 years. You would expect any major side effects, even long term, to have become apparent by now in the tens of thousands of users. If the only bar to legalization is lack of research, clinical trials should be undertaken immediately to ascertain the possibility of legalization.

 

[Planck]

Horse liberty

 

[John McCain]

 

[badquinton304]

If the only bar to legalization is lack of research, clinical trials should be undertaken immediately to ascertain the possibility of legalization.

Thats fine, so long as all notable effects are known both long and short term and the risks associated with these effects are assessed then legalisation can and should be considered just like with marijuana. But I still see the risk of overdosing while high by taking more pills as a problem that must be controlled, also people should drink gatorade or powerade (for sodium).

 

[Riet]

Have you taken ecstacy dude? people don't just accidently a whole nother 10 pills.

 

[badquinton304]

Have you taken ecstacy dude? people don't just accidently a whole nother 10 pills.

Article says its a risk if you get high enough and accidently the whole thing.
I don't take drugs because your high and helpless and then robbers or ambush and you're dead. Alcohol I take just enough so that im not drunk but enough to blend in and appear to be fulfilling my social obligations. Ciggis I will never do. Cigars I may consider trying.

 

[staticsiscool]

they accidently a whole heap of water because they get scared because they dont know what was in the pill they just took because it isnt regulated

 

[staticsiscool]

Article says its a risk if you get high enough and accidently the whole thing.
I don't take drugs because your high and helpless and then robbers or ambush and you're dead. Alcohol I take just enough so that im not drunk but enough to blend in and appear to be fulfilling my social obligations. Ciggis I will never do. Cigars I may consider trying.

eh

its a risk that you might get drunk and drink 2 bottles of vodka and die too


"I don't take drugs because your high and helpless and then robbers or ambush and you're dead"


fuck lol what a tard

 

[John McCain]

But I still see the risk of overdosing while high by taking more pills as a problem that must be controlled, also people should drink gatorade or powerade (for sodium).

I'd say the greater risk, is in people receiving pills containing dangerous contaminants. The unregulated sale of pills containing potentially deadly substances such as PMA represents a much greater danger. The risk of overdose could also be reduced if pills were issued with a measured dose and the packaging contained guidelines on a safe dosage for the users bodyweight, and advice on potential hazards and how to mitigate them if a higher dose is consumed.

People have proven they are going to take them anyway, treating drug use as a law and order issue has failed to have any impact, treating it instead as a public health issue and introducing systems to minimize the potential harms involved makes sense.

 

[badquinton304]

they accidently a whole heap of water because they get scared because they dont know what was in the pill they just took because it isnt regulated

I think the whole water thing from low sodium would be solved by having gatorade (or similar) in clubs. But the accidently the whole water is mainly due to the dehydration.

 

[staticsiscool]

I think the whole water thing from low sodium would be solved by having gatorade (or similar) in clubs. But the accidently the whole water is mainly due to the dehydration.

lol man you have no idea ok stop it you are killing me

 

[badquinton304]

lol man you have no idea ok stop it you are killing me

It's valid. Whats wrong with the reason why I don't take drugs helplessness is the worst.

 

[SylviaB]

why does it matter if ecstasy is dangerous?

it's their own bodies/lives

 

[Serius]

No way lol. Why do you think that?

The net cost of my highlighted program would be zero because you are now buying Centrelink people their food, so you can reduce their payments by an equivalent amount. This is a conservative estimate. If food purchases are regulated by the government, taxpayers would most likely be saving money in the long run.

centrelinks fortnightly average payment of $436 is not randomly made up, it accounts for average cost of living. If roughly half of that is budgeted towards what an average person needs for food, you can now cut that off their payments. The new average centrelink payment for everyone is now about $218.

That gives us a budget for this program of roughly $30 billion dollars a year.

Take into consideration that the government[being who they are] buying massive amounts of food can do so much cheaper than your normal individual down at woolies. Probably for discounts of more than 50% [which is the typical bulk buyer discount, but centrelink will also be able to waive taxes and get it for much cheaper] its easy to see how cheap a system like this can really get.

Note that most of these are just rough estimates. You still have to take into account all the costs associated with massive amounts of administration now needed, bureaucracy, the initial start up costs etc. Even with those things chipping away though, I still think the net cost would conservatively be about zero, and most likely be a net saving for the government.

 

[ilikebeeef]

The net cost of my highlighted program would be zero because you are now buying Centrelink people their food, so you can reduce their payments by an equivalent amount. This is a conservative estimate. If food purchases are regulated by the government, taxpayers would most likely be saving money in the long run.

centrelinks fortnightly average payment of $436 is not randomly made up, it accounts for average cost of living. If roughly half of that is budgeted towards what an average person needs for food, you can now cut that off their payments. The new average centrelink payment for everyone is now about $218.

That gives us a budget for this program of roughly $30 billion dollars a year.

Take into consideration that the government[being who they are] buying massive amounts of food can do so much cheaper than your normal individual down at woolies. Probably for discounts of more than 50% [which is the typical bulk buyer discount, but centrelink will also be able to waive taxes and get it for much cheaper] its easy to see how cheap a system like this can really get.

Note that most of these are just rough estimates. You still have to take into account all the costs associated with massive amounts of administration now needed, bureaucracy, the initial start up costs etc. Even with those things chipping away though, I still think the net cost would conservatively be about zero, and most likely be a net saving for the government.

That is a LOT of money. You have probably underestimated the transportation costs (to various people's homes esp those in rural areas) and the labour costs. Also, food is a non-durable resource, so it would be quite hard to deal with (fancy some reheated frozen food everyday?). Look at the laptops scheme. It's fail. Food would therefore be worse. People might also want to buy and/or cook their own food.

It will be quite hard to nationalise because let's take an example - it would be quite hard to have one national garbage collection scheme. It's just too big.