Obama just pushed asthmatic kids over a cliff.
 

Campaign Mode Obama:


President Obama:

GREEN 1
Kids 0

It's well known that asthmatics hate nature.

lol @ inhalers damaging the environment. Especially over asthma problems.

and you want this administration to handle your health care?

wow

politic discussions as usual......only half of the story. I expect more out of you brain.

“There are many other safe and effective medications to treat the symptoms of asthma,” says Badrul Chowdhury, M.D., Ph.D., director of FDA’s Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Rheumatology Products. But you need to find out if you really have asthma—not just pick another over-the-counter medicine, adds Chowdhury. “If you have breathing problems but have not been diagnosed by a health care professional, it’s important to see one. Not all breathing problems are asthma, so you need to get an accurate diagnosis and the proper medicine.”

"What other inhalers can I use for my asthma?
There are inhalers that have another medicine that can treat asthma, such as albuterol HFA inhalers. Hydrofluoroalkanes (HFAs) are different propellants (spray) than CFCs and HFAs don’t harm the environment. You will need a doctor’s prescription to buy these."

"Albuterol HFA inhalers are metered-dose inhalers that you use in the same way as you use the epinephrine CFC inhalers.
Albuterol HFA inhalers are safe and effective for these FDA approved uses: treatment or prevention of bronchospasm in patients with reversible obstructive airway disease, including asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)."

Really? We're scared that people are self-medicating with OTC asthma inhalers?

HFAs require a doctors visit ($) & prescription ($$) & cost more ($$$).

Hopefully Asthma patients are allowed to get a 12-month supply, because when you need an inhaler, you need one NOW.


Maybe the FDA should ban hairspray too, seems logical?

Seriously?

The FDA banned inhalers which use chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) propellants in 2008, recommending the use of hydrofluorocarbon (HFA) propellants instead. Source: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/.../ucm076979.htm


This was done in accordance with the Montreal Protocol, to which the US became a signatory in 1987. Specifically, the US' participation was endorsed by then-president Ronald Reagan (who was not a liberal):Source: http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/montreal/01.html


The New England Journal of Medicine (arguably among the most respected publications in medical science) states:Source: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra050380



R-134a costs more than R-12, but I think we all handled that transition without too much grief. And R-134a isn't even covered by Medicare / Medicaid.



EDIT: Budget Racer beat me to it.

They did ban hairspray containing CFCs. Years ago, in fact. Along with darn near everything else containing CFC propellants.

The problem really is that there is now no EPA approved over-the-counter inhaler due to some stupid an international agreement. This also assumes you believe a few squirt from an inhaler depleats the ozone.

So CFCs bad for the environment, yet inhaling that is ok?

Also, Scott, it seems that JasonC has access to your account ;)

and now they contain VOCs and carcinogens which everyone freaks out about.



And do you know how annoying it is to buy real pseudophedrine?!?!?!?!? I'm probably on a meth watch list.

Attachment 187400

yes, please

We're watching you as you typed that. Stop masturbating so hard and maybe you won't have shortness of breath :giggle:

I'm always being watched.

Yes. Before you swipe your credit / debit card, you have to first hand your drivers license to the clerk, and then tap a button on the screen and sign you name on a line saying that you promise not to operate a meth lab.(,.,.,.,.,.)

Additionally, the medications themselves have been moved by several feet and are now located on a shelf immediately behind the counter rather than immediately in front of it, thus increasing the amount of human interaction which I must be subjected to by several seconds.

In many stores, they have put stacks of printed cards on the "old" shelf which resemble the front of the box of medication which formerly occupied that space, so you can minimize the number of additional sounds which you are required to utter by picking up one of these cards and handing it to the clerk in lieu of using words and sentences to express thoughts. The context of your actions in this case is generally understood to mean "please give me the thing that looks like this card," and not, for instance "please tell me about your religious beliefs," or "My name is Pusha, and I enjoy having unprotected sex with farm animals," so the system works reasonably well.

I am quite allergic to dogs and cats, so I find that I must endure this cruel and horrifying abuse with some regularity.

But why do you so readily accept the bogusness? It's a minor annoyance, but very unnessecary.

Because if we can trick criminals into promising they won't commit a crime, then society wins. Because they PROMISED.




EDIT:

Based on this principle, I'm also working on a crime-reduction plan in which I dare criminals to not commit crimes. And they won't, because I DOUBLE DOG DARED them.

And that's why gun control laws are fail.

2: Because when smart people with whom I otherwise agree distort facts to paint doomsday scenarios which are then proven to be unfounded, it dilutes the credibility of smart people everywhere.

Maybe you need a multivitamin.

Should have gotten asthma.

You know what? You're right. #1 was a stupid reason.

Reason #2 is the thing that really bothers me. We (smart people) accuse the media, the government, environmentalists, bureaucracies, etc., of using selective perception and distorting reality all the time. It is uncouth to do the same in response.

I have some stuff I bought called Gun Scrubber. The stuff is, quite litterally, pure CFC in a can. The propellant is the only thing in the can. Flashes off almost instantly, and will disolve any grease or oil. It will even remove the finish from cheap chinese SKS rifles.

How it's legal to sell, I don't know, but it is great stuff to use for cleaning guns, brake parts, carbs and a host of other things.

Sometimes I have to ask myself if shit like this is really happening or if this is a 3-year long lucid dream.

Attachment 240837


(directed towards Braineack and those who fall into line behind his first post in this thread):

Look, I'm not in support of every little nannying regulation that a liberal government puts into place. God knows that CARB can curl up into a ball and die for all I care.

But if you're going to attack these policies and agencies, don't use the same brain-dead tactics to form your argument that they used in the first place. Everybody loses.

I didn't use tactics; i made a clever title.

here's my attack: how can the FDA approve something for ingestion, but somehow the EPA can urge them to overturn something making it more difficult more expensive to subdue an attack? I'm sure there are plenty worse things out there that hurt the ozone.

Simple: You (the EPA) find yourself in the position of not being compliant with an international treaty to which your country became a signatory 24 years ago.

It is much more important kill children now to protect the ozone layer than to let children live just to have them have a marginally increased chance at skin cancer later. Makes government sense to me. I'm all for killing the children.

Albuterol doesn't work as well (which is why the hell they were using CFCs/the other formulation in the first place). It took 20 seconds on Google to find this:

Newly formulated HFA asthma inhalers are replacing CFC propelled inhalers due to a ban on CFC propellant. Many people are finding the new inhalers (ProAir especially) ineffective and harmful to their health. If your asthma has been getting worse after being forced off of a generic or brand CFC inhaler, you are not alone! Please see the petition link below, read, and sign it to get your voice heard!



http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/s...ers/index.html


Sounds good to me, hehehehe! :twirls mustache while grinning sadistically and thinking of children dying on playgrounds everywhere:

BTW Brakleen without CFCs doesn't work for shit.

Like Buba bleeding his old R12 a/c system into the atmosphere. That accounts for probably 10,000 asthma inhalers.

Joe, how many days in a row would you let me borrow a dollar before you said, "Tough shit, pay for your own Cheetos."?

What's the appropriate response when the problem encroaches in minute degrees? Sure, we would all be pissed if they suddenly confiscated our guns tomorrow, but two dozen gradual and "reasonable" infringements over a 20 year period can produce the same result. Lots of minor annoyances can add up over time.

As an aside, apparently frogs will, in fact, jump out of a boiled pot of water, no matter how slowly the temperature is raised.

I have a clarification question:

The propellant was banned, but it's not possible to get the same active ingredient, with an approved propellant?

If so, the problem is that you can't assume that the substitutes will work as well for everyone.
A 40c migraine med just got effectively banned by the FDA and none of the substitutes I've tried work anywhere near as well.

So when are we to find out that the CFC scare is just as valid as the DDT debacle?

uhoh.....we got olderguy revved up with his DDT peeve. lol. i've sat through this one before.

we have awoken a sleeping giant.

To Joe:

Pseudoephedrine is controlled because it's used to make meth. Let's assume for the moment that it is morally correct to criminalize meth manufacturing.

The purpose of the laws controlling the sale of pseudoephedrine are:
1) make it harder for meth manufacturers to buy it
2) to make it easier to police for find said manufacturers

Now look at this
http://tribstar.com/local/x46868452/...ated-drug-laws

Gramma bought a 2nd box within a month, for her daughter and one for her husband (for a cold), and went over the limit. She got prosecuted, even though she did not use the meds to make meth.

The prosecutor said "she violated the law limiting the amount she was allowed to buy".

Here we have stupid prosecutors blindly enforcing a badly written law to the letter, instead of the intent of the law. This is but one form of tyranny.

One can classify laws into 2 types:
-Mala in Se and
-Mala Prohibita.
Mala in se means "immoral in itself" e.g. murder, rape
Mala prohibita means "illegal by statute" e.g. carrying >$10k in cash at an airport, and purchasing x grams of pseudoephedrine.

Most people are unaware of the distinction and blindly obey "the law" and worse, support bad laws. A simple example, is overtaking a tractor on a double yellow with excellent visibility and no cars in sight...


The creeping statism and autoritarianism of the government, is due to the boiling frog effect. Joe and everyone else don't see the creep as a problem.

I was diagnosed with Asthma as a child and I've been using that exact otc inhaler for years. Guess now I have to go out of my way and get a prescription now.
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

I hate humans so I approve! Good job commander in chief!

No more $19.99 inhalers for you. You gotta pay your doctor to write a script, then pay a co-pay, then pay for the script. It suddenly became a lot more expensive for you to breathe.

but you can't keep your life saving medicine, so you'll be seeing that doctor a lot more :)

Irony?

Thanks for killing the Earth with your half-breath bullshit.

asthmatic kids should have died off years ago. we need to let evolution take place!

Yes, I'm aware of that. Which is why I said in post #17 of this thread (on the subject of my experience in going to the store to purchase the generic equivalent of Claritin-D) "and then tap a button on the screen and sign you name on a line saying that you promise not to operate a meth lab."



Unfortunately, as we have discussed many times in the past, no law is perfect.

The only sure-fire way that I can think of to prevent people from manufacturing meth would be to place every person in the US under constant surveillance, in the manner of Orwell's 1984 or modern-day Great Britain. A slightly less comprehensive method would be to repeal the fourth amendment, and engage in the practice of unrestricted periodic inspections of every residence and place of business within the US.

But beyond the practical problems of implementing such policies (cost of installing and monitoring surveillance equipment, revolt and overthrow of the government, etc) I expect that you would not deem any of these practices to be acceptable.

So what can we do? Since we have agreed for the purpose of this discussion to assume that it is morally correct to criminalize meth manufacturing, how can we actually enforce that law?


Well, one approach would be to take a reactive posture. Do nothing to prevent the production and distribution of meth, but prosecute those who you find selling or consuming meth. This is not an entirely ineffective method, although the history of America's failed "war on drugs" would suggest that it is not an optimal one.


Another approach would be to limit the availability of the means to produce meth.

Many products in the US which have legal, practical applications still bear restrictions on their sale due to the fact that they are also highly likely to be used for illegal purposes, or in furthering the goal of committing an illegal act. Explosives are one example of this- there are many legitimate uses for both ready-made explosives (TNT, Dynamite, ANFO) as well as chemical compounds and devices which are a crucial ingredient in the fabrication of explosives (ammonium nitrate, primacord, blasting caps, etc.)

These products are used every day in the US for the purposes of construction, mining, agriculture, and so on. Would you argue, therefore, that there should be no restrictions at all on their sale?


If one searches hard enough, one can find examples of cases where a bumbling law enforcement officer or bureaucrat has arrested / prosecuted someone who was technically violating the law, but with genuinely innocent (and harmless) intentions. Such cases call for better education of the public (eg: signage at points-of-sale), better education of civilians responsible for handling restricted materials (eg: drugstore clerks who explain to granny the reason why they need to check her ID), better rationalization of law enforcement (eg: did granny have a history of buying large quantities of Zyrtac at regular intervals), and yes, sometimes the re-forming of laws and regulations.


They do not, however, call for the whosesale repeal of any law for which even the merest prima facie evidence exists that the law might be unjustly applied. Were that the case, we would have no laws at all.





I do, in all sincerity, applaud the fact that you took the time to compose a response which was relevant (if tangential) to the conversation at hand, rather than just posting a link to some conspiracy newsletter. I was originally going to end this post with a funny picture of a cat, however on more careful consideration, that would not be warranted. I strongly disagree with what you are saying, but I respect the fact that you actually gave us the consideration of saying it for yourself.


Oh, and FYI, carrying more than $10k in cash or negotiable instruments through an airport is illegal only on international flights and only if you have failed to file FINCEN Form 105 with US Customs. It's only one page, and you don't even need to justify the reason why you are carrying the money. The same goes for mailing money into / out of the US.

Re: $10k cash - my buddy is building a house overseas and periodically sends money. He basically *needs to show where the money came from* - the onus is on *him* to prove he didn't sell drugs to come up with that money, instead of on the gov't to prove that he is a criminal. I stand by my assertion that he is now guilty until he proves himself innocent.

All this BS from the gov't is a net negative for society. Just like in the other thread about how such a tiny tiny minority actually go out and blow up victims, all this Big Brother surveillance not only fattens bureaucracies, but from a purely cost/benefit standpoint they're not worth it. Not only the direct cost of the taxation, but the cost of and economic inefficiency of complying with these regulations.

I say "terrerists" and drug lords can be found with plain police work. (Again assuming drug production should be criminalized). No need for special BS laws that criminalize innocents and suck taxpayer money. Why is it that we need more and more and more regulations and BS laws for society to function? We didn't have anywhere near as many laws in the 70s, and it's not like people are dying left and right from drugs and terrerists .

The criminalization of innocents is but one form of tyranny.

see:
www.overcriminalized.com

Now you're just talking out of your ass.

Have you even looked at Form 105, which I linked to above? It does not at any place ask "where did you get this money" or "why are you shipping this money?" All they ask is "who are you, who are you sending the money to, when, and by what means?"

Honestly, if your friend finds this to be too burdensome, just tell him to send the cash $9,999 at a time.


But this isn't really about him. You just can't pass up an opportunity, any opportunity at all, to try to convince everyone that the US Government is tyrannical and corrupt, and should be abolished in its present form. Speaking from the personal perspective of someone whose family came to this country on a boat in the 1960s, you don't even know what a corrupt, tyrannical government is.

I'm going to count that one.

Attachment 240834

gimme my huffer!

I joined the military at a good time.
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

rofl, anytime.
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

I thought that they didn't let ahsshamaatics in the military?