Coke has a reputation of being commonly cut with other substances, including fentanyl which is obviously very dangerous. This varies majorly by ___location, places where coke is cheaper and more available, it's less likely to be cut.
Weed is mostly safe, but in some places there's been synthetic cannabinoids sprayed on buds and sold as K2, Spice, etc. and that has some dangerous and unpredictable side effects. Again this varies by ___location. Weed is also getting much stronger than it used to be.
LSD can a bit unpredictable, dosage is really important, and in some cases NBOMe are sold as LSD. NBOMEe's are relatively new, it is a group of synthetic stimulant and hallucinogen substances and can be particularly dangerous when it's not expected.
Mushrooms are probably the safest of the lot if taken with some preparation, dosage is important and so is set and setting.
I think if these substances were decriminalized and regulated, and a harm-reduction approach to education were taken for those most at risk (e.g. Festival goers, teenagers and young adults, clubbers, etc.), a lot of the dangers around their use could be minimised, and public funds could/should be appropriated towards health and education.
Interestingly when people actually get their drugs tested, if it's not what they expected it to be, a good number of people will throw them out. There's some really interesting results from canTEST, a fixed-site drug testing service being trialed in Canberra, Australia.
I would guess it's in case there's fentanyl mixed with other substances, there have been instances of people doing cocaine, ketamine, and other substances, dying from opioid overdose. I volunteer with harm reduction services and many of us carry naloxone, and we advocate for drug testing with fentanyl testing kits, pill testing, and educating people on reagent testing. Unfortunately we can't actually sell or administer these tests at festivals.
Narcan/Naloxone won't help drink spiking, that's usually done with other substances as far as I'm aware.
The RAVE act was passed in 2003 (introduced by Joe Biden funnily enough) and made venues / event organizers liable "for knowingly leasing, renting, using, or profiting from a space where illicit drugs are being stored, manufactured, distributed, or used." with up to a $250,000 fine or "2 times the gross receipts, either known or estimated, that were derived from each violation that is attributable to the person", whichever is greater.
So providing drug testing kits or providing a drug testing station in any official capacity would put the venue / festival officially on the hook for a potentially obscene amount of money because of that pesky darn "knowingly".
Given the current state of the opioid epidemic, I honestly can't understand how this draconian piece of legislation is still law. It is the exact opposite of harm reduction and literally kills people.
Did some digging - it was killed in 2002 but "Biden reincarnated the legislation (now called the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act) and inserted it into the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act -- the home of feel-good laws like the measure creating a national Amber Alert system. President George W. Bush signed the PROTECT Act into law on April 30."
Nothing more classic than government overreach sneaking into legislation marketed as protecting kids.
I think the reason they want the ability to add, delete, and alter is so they can disrupt certain users, software, or services legally, like botnets or arms deals. It's probably too broad and could be abused though.
I was going to make a similar comparison. I casually invest and trade crypto and stocks, I have been burnt when early adopters sell off after a company releases a good announcement. After a good announcement, new investors will buy and early investors sell off at their expense, I've seen this result in a stock losing more than 40-50% of it's price, sometimes it will never recover. I think both markets are affected by similar forces.
One of the most egregious examples of this that I like to use is in natural resource extraction, mining, deforestation, etc. When mining companies start a project to dig a quarry (in Australia), they are meant to set aside funds for rehabilitation of the environment when they are done, this should come out of the profits from the endeavor. I consider destruction of the environment a socialised cost. Unfortunately, quite often, these companies will avoid rehabilitating the environment and misappropriate those funds, and then pay out massive bonuses to the few executives that could make it happen. Some of these areas will not be habitable for native wildlife for decades because the process is destructive and leaves the area toxic. The Flint water crisis is a specific example of this in America that really is affecting people. While I think you are technically correct, I don't think you considered the scope of the issue of privatizing profits and socialising losses.
> First, the author goes straight to the ventilator as a fear tactic.
This is brought up in the second last paragraph, well over half way through the article, after they discuss the situation for ICU patients and staff. They go on to provide more information about the other sorts of interventions required for a critically ill Covid patient. I think it is less insidious than your criticism implies.
I don't think this is a FUD style hit piece, it reads to me as a genuine and emphatic article from someone working in health care, expressing their point of view and experience as a health care worker. It is perhaps more genuine than mainstream news media. Of course it's not a peer-reviewed scientific publication, but I don't think it's a sensationalised hit piece either.
Saying that these sort of articles should "stop with the emotional pleas" feels derisive to me, if health care workers can't give an honest, if emotional, discussion about their experience during Covid, are you saying we should simply ignore them or tell them to shut up? I don't think so. Healthcare workers are stressed, working overtime, arguably underpaid for the dangerous work they are doing. Let them express their pleas in their blogs.
As for the risks that people are and are not willing to take, I think there's enough precedent that behaving in a way that endangers others is something we try to avoid for a communal good, we are in a community and society where we should care for and respect one another as a principle, whilst also taking into account civil liberties. We do not have the right to drink and drive because we have accepted that the risks and consequences are not tolerable. Most importantly we should respect what they say at the end:
Staying home (The specifics of which I feel are very much debatable though because it impacts people's lifestyles and civil liberties)
Social distancing
Mask wearing
Hand washing
I think it is really not that imposing or unreasonable during a pandemic!
That seems like a bit of a blanket statement. There are plenty of situations where someone may have not just the right, but a responsibility to force to you to do something against your will. I hate to use the police as an example, because there are plenty of cases against them because some of them abuse their rights and fail in their responsibilities, but police have the right and a duty to stop you driving while you're drunk for example, preventing harm or attempted murder, rape, or fraud. They are supposed to be properly trained for this. This is why we all have rights AND responsibilities, you can't just do whatever you want at the expense of others if you're thinking only of your rights. This is the point of encouraging, and in some cases enforcing, stay at home orders, wearing masks, social distancing.
Melbourne in Australia enforced strict stay at home orders for a number of weeks, against the purported rights and will of many, because the state government decided it's the responsibility of citizens to do what's best for their city, or country, or society, to ensure the wellbeing of their fellow citizens and avoid country wide calamity by the pandemic. The people made a sacrifice of personal time and liberty so that the sacrifice wouldn't forced upon others by the personal choices of selfish individuals, in the form needless death and illness for hundreds or thousands of people, it also likely prevented more severe economic ramifications, and I think it was heroic and responsible that they did so.
It could also be akin to the guardian of a minor, whilst a minor may have a mind, they wouldn't necessarily be in charge of making decisions regarding legal recourse, or in some cases personal health. If we pursue this train of thought, there could be some expectations for the "legal guardians of rivers" to justify what course of action they should take on behalf of such a thing, in that they may be expected to ensure the health and longevity of the river, and hopefully improve the quality of life for all living things in and around rivers.
A million times more risky bet? By what measure? The risk to his livelyhood? His savings? That kind of hyperbole might help your argument, but I think it's wrong in a few regards. If he came from a lucrative job in the finance industry that means that he had a position to fall back on if it didn't work out, he would have had plenty of capital to bankroll his business without hefty, high-interest loans. His interest on those loans would almost definitely be lower because he is less risk to the lender. He would also have had connections in the business lending industry but I think that is getting too specific for my argument.
Compare this to someone who has a background in retail or a warehouse worker, the personal and financial risk of starting a business is arguably higher. In order to accrue the savings to start their business they would have to work far more hours, and if it doesn't work out they may never have the opportunity to try again. They have less job security if the business fails. They have less savings, and may completely deplete their savings and incur a large debt if it doesn't work out.
I'm not saying that Jeff Bezos didn't earn some of his keep, or that Amazon doesn't provide a lot of service, but I would say the risk vs reward of his business is atronomical compared to the average business startup. The entire idea that he took a risker bet starting a business than a minimum wage worker is, I think, totally wrong, it's utterly ridiculous, and lacks any perspective on what minimum wage workers have to stress about.
Exactly, we should just be upfront when we say that his success is due to both luck and hard work. Hard work is a given, and many people do that. But to really succeed you need a good dose of luck as well, and luck is not something you "work" for
To troll originally meant to "carefully and systematically search an area for something." Perhaps a bit of an archaic definition nowadays, but older or more literary people would probably understand it's intent in this context.
I wasn't thinking of trawl, in my mind trawling is a method of fishing, such as "Trawling for shrimp". Interestingly, the second definition on that page references "Troll". Following that link, it says down the page "SEARCH, LOOK; trolling for sponsors" and "to search in or at;
trolls flea markets for bargains". Perhaps both would work in the above context, however I would prefer trolling over trawling.
Weed is mostly safe, but in some places there's been synthetic cannabinoids sprayed on buds and sold as K2, Spice, etc. and that has some dangerous and unpredictable side effects. Again this varies by ___location. Weed is also getting much stronger than it used to be.
LSD can a bit unpredictable, dosage is really important, and in some cases NBOMe are sold as LSD. NBOMEe's are relatively new, it is a group of synthetic stimulant and hallucinogen substances and can be particularly dangerous when it's not expected.
Mushrooms are probably the safest of the lot if taken with some preparation, dosage is important and so is set and setting.
I think if these substances were decriminalized and regulated, and a harm-reduction approach to education were taken for those most at risk (e.g. Festival goers, teenagers and young adults, clubbers, etc.), a lot of the dangers around their use could be minimised, and public funds could/should be appropriated towards health and education.
Interestingly when people actually get their drugs tested, if it's not what they expected it to be, a good number of people will throw them out. There's some really interesting results from canTEST, a fixed-site drug testing service being trialed in Canberra, Australia.