The people have spoken…the bastards." – Regretting his urge for populism, a british MP who offered to submit the winning law in a BBC contest doesn’t like the bill he now has to submit: A Law legalizing the defense of homes by homeowners in England.
“I got yer WMD’s right here” – A Syrian journalist claims he knows where Saddam’s weapons were stashed, and that the US is holding onto that information to keep Syria on a tight leash.
“If I won’t use Ephedra, you can’t either” – Ephedra - a stimulant similar to caffeine that has been used for thousands of years - has now been banned by the FDA. Unable to cite any specific evidance of harm, it is outlawed because it is an “unreasonable risk” according to the people who continually try to save us from ourselves. Is our beloved caffeine next?
A study commissioned by the National Institutes of Health also called into safety the use of ephedra, saying it was associated with higher risks of heart palpitations, tremors and insomnia.
The Annals of Internal Medicine reported that, although products with ephedra make up less than 1 percent of dietary supplement sales, it has accounted for 64 percent of the serious side effects that have been reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in association with dietary supplements.
A second study published in the journal Neurology found that the rate of strokes among ephedra users was higher than in nonusers. The supplement users in the study took more than 32 milligrams a day; some ephedra labels recommend almost 100 milligrams daily.
Yes, they note it has an increased risk. But just how bad is that risk comparatively?
Compare Wolfe’s estimate of 155 ephedra-related deaths over a decade or so to the deaths associated with other widely used drugs in a single year. In 1999 the Drug Abuse Warning Network’s compilation of medical examiners’ reports included 811 mentions for Valium, 641 for Benadryl, 427 for Tylenol, 305 for Prozac, and 104 for aspirin.
Are we going to move the bar so low that warnings labels won’t suffice? Just lots of banning?
The Annals of Internal Medicine reported that, although products with ephedra make up less than 1 percent of dietary supplement sales, it has accounted for 64 percent of the serious side effects
I think that they think that if burglers feel that they won’t get shot or stabbed if they wake the occupants of a home, that the burglers won’t feel the need to carry knives of guns on their persons, thereby decreasing the chances of harming the innocents.
Cops in Britain are still only issued batons.
“Stop!” shouted the copper, “Or I shall yell, ‘Stop!’ again!”
I think that they think that if burglers feel that they won’t get shot or stabbed if they wake the occupants of a home, that the burglers won’t feel the need to carry knives of guns on their persons, thereby decreasing the chances of harming the innocents.
Cops in Britain are still only issued batons.
“Stop!” shouted the copper, “Or I shall yell, ‘Stop!’ again!”[/quote]
ahem Half those buggers are tooled up like Rambo, and fully licensed and trained to do so. Just because you don’t see a weapon doesn’t mean your friendly British bobby isn’t carrying one.
The need to use them is a lot less than in the US though.
I’m pretty sure I read some statistics in the local paper (Austin American Statesman) last year that very strongly correlated home-owner death by burglarious gunshot with handgun ownership by the victim. British legislators tend to pay a lot of attention to studies of that variety.
The Annals of Internal Medicine reported that, although products with ephedra make up less than 1 percent of dietary supplement sales, it has accounted for 64 percent of the serious side effects
Yet accounting for “serious side effects” like raised blood pressure, get this banned, while smoking and drinking get warning labels.
This is a rational response? People are considered responsible enough to make their own risk/benefit calculations for common recreational drugs, while being denied the chance to ever make it for a utilitarian drug?
Let’s just wipe out a 2 billion dollar a year industry because it increases blood pressure and makes you sweat? (some of the listed ‘serious side effects’)
Benadryl is a more lethal drug. Tylenol is a more lethal drug. Aspirin is a more lethal drug.
Jason- As opposed to common recreational drugs like alcohol and tobacco, where the user is still allowed a choice in wether or not to partake. I didn’t meant to imply that it was taken recreationally.
I only use ephedra as a stimulant for long drives, because I hate feeling “speedy”. Of course now I am no longer allowed to make that judgement, as it’s been taken away by fiat of the FDA.
Of course the whole idea of a “substance” being illegal sticks in my craw too. (Of the ‘only dangerous to self’ variety - smacks of laws against suicide.)
Let me tell you something. A friend of mine had a kidney removed two weeks ago because of all the workout supplements he was using for years. He has decided not to use any of them again, ever. It’s about time the FDA took up this issue of mostly unregulated, unresearched and overhyped dietary supplements.
i don’t have a problem with the FDA regulating the supplement industry. there should be strict rules on truth in labeling. i’ve heard of studies that show that many supplements don’t have the things in them that are listed on the label, and oftentimes are contaminated by poisonous substances. and some of the claims that are made about these products are absolutely ludicrous.
but once the products are accurately labeled, with ingredients, effects and side-effects, people should be allowed to make a judgement on whether the side-effects are worth the advantages of the product. unless a product is actually deadly, it is stupid to make it illegal to produce.
of course, the counter-argument is that taking care of all these people that are destroying their bodies with dangerous supplements is expensive. cut them off, i say. or raise their insurance rates.
I think that they think that if burglers feel that they won’t get shot or stabbed if they wake the occupants of a home, that the burglers won’t feel the need to carry knives of guns on their persons, thereby decreasing the chances of harming the innocents.
[/quote]
That kind of thinking makes me sick. Let’s make it illegal for people to defend themselves on the chance that it makes criminals less likely to be armed. Talk about missing the whole point of self defense.
I’m not a subscriber to the Independent, so I can’t see the whole article. Can someone provide some facts–is it actually illegal to defend your home against intruders in England? That does seem… strange.
Illigal or not - someone wants to steal my TV/computer - they’re gonna have to talk to my BBD first, and by talk I mean have it wrapped tightly around their head.
(*BBD - Bogan Bashing Device - A.K.A - The rod from a jackhammer)
on the drugs thing - it’s bloody stupid just banning it. At least make it a presciption ‘medicine’. That way - you can still chose to use it, and the government still have some control over you.
The man said excessive or deadly force. In the U.S., it’s generally recognized that there are situations in which deadly force is not excessive. For example, in NC it’s legal to shoot anyone attempting to force their way into your home. It’s assumed that anyone trying to force his way into an occupied house is up to no good. In the UK, you’d go to jail for murder for doing the same.
