31–40 of 70 posts
China has issues with food safety: https://www.nytimes.com/topic/destination/food-safety-in-chi... https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2016/04/21/w... Do you really want to eat poison-free pufferfish there?
I'd rather eat the poison-free kind there than the poisonous ones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alcohol slowly destroys your liver even without poisoning.
Harsher regulation of alcohol advertising would address this problem as well. Alcohol advertisements normalize the over-consumption of alcohol and the habitual consumption of alcohol, both of which are hazardous. The reason I mentioned alcohol poisoning and not long term organ damage is because I consider that to be a less severe issue even if the bodycount is higher. Elderly people living to be slightly less elderly…
That's not even getting into the links between dementia and alcohol abuse, because I personally find nothing more terrifying than being a shell of my former self as my mind fades out.
China has issues with food safety: https://www.nytimes.com/topic/destination/food-safety-in-chi... https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2016/04/21/w... Do you really want to eat poison-free pufferfish there?
I've eaten plenty of things in China (have you?) and I'm still alive.
These people have had personal experience more recently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oQbCOz9nlU&t=28s
Google for yourself.
And then there are the fake vaccines: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wL46TjUaebs&t=48s
Your survival so far is not strong evidence for others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think he was likely referring to other restrictions on personal liberty, specifically drug (cocaine, pot, heroin, etc) prohibition.
Of course pot is basically legal in most of the us now and very much not so in China, so the learning could stand to go the other way.
"Schedule I drugs have a high potential for abuse and the potential to create severe psychological and/or physical dependence."
Schedule I Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Some examples of Schedule I drugs are:
heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), methaqualone, and peyote
Schedule II Schedule II drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a high potential for abuse, with use potentially leading to severe psychological or physical dependence. These drugs are also considered dangerous. Some examples of Schedule II drugs are:
Combination products with less than 15 milligrams of hydrocodone per dosage unit (Vicodin), cocaine, methamphetamine, methadone, hydromorphone (Dilaudid), meperidine (Demerol), oxycodone (OxyContin), fentanyl, Dexedrine, Adderall, and Ritalin
Schedule III Schedule III drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence. Schedule III drugs abuse potential is less than Schedule I and Schedule II drugs but more than Schedule IV. Some examples of Schedule III drugs are:
Products containing less than 90 milligrams of codeine per dosage unit (Tylenol with codeine), ketamine, anabolic steroids, testosterone
Schedule IV Schedule IV drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a low potential for abuse and low risk of dependence. Some examples of Schedule IV drugs are:
Xanax, Soma, Darvon, Darvocet, Valium, Ativan, Talwin, Ambien, Tramadol
Schedule V Schedule V drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with lower potential for abuse than Schedule IV and consist of preparations containing limited quantities of certain narcotics. Schedule V drugs are generally used for antidiarrheal, antitussive, and analgesic purposes. Some examples of Schedule V drugs are:
cough preparations with less than 200 milligrams of codeine or per 100 milliliters (Robitussin AC), Lomotil, Motofen, Lyrica, Parepectolin
China has issues with food safety: https://www.nytimes.com/topic/destination/food-safety-in-chi... https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2016/04/21/w... Do you really want to eat poison-free pufferfish there?
> Do you really want to eat poison-free pufferfish there? I'd rather eat the poison-free kind there than the poisonous ones.
I find this part interesting: > Wang says: “Chinese [people] have risked death to eat pufferfish for a long time. The government couldn’t inspect every household to implement the pufferfish ban. So it opened up the industry by legalising it.” > Duan says that, thanks to the legalisation, and to the number of fisheries experts graduating from the Ocean University of China and Dalian Ocean University, “pufferfish dinin…
No there's nothing to be learned here because the US is a very different system. It consists of strong independent state level enforcement entities, it's a collection of individual states, each with an economy of the top 50 economies of the world.
While China has certainly grown like crazy, there, they have a very different system. Everything is centralized so all of the quotas, and inspections are accepted at the central state level. One which also faces challenge of obfusticating as much as possible actual numbers for various reasons: loss of face and the inability to get an accurate gauge within your own country.
So anytime you read a piece of a news out of China, realize what I mentioned above, there are no independent investigative bodies that are able to challenge each other, much like you have individual states, in China the government has final say and the entire judicial system is built to jail, execute anyone the system deems a threat.
It wouldn't be surprising to read about articles in the future about more health complications from eating these farmed pufferfish-as the world recalls, China doesn't exactly instill confidence in their healthcare system when they poison their own citizen's children with HIV.
Not saying everything about China is bad but most of it is quite below the standard of what UN defines as adequate for human rights to exist.
So there's no lesson here imho, and these type of China #1 threads from throwaway accounts we are seeing more and more recently annoys me.
HN has turned into fucking reddit.
This happened with the USDA + US beef industry, they wanted to be able to "cold sterilize" (irradiate) beef to eliminate E. coli. In principle why not, but there was also the belief that the industry wanted it so it would catch (and allow) mistakes in inspection and contamination to go through.
Maybe for some things, it's good to have it be hard and only some people highly trained are allowed to do it, like fugu chefs...