The one being banned is the herb, ephedra also called Mau Haung.
(snip) >its actually synthesized, and its called "pseudoephedrine"
Your right, pseudoephedrine is synthesized, it's also a natural constituent
in ephedra (Mau Haung), along with ephedrine. And Yes it is ephedra (Mau
Haung) that is being banned. Read the news or watch CNN.
pseudoephedrine is sinply the threo racemate of ephedrine and it is not
being banned. Its also called pseuophed (decongestant).
"Traves W. Coppock" <newsgroups-AT-farmvalleywoodworks-DOT-com> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 23:01:18 GMT, "stoutman" <.@.> Crawled out of the
> shop and said. . .:
>
> snip
>
> >Mau Haung has also been used before drug laws.
> >
> >
>
> snip
>
> yup,,,right you are!
>
> HOWEVER!
>
> the drug in question and the one being "banned" is not pure, or "real"
> ephedra...its actually synthesized, and its called "pseudoephedrine"
And how much does the ephedra lobby contribute to political campaigns?
Lionel
............
Take the dog out before sending email.
"B a r r y B u r k e J r ." <[email protected]> wrote
in message news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:10:18 GMT, "stoutman" <.@.> wrote:
>
> >I found this pretty funny. The government (US) is gonna ban the diet
> >supplement Ephedra starting next year because it has been linked to 155
> >deaths.
> >Smoking kills 400,000 Americans each year.
> >
> >Am I missing something?
> >
> >
>
>
> How much tax revenue does Ephedra generate?
>
> Barry
A lot of the dangers are in the method of delivery, not necessarily the
plant itself. Try sticking a cactus in your rectum...I'll bet that would
make a cactus more dangerous than tobacco. :)
"stoutman" <.@.> wrote in message news:h7BIb.243659$_M.1101486@attbi_s54...
> My point is the government is banning the USE (smoke, chew, lick, eat,
> swallow, stick in rectum, it doesn't matter) of a PLANT when another PLANT
> (tobacco) does more harm to people.
>
> Think...
>From: "stoutman" .@.
>Date: Tue, Dec 30, 2003 1:10 PM
>Message-id: <_QlIb.78916$VB2.159512@attbi_s51>
>
>I found this pretty funny. The government (US) is gonna ban the diet
>supplement Ephedra starting next year because it has been linked to 155
>deaths.
>Smoking kills 400,000 Americans each year.
>
>Am I missing something?
There isn't enough kick-back to the government from Ephedra. Cigarettes on the
other hand support MANY government programs through outrageous taxes!
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 01:03:00 GMT, "Mark Jerde"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>B a r r y B u r k e J r . wrote:
>
>> While we're at it, how about banning _hand held_ cell phone use?
>
>Useless to marginally useful at best. What I've noticed about yacking on a
>cell phone is the major distraction is the diversion of brain cycles to
I'll agree, plenty of diversion even with hands free. But if you're
that distracted, you really should pull over for deepconversations.
However, with hands free you can still turn your head to look in the
next lane, shift and steer the car when on a not so deep conversation.
I've personally been nearly dusted by someone who couldn't hold the
wheel and the phone at the same time.
Having the hands free cradle in the company car makes me a much safer
driver than in my personal rides that don't have the cradle.
Barry
The source of Ephedra (ephedrine) is herbal (Mau Haung). The diet companies
are using Mau Haung in their diet products as the source of ephedra. They
are banning Mau Haung (the herb) which contains ephedra.
Mau Haung (ephedra) has not been regulated to date because it is listed as a
food supplement.
(snip) >Ephedra is a drug, tobacco is not
Mau Haung is just like tobacco in the since that they are both all natural
and plant/herbal.
(snip) >but since tobacco has been around prior to the drug laws
Mau Haung has also been used before drug laws.
"Ron A" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Very simply, Ephedra is a drug, tobacco is not. FDA would like tobacco to
> be a drug so they can regulate it, but since tobacco has been around prior
> to the drug laws, it can not be regulated unless a specific law is enacted
> by congress to declare it a drug.
>
> R
>
>
B a r r y B u r k e J r . wrote:
> I've personally been nearly dusted by someone who couldn't hold the
> wheel and the phone at the same time.
I had to admire a guy in a SUV on the Washington DC beltway one day. He
managed to pass me at about 80 mph, cell phone in one hand, flashing the
international symbol of disrespect at me with the other. He was probably
steering with his knee but I'll be he thought he was steering with his ____
<g>.
Another time traffic was moving in all 4 lanes but basically all were moving
at the same average rate. I was behind a lady who was apparently late for
something. After a few miles of her driving I wanted *so bad* to force her
off the road and ask what the old record for lane changes was. <g> Unlike
many others I've observed, at least she used the turning signals. However,
they weren't signals "asking permission," they were indicators of impending
action no matter what was happening in the other lanes. ;-) It was very
interesting to watch.
-- Mark
It's Canada's fault ... again.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/29/03
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
> It comes down to one thing, and one thing only: money. State and Federal
> governments make a shipload of money from taxes on tobacco. Since smokers
> generally die early, they don't collect Social Security for as long as
> nonsmokers do, which saves the Federal Gummint another shipload. Last but
not
> least, the tobacco industry contributes yet another shipload to the
> politicians that continue to protect their existence.
Greetings and Salutations...
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:42:23 GMT, "stoutman" <.@.> wrote:
>Not enough I guess. Pretty sad.
>
>
>"B a r r y B u r k e J r ." <[email protected]> wrote
>in message news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:10:18 GMT, "stoutman" <.@.> wrote:
>>
>> >I found this pretty funny. The government (US) is gonna ban the diet
>> >supplement Ephedra starting next year because it has been linked to 155
>> >deaths.
>> >Smoking kills 400,000 Americans each year.
>> >
>> >Am I missing something?
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> How much tax revenue does Ephedra generate?
>>
>> Barry
>
>
Yea...I am listening to the NPR discussion on this even as I
type. It feels to me that this is one of several things.
1) it is a "high profile" problem, in that someone famous
has died because of it. Like several other laws based on events
that are so unusual as to be statistically meaningless, it is
a "feel good" thing that politicians can do. It makes it LOOK
like they are trying to "protect" us, but in actual fact it
one affects a vanishingly small number of folks.
2) It is part of the ongoing attempt of government to
take advantage of our formless fears to end up putting us ALL
in "camp X-Ray". As mentioned in passing in the NPR story,
passing a law against ephedra will set a precedent to allow
the FDA and Congress to ban OTHER "dangrous" products. We,
the sleeping citizenry, allow this because, each slice is
only a TINY sliver of freedom of choice gone.
However...before we know it...instead of rolling miles
of unfettered movement...we are in a box too small to lay down
in.
I think that the Feds would do far more to "protect"
us by implementing the following policies:
1) Not allowing driver's licenses for folks under
the age of 19.
2) Mandatory driver's education.
3) As with Israel and some other countries, 2 years
service in the military after high school.
It would not make America perfect, but, I suspect it
would produce a citizen that was a lot stronger of will and
would produce much safer roads for all of us (which would
cut down noticeably on the traffic problems).
However, it ain't gonna happen, because it is
too painful for the politicians to actually change anything
substantual, and, too many American parents would whine
too loudly at having to take such a larger part in their
children's lives.
By the by...in case you were wondering...yes...
Swift's "A Modest Proposal" IS one of my favorite readings.
For you folks who have come through the American educational
system...and likely have never heard of this:
http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~benjamin/316kfall/316ktexts/swift.html
Regards
Dave Mundt
No and no.
Stop and think. The _least_ profit goes to the manufacturer. Distribution
takes more than he, and those who tax it at all levels make the most money.
That's the real profit, and what you preach is moonshine.
Which, by the way, produces more money per unit for the government than the
"big companies," as does gasoline....
"David P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:DSHIb.245455$_M.1121989@attbi_s54...
> Others have answered this for you. Big business and money ensures
tobacco's
> survival.
>
> > Your NOT thinking David.
> Nor is David jumping on the fanatical bandwagon.
Not enough I guess. Pretty sad.
"B a r r y B u r k e J r ." <[email protected]> wrote
in message news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:10:18 GMT, "stoutman" <.@.> wrote:
>
> >I found this pretty funny. The government (US) is gonna ban the diet
> >supplement Ephedra starting next year because it has been linked to 155
> >deaths.
> >Smoking kills 400,000 Americans each year.
> >
> >Am I missing something?
> >
> >
>
>
> How much tax revenue does Ephedra generate?
>
> Barry
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:10:18 GMT, "stoutman" <.@.> wrote:
>I found this pretty funny. The government (US) is gonna ban the diet
>supplement Ephedra starting next year because it has been linked to 155
>deaths.
>Smoking kills 400,000 Americans each year.
>
>Am I missing something?
>
>
How much tax revenue does Ephedra generate?
Barry
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 04:24:15 GMT, "David P" <[email protected]>
Crawled out of the shop and said. . .:
snip
>taken orally. I can't remember the last time I smoked my vitamins although
>that might not be a bad idea. ;)
>
i smoked a bowl of flintstones chewables once...harsh man,,i think
i'll stick to winstons
Mark Jerde wrote:
> David P wrote:
>
>> I can't remember the last time I smoked my
>> vitamins although that might not be a bad idea. ;)
>
> <ROTFL>
Me too. New from RJR, Camel Complete, with all the vitamins, tar, and
nicotine a growing boy needs from A to Z.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 23:32:16 GMT, [email protected] (Dave Mundt) wrote:
> 2) Mandatory driver's education.
Including collision avoidance and bad weather driving. No bad weather
permit, no bad weather privileges, just like a private pilot's
license. <G>
While we're at it, how about banning _hand held_ cell phone use?
Barry
(snip) > They make crank out of that shit. Glad it's being banned myself.
Wrong.
Crack is cocaine based. However ephedrine can and is used to make
methamphetamine and methcathinone. This could be the underlying reason
that it is being banned and the health issue is a smoke screen.
I don't use ephedrine, but banning ephedrine (I think its the first dietary
supplement to be banned) could create a slippery slope. More will be
banned.
"FOW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> They make crank out of that shit. Glad it's being banned myself.
> "stoutman" <.@.> wrote in message news:XBnIb.10465$I07.18743@attbi_s53...
> > (snip) >but since tobacco has been around prior to the drug laws
> >
> >
> > The Chinese were using ephedra (Mau Haung) 5000 years ago!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "stoutman" <.@.> wrote in message
> news:2tnIb.174711$8y1.529295@attbi_s52...
> > > The source of Ephedra (ephedrine) is herbal (Mau Haung). The diet
> > companies
> > > are using Mau Haung in their diet products as the source of ephedra.
> They
> > > are banning Mau Haung (the herb) which contains ephedra.
> > >
> > > Mau Haung (ephedra) has not been regulated to date because it is
listed
> as
> > a
> > > food supplement.
> > >
> > > (snip) >Ephedra is a drug, tobacco is not
> > >
> > > Mau Haung is just like tobacco in the since that they are both all
> natural
> > > and plant/herbal.
> > >
> > > (snip) >but since tobacco has been around prior to the drug laws
> > >
> > > Mau Haung has also been used before drug laws.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Ron A" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > Very simply, Ephedra is a drug, tobacco is not. FDA would like
> tobacco
> > to
> > > > be a drug so they can regulate it, but since tobacco has been around
> > prior
> > > > to the drug laws, it can not be regulated unless a specific law is
> > enacted
> > > > by congress to declare it a drug.
> > > >
> > > > R
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
stoutman responds:
>(snip) > They make crank out of that shit. Glad it's being banned myself.
>
>Wrong.
>
>Crack is cocaine based.
Wrong. Crack is coke based. Crank is methamphetamine.
Charlie Self
"If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he gave
it to. " Dorothy Parker
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
(snip) > Crank is methamphetamine
Didn't I correct my self on this? Look at my post above.
Oh, and cocaine = coke
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> stoutman responds:
>
> >(snip) > They make crank out of that shit. Glad it's being banned myself.
> >
> >Wrong.
> >
> >Crack is cocaine based.
>
> Wrong. Crack is coke based. Crank is methamphetamine.
>
> Charlie Self
> "If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he
gave
> it to. " Dorothy Parker
>
> http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
stoutman responds:
>(snip) > Crank is methamphetamine
>
>Didn't I correct my self on this? Look at my post above.
>
>Oh, and cocaine = coke
>
>
>"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> stoutman responds:
>>
>> >(snip) > They make crank out of that shit. Glad it's being banned myself.
>> >
>> >Wrong.
>> >
>> >Crack is cocaine based.
>>
>> Wrong. Crack is coke based. Crank is methamphetamine.
Uh, yeah, but I tend to read and respond to these things in order, not ass-end
first.
Charlie Self
"If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he gave
it to. " Dorothy Parker
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
B a r r y B u r k e J r . wrote:
> While we're at it, how about banning _hand held_ cell phone use?
Useless to marginally useful at best. What I've noticed about yacking on a
cell phone is the major distraction is the diversion of brain cycles to
solving whatever the business or home crisis of the moment is. IMO the
hands / hands-free has little to do with the real distraction.
Yes, I drink coffee, change radio stations, smoke & gnaw on a Big Mac from
time to time while driving. (Not all at the same time, usually. <g>) IMO
none of these are as distracting as having my mind transported to the
client's setup problem or the clogged kitchen sink.
-- Mark
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:10:29 GMT, "stoutman" <.@.> Crawled out of the
shop and said. . .:
>Hmmmmm,
>
>Lets consider these two plants, Tobacco and Mau Haung (Ephedra).
>
>MauHaung (Ephedra) has reportedly killed 15 people in since its reported use
>by the diet industry.
>Tobacco kills 400,000 people per year.
>
alcohol and its related actions kill more than that,,,
we tried prohibition once, it don't work!
and it don't work now for the "drug" problem!
and it wont work for this either.
take a childs toy away, and the child thinks about nothing but the
lost toy,,,,
Traves
>Which plant is more dangerous Tobacco or Mau Haung (Ephedra) ?
>
neither in moderation
snip
Ahh, crank is methamphetamine. Didn't know that. sorry. I thought you
meant crack.
Your right. :)
"stoutman" <.@.> wrote in message news:8%pIb.11242$I07.21965@attbi_s53...
> (snip) > They make crank out of that shit. Glad it's being banned myself.
>
> Wrong.
>
> Crack is cocaine based. However ephedrine can and is used to make
> methamphetamine and methcathinone. This could be the underlying reason
> that it is being banned and the health issue is a smoke screen.
>
> I don't use ephedrine, but banning ephedrine (I think its the first
dietary
> supplement to be banned) could create a slippery slope. More will be
> banned.
>
>
>
> "FOW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > They make crank out of that shit. Glad it's being banned myself.
> > "stoutman" <.@.> wrote in message
news:XBnIb.10465$I07.18743@attbi_s53...
> > > (snip) >but since tobacco has been around prior to the drug laws
> > >
> > >
> > > The Chinese were using ephedra (Mau Haung) 5000 years ago!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "stoutman" <.@.> wrote in message
> > news:2tnIb.174711$8y1.529295@attbi_s52...
> > > > The source of Ephedra (ephedrine) is herbal (Mau Haung). The diet
> > > companies
> > > > are using Mau Haung in their diet products as the source of ephedra.
> > They
> > > > are banning Mau Haung (the herb) which contains ephedra.
> > > >
> > > > Mau Haung (ephedra) has not been regulated to date because it is
> listed
> > as
> > > a
> > > > food supplement.
> > > >
> > > > (snip) >Ephedra is a drug, tobacco is not
> > > >
> > > > Mau Haung is just like tobacco in the since that they are both all
> > natural
> > > > and plant/herbal.
> > > >
> > > > (snip) >but since tobacco has been around prior to the drug laws
> > > >
> > > > Mau Haung has also been used before drug laws.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Ron A" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > > Very simply, Ephedra is a drug, tobacco is not. FDA would like
> > tobacco
> > > to
> > > > > be a drug so they can regulate it, but since tobacco has been
around
> > > prior
> > > > > to the drug laws, it can not be regulated unless a specific law is
> > > enacted
> > > > > by congress to declare it a drug.
> > > > >
> > > > > R
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
(snip) A lot of the dangers are in the method of delivery, not necessarily
the plant itself.
Sure dangers be exacerbated by changing the route of administration. If you
are implying that Tobacco is only dangerous when smoked you are mistaken.
Tobacco dip causes moth cancer. Tobacco snuff throat cancer. How else is
tobacco administered? Is there a route of administration for tobacco that I
am unaware of that doesn't cause cancer?
They are banning ephedra and not giving us the choice of route of
administration. They are simply telling us "this stuff is bad for you, it
kills people, you can no longer use it". If they can do that for ephedra
(another plant, just like tobacco) why can't they do that for tobacco?
It's one sided.
Your NOT thinking David.
"David P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:19DIb.697666$HS4.4987890@attbi_s01...
> A lot of the dangers are in the method of delivery, not necessarily the
> plant itself. Try sticking a cactus in your rectum...I'll bet that would
> make a cactus more dangerous than tobacco. :)
>
> "stoutman" <.@.> wrote in message
news:h7BIb.243659$_M.1101486@attbi_s54...
> > My point is the government is banning the USE (smoke, chew, lick, eat,
> > swallow, stick in rectum, it doesn't matter) of a PLANT when another
PLANT
> > (tobacco) does more harm to people.
> >
> > Think...
>
>
Haven't you been reading the news in the last few years? EVERYTHING causes
cancer. Soon the government is going to ban food and sunlight...we better
stop them NOW with this Ephedra thing if we ever want to eat or get a tan
again. Then what...WOOD...*gulp*...that's when I cross over to the Dark
Side.
> If they can do that for ephedra
> (another plant, just like tobacco) why can't they do that for tobacco?
Others have answered this for you. Big business and money ensures tobacco's
survival.
> Your NOT thinking David.
Nor is David jumping on the fanatical bandwagon.
"stoutman" <.@.> wrote in message news:9hDIb.84960$VB2.187178@attbi_s51...
> (snip) A lot of the dangers are in the method of delivery, not necessarily
> the plant itself.
>
> Sure dangers be exacerbated by changing the route of administration. If
you
> are implying that Tobacco is only dangerous when smoked you are mistaken.
> Tobacco dip causes moth cancer. Tobacco snuff throat cancer. How else is
> tobacco administered? Is there a route of administration for tobacco that
I
> am unaware of that doesn't cause cancer?
>
> They are banning ephedra and not giving us the choice of route of
> administration. They are simply telling us "this stuff is bad for you, it
> kills people, you can no longer use it". If they can do that for ephedra
> (another plant, just like tobacco) why can't they do that for tobacco?
>
> It's one sided.
>
> Your NOT thinking David.
David P states:
>
>Haven't you been reading the news in the last few years? EVERYTHING causes
>cancer. Soon the government is going to ban food and sunlight...we better
>stop them NOW with this Ephedra thing if we ever want to eat or get a tan
>again. Then what...WOOD...*gulp*...that's when I cross over to the Dark
>Side.
>
Check it out. The ONLY cause of death is conception. What is the government
doing to help prevent that?
Charlie Self
"If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he gave
it to. " Dorothy Parker
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> David P states:
>
> >
> >Haven't you been reading the news in the last few years? EVERYTHING causes
> >cancer. Soon the government is going to ban food and sunlight...we better
> >stop them NOW with this Ephedra thing if we ever want to eat or get a tan
> >again. Then what...WOOD...*gulp*...that's when I cross over to the Dark
> >Side.
> >
>
> Check it out. The ONLY cause of death is conception. What is the government
> doing to help prevent that?
>
That's what's being substituted for civics courses, kids don't know
what the Speaker of the House does, or what the Supreme Court does, but
they can put a condom on a cucumber in 2 seconds flat.
Mark & Juanita writes:
>> Check it out. The ONLY cause of death is conception. What is the government
>> doing to help prevent that?
>>
>
> That's what's being substituted for civics courses, kids don't know
>what the Speaker of the House does, or what the Supreme Court does, but
>they can put a condom on a cucumber in 2 seconds flat.
Jeez, I hope that's as far as the hands on training goes!
Charlie Self
"If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he gave
it to. " Dorothy Parker
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
Apparently I am not the only one who has thought about the one sided ban of
ephedra and not tobacco.
Do a google search using keywords: Tobacco and Ephedra.
here are a couple I found. Some people explain this ridiculous situation
better than I do.
goto:
Here is an FDA link. Read the whole thing:
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Mar03/032403/95N-0304-EC-386.htm
Here is another:
http://www.mccmedia.com/pipermail/brin-l/Week-of-Mon-20030310/014299.html
I am NOT alone in this argument in using TOBACCO as a comparison.
"David P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:PbsIb.18170$xX.59867@attbi_s02...
> I don't think you are making a proper comparison since your references to
> tobacco seem to be more targeted to the act of smoking. Go roll up some
> Ephedra in a papers, smoke 10 or more of them a day, and see how long you
> live. Smoking anything, not just tobacco, is bad for you.
>
> As an alternate comparison, popping a few small tobacco pills every day my
> be safer than popping a few ephedra pills a day. I don't really know.
The
> point is you are comparing smoking to herbal supplements that are
generally
> taken orally. I can't remember the last time I smoked my vitamins
although
> that might not be a bad idea. ;)
>
>
>
> "stoutman" <.@.> wrote in message news:VtoIb.10747$I07.20054@attbi_s53...
> > Hmmmmm,
> >
> > Lets consider these two plants, Tobacco and Mau Haung (Ephedra).
> >
> > MauHaung (Ephedra) has reportedly killed 15 people in since its reported
> use
> > by the diet industry.
> > Tobacco kills 400,000 people per year.
> >
> > Which plant is more dangerous Tobacco or Mau Haung (Ephedra) ?
> >
> > I think I would pop a few ephedra every day before I puffed back a
carton
> of
> > marlboros.
> >
> > I would like to politely ask you to 'Wake up and smell the coffee'. The
> > first couple of responders hit the nail on the head. It all comes down
to
> > money $$$. :)
> >
> > It amuses me when the law makers tell me I can't take an herbal diet
> > supplement then they retreat to their plush office and lite up a lucky.
> >
> > Do you really think ephedra (remember, its a plant just like tobacco) is
> > more dangerous than tobacco? It's not. Tobacco is much much worse.
Plus
> > tobacco use is killing us nonsmokers.
> >
> > I think this is just one more reason to move to Canada. :)
> >
>
>
I don't think you are making a proper comparison since your references to
tobacco seem to be more targeted to the act of smoking. Go roll up some
Ephedra in a papers, smoke 10 or more of them a day, and see how long you
live. Smoking anything, not just tobacco, is bad for you.
As an alternate comparison, popping a few small tobacco pills every day my
be safer than popping a few ephedra pills a day. I don't really know. The
point is you are comparing smoking to herbal supplements that are generally
taken orally. I can't remember the last time I smoked my vitamins although
that might not be a bad idea. ;)
"stoutman" <.@.> wrote in message news:VtoIb.10747$I07.20054@attbi_s53...
> Hmmmmm,
>
> Lets consider these two plants, Tobacco and Mau Haung (Ephedra).
>
> MauHaung (Ephedra) has reportedly killed 15 people in since its reported
use
> by the diet industry.
> Tobacco kills 400,000 people per year.
>
> Which plant is more dangerous Tobacco or Mau Haung (Ephedra) ?
>
> I think I would pop a few ephedra every day before I puffed back a carton
of
> marlboros.
>
> I would like to politely ask you to 'Wake up and smell the coffee'. The
> first couple of responders hit the nail on the head. It all comes down to
> money $$$. :)
>
> It amuses me when the law makers tell me I can't take an herbal diet
> supplement then they retreat to their plush office and lite up a lucky.
>
> Do you really think ephedra (remember, its a plant just like tobacco) is
> more dangerous than tobacco? It's not. Tobacco is much much worse. Plus
> tobacco use is killing us nonsmokers.
>
> I think this is just one more reason to move to Canada. :)
>
You might want to consider it since you think pseudoephedrine is fake
ephedrine. he he.
"Traves W. Coppock" <newsgroups-AT-farmvalleywoodworks-DOT-com> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:31:23 GMT, "stoutman" <.@.> Crawled out of the
> shop and said. . .:
> snip
>
> >Your right, pseudoephedrine is synthesized, it's also a natural
constituent
> >in ephedra (Mau Haung), along with ephedrine. And Yes it is ephedra (Mau
> >Haung) that is being banned. Read the news or watch CNN.
> snip
>
> CNN? no thanks...dont like my news spoon fed to me
>
> hehe
>
> on the other note, seems when i have time i'll need to do a bit more
> reading on this subject..
Hmmmmm,
Lets consider these two plants, Tobacco and Mau Haung (Ephedra).
MauHaung (Ephedra) has reportedly killed 15 people in since its reported use
by the diet industry.
Tobacco kills 400,000 people per year.
Which plant is more dangerous Tobacco or Mau Haung (Ephedra) ?
I think I would pop a few ephedra every day before I puffed back a carton of
marlboros.
I would like to politely ask you to 'Wake up and smell the coffee'. The
first couple of responders hit the nail on the head. It all comes down to
money $$$. :)
It amuses me when the law makers tell me I can't take an herbal diet
supplement then they retreat to their plush office and lite up a lucky.
Do you really think ephedra (remember, its a plant just like tobacco) is
more dangerous than tobacco? It's not. Tobacco is much much worse. Plus
tobacco use is killing us nonsmokers.
I think this is just one more reason to move to Canada. :)
"DJ Delorie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Ron A" <[email protected]> writes:
> > Very simply, Ephedra is a drug, tobacco is not.
>
> Ephedrine is a drug. Ephedra is not.
>
> Ephedra is being banned for the same reason marijuana is - the FDA has
> determined (rightly or wrongly) that the dangers of the item exceed
> the benefits of the item, and that the general public is unable to
> reliably avoid the dangers.
I meant ephedra not ephedrine.
From my previous posts in this thread you might have come to the conclusion
that I meant ephedra. I get the two mixed up because the active
constituents in ephedra are pseudoephedrine and ephedrine.
"DJ Delorie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "stoutman" <.@.> writes:
> > Crack is cocaine based. However ephedrine can and is used to make
> > methamphetamine and methcathinone. This could be the underlying
reason
> > that it is being banned and the health issue is a smoke screen.
> >
> > I don't use ephedrine, but banning ephedrine (I think its the first
dietary
> > supplement to be banned) could create a slippery slope. More will be
> > banned.
>
> Ephedrine is not being banned, ephedra is. You can still buy
> ephedrine OTC.
(snip) >but since tobacco has been around prior to the drug laws
The Chinese were using ephedra (Mau Haung) 5000 years ago!
"stoutman" <.@.> wrote in message news:2tnIb.174711$8y1.529295@attbi_s52...
> The source of Ephedra (ephedrine) is herbal (Mau Haung). The diet
companies
> are using Mau Haung in their diet products as the source of ephedra. They
> are banning Mau Haung (the herb) which contains ephedra.
>
> Mau Haung (ephedra) has not been regulated to date because it is listed as
a
> food supplement.
>
> (snip) >Ephedra is a drug, tobacco is not
>
> Mau Haung is just like tobacco in the since that they are both all natural
> and plant/herbal.
>
> (snip) >but since tobacco has been around prior to the drug laws
>
> Mau Haung has also been used before drug laws.
>
>
> "Ron A" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Very simply, Ephedra is a drug, tobacco is not. FDA would like tobacco
to
> > be a drug so they can regulate it, but since tobacco has been around
prior
> > to the drug laws, it can not be regulated unless a specific law is
enacted
> > by congress to declare it a drug.
> >
> > R
> >
> >
>
>
They make crank out of that shit. Glad it's being banned myself.
"stoutman" <.@.> wrote in message news:XBnIb.10465$I07.18743@attbi_s53...
> (snip) >but since tobacco has been around prior to the drug laws
>
>
> The Chinese were using ephedra (Mau Haung) 5000 years ago!
>
>
>
>
> "stoutman" <.@.> wrote in message
news:2tnIb.174711$8y1.529295@attbi_s52...
> > The source of Ephedra (ephedrine) is herbal (Mau Haung). The diet
> companies
> > are using Mau Haung in their diet products as the source of ephedra.
They
> > are banning Mau Haung (the herb) which contains ephedra.
> >
> > Mau Haung (ephedra) has not been regulated to date because it is listed
as
> a
> > food supplement.
> >
> > (snip) >Ephedra is a drug, tobacco is not
> >
> > Mau Haung is just like tobacco in the since that they are both all
natural
> > and plant/herbal.
> >
> > (snip) >but since tobacco has been around prior to the drug laws
> >
> > Mau Haung has also been used before drug laws.
> >
> >
> > "Ron A" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Very simply, Ephedra is a drug, tobacco is not. FDA would like
tobacco
> to
> > > be a drug so they can regulate it, but since tobacco has been around
> prior
> > > to the drug laws, it can not be regulated unless a specific law is
> enacted
> > > by congress to declare it a drug.
> > >
> > > R
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:39:28 -0600, "Swingman" <[email protected]>
Crawled out of the shop and said. . .:
>It's Canada's fault ... again.
this aint news!
hehe
(snip)
> Nor is David jumping on the fanatical bandwagon.
Ok dave, you can pull that cactus out of your rectum now. I thought we were
having a discussion?
(snip)
>Others have answered this for you. Big business and money ensures
tobacco's
> survival.
I read what others have posted, I agree it has to do with money. You were
trying to explain it by discussing "methods of delivery" ?? Remember what
you wrote? (method of delivery, not necessarily the plant itself). Do you
really believe that? Hold on, I know what your answer is gonna be judging
from your unintelligible responses such as:"Go roll up some Ephedra in a
papers, smoke 10 or more of them a day," or my favorite: "Try sticking a
cactus in your rectum"
You also said I wasn't making a "proper comparison". I and others say YOUR
WRONG. Its an excellent comparison. Read what others have said:
http://www.articleresearch.com/article-archives/000011.html
Think David.
"David P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:DSHIb.245455$_M.1121989@attbi_s54...
> Haven't you been reading the news in the last few years? EVERYTHING
causes
> cancer. Soon the government is going to ban food and sunlight...we better
> stop them NOW with this Ephedra thing if we ever want to eat or get a tan
> again. Then what...WOOD...*gulp*...that's when I cross over to the Dark
> Side.
>
> > If they can do that for ephedra
> > (another plant, just like tobacco) why can't they do that for tobacco?
>
> Others have answered this for you. Big business and money ensures
tobacco's
> survival.
>
> > Your NOT thinking David.
> Nor is David jumping on the fanatical bandwagon.
>
> "stoutman" <.@.> wrote in message news:9hDIb.84960$VB2.187178@attbi_s51...
> > (snip) A lot of the dangers are in the method of delivery, not
necessarily
> > the plant itself.
> >
> > Sure dangers be exacerbated by changing the route of administration. If
> you
> > are implying that Tobacco is only dangerous when smoked you are
mistaken.
> > Tobacco dip causes moth cancer. Tobacco snuff throat cancer. How else
is
> > tobacco administered? Is there a route of administration for tobacco
that
> I
> > am unaware of that doesn't cause cancer?
> >
> > They are banning ephedra and not giving us the choice of route of
> > administration. They are simply telling us "this stuff is bad for you,
it
> > kills people, you can no longer use it". If they can do that for
ephedra
> > (another plant, just like tobacco) why can't they do that for tobacco?
> >
> > It's one sided.
> >
> > Your NOT thinking David.
>
>
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Greetings and Salutations...
>
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:42:23 GMT, "stoutman" <.@.> wrote:
>
> >Not enough I guess. Pretty sad.
.. snip
> the FDA and Congress to ban OTHER "dangrous" products. We,
> the sleeping citizenry, allow this because, each slice is
> only a TINY sliver of freedom of choice gone.
> However...before we know it...instead of rolling miles
> of unfettered movement...we are in a box too small to lay down
> in.
> I think that the Feds would do far more to "protect"
> us by implementing the following policies:
... snip
> 3) As with Israel and some other countries, 2 years
> service in the military after high school.
>
... and you don't see *that* as chipping away at freedom? What would
occur in that 2 years? Seems like a perfect opportunity to instill a
little "discipline" and acceptance of government control of one's
personal life.
Better for 3) would be to re-institute the study of civics as a
required course in all high schools where:
a) All students were fully educated on the formulation of the US
government as a republic and what that means in a practical sense in
terms of limiting the strength of the federal government,
b) That the constitution was intended to be a document limiting
the powers and scope of the federal government, not a document to
describe its powers, and, most importantly:
c) Exactly how our government is structured, with three branches
of government and the prescribed scope of each branch. Surveys of high
school and college students with questions regarding this topic show
them to be woefully ignorant of how our government is supposed to work
and the very basic details of its structure. That this is such a
widespread phenomena indicates it isn't that these kids are stupid, they
are just not being taught something that is a fundamental part of why
they have the freedom they do.
> It would not make America perfect, but, I suspect it
> would produce a citizen that was a lot stronger of will and
> would produce much safer roads for all of us (which would
> cut down noticeably on the traffic problems).
> However, it ain't gonna happen, because it is
> too painful for the politicians to actually change anything
> substantual, and, too many American parents would whine
> too loudly at having to take such a larger part in their
> children's lives.
>
> By the by...in case you were wondering...yes...
> Swift's "A Modest Proposal" IS one of my favorite readings.
> For you folks who have come through the American educational
> system...and likely have never heard of this:
> http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~benjamin/316kfall/316ktexts/swift.html
> Regards
> Dave Mundt
>
>
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 19:55:53 +0000, Dave Mundt wrote:
> And...spending a bit of time in the military might
> well help that.
The current administration would never reinstate the draft for fear of
getting beat about the head and shoulders of the opposition, and the
opposition would never reinstate the draft as the 4 or 5 or 10 fold
increase in personnel and the facilities and equipment required would
consume way too much moolah that could be used for social programs.
-Doug
Mark & Juanita responds:
>> I think that the Feds would do far more to "protect"
>> us by implementing the following policies:
>... snip
>> 3) As with Israel and some other countries, 2 years
>> service in the military after high school.
>>
>
> ... and you don't see *that* as chipping away at freedom? What would
>occur in that 2 years? Seems like a perfect opportunity to instill a
>little "discipline" and acceptance of government control of one's
>personal life.
I don't think so. It may be that a working lifetime (23 years now) in the
military gets someone to accept doctrine without question, though I'm inclined
to doubt even that. Most lifers I've known are ultimate cynics. But AFAICT,
almost all short-termers in the military reject most of the acceptance of
control, while maintaining a reasonably strong self discipline, after a couple
years on the outside." Some don't take that long. I do think doctrinaire
thinking is more prevalent in the officer corps of the various services than in
the enlisted ranks, but even that is a long, long ways from 100%.
But I can't argue at all with your idea that a good civics course with an
accurate presentation of the Constitution and the rationales used in forming
our government is sorely needed. Whether or not it will do any good, it should
be tried.
Charlie Self
"If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he gave
it to. " Dorothy Parker
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
Greetings and Salutations....
On 31 Dec 2003 20:09:27 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:
>Mark & Juanita responds:
>
>>> I think that the Feds would do far more to "protect"
>>> us by implementing the following policies:
>>... snip
>>> 3) As with Israel and some other countries, 2 years
>>> service in the military after high school.
>>>
>>
>> ... and you don't see *that* as chipping away at freedom? What would
>>occur in that 2 years? Seems like a perfect opportunity to instill a
>>little "discipline" and acceptance of government control of one's
>>personal life.
>
>I don't think so. It may be that a working lifetime (23 years now) in the
>military gets someone to accept doctrine without question, though I'm inclined
>to doubt even that. Most lifers I've known are ultimate cynics. But AFAICT,
>almost all short-termers in the military reject most of the acceptance of
>control, while maintaining a reasonably strong self discipline, after a couple
>years on the outside." Some don't take that long. I do think doctrinaire
>thinking is more prevalent in the officer corps of the various services than in
>the enlisted ranks, but even that is a long, long ways from 100%.
>
That has been my thought too. I suspect that the folks that
are going to get 'brainwashed' into buying the party line would do so
whether or not they HAD the military experience.
>But I can't argue at all with your idea that a good civics course with an
>accurate presentation of the Constitution and the rationales used in forming
>our government is sorely needed. Whether or not it will do any good, it should
>be tried.
>
Hear, Hear! I agree completely that the schools probably
SHOULD get back to a more basic focus on their job, and, that more
Americans should be exposed to the principles that founded the
country. And...spending a bit of time in the military might
well help that.
Regards
Dave Mundt
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 02:36:14 +0000, Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
> ... unless they make *it* a social program. You'll note that a lot of
> proponents of this kind of plan don't call it 2 years of military
> service, but "2 years of service". The opposition could leverage off of
> this idea very easily, making it a "clean up the inner cities, cure
> cancer, clean up the air, clean up the water" kind of plan.
The current administration could nix that in a heartbeat by proposing it
themselves first :-)
-Doug
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 19:55:53 +0000, Dave Mundt wrote:
>
> > And...spending a bit of time in the military might
> > well help that.
>
> The current administration would never reinstate the draft for fear of
> getting beat about the head and shoulders of the opposition, and the
> opposition would never reinstate the draft as the 4 or 5 or 10 fold
> increase in personnel and the facilities and equipment required would
> consume way too much moolah that could be used for social programs.
>
... unless they make *it* a social program. You'll note that a lot of
proponents of this kind of plan don't call it 2 years of military
service, but "2 years of service". The opposition could leverage off of
this idea very easily, making it a "clean up the inner cities, cure
cancer, clean up the air, clean up the water" kind of plan.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 02:36:14 +0000, Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
> >
> > ... unless they make *it* a social program. You'll note that a lot of
> > proponents of this kind of plan don't call it 2 years of military
> > service, but "2 years of service". The opposition could leverage off of
> > this idea very easily, making it a "clean up the inner cities, cure
> > cancer, clean up the air, clean up the water" kind of plan.
>
> The current administration could nix that in a heartbeat by proposing it
> themselves first :-)
>
> -Doug
>
Yeah, I'm afraid you're right. No place for a fiscally conservative,
strong defense person to go these days I'm afraid.
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:31:23 GMT, "stoutman" <.@.> Crawled out of the
shop and said. . .:
snip
>Your right, pseudoephedrine is synthesized, it's also a natural constituent
>in ephedra (Mau Haung), along with ephedrine. And Yes it is ephedra (Mau
>Haung) that is being banned. Read the news or watch CNN.
snip
CNN? no thanks...dont like my news spoon fed to me
hehe
on the other note, seems when i have time i'll need to do a bit more
reading on this subject..
[email protected] (Dave Mundt) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
...
> I think that the Feds would do far more to "protect"
> us by implementing the following policies:
> ...
> 2) Mandatory driver's education. ...
How about:
2) Mandatory education.
Including woodworking, of course.
--
FF
DJ Delorie <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Ron A" <[email protected]> writes:
> > Very simply, Ephedra is a drug, tobacco is not.
>
> Ephedrine is a drug. Ephedra is not.
>
> Ephedra is being banned for the same reason marijuana is - the FDA has
> determined (rightly or wrongly) that the dangers of the item exceed
> the benefits of the item, and that the general public is unable to
> reliably avoid the dangers.
I do not think that the FDA had anything to do with the banning of
marijuana.
But if they did, I'd like to know how you know.
--
FF
Here is another good link:
http://www.articleresearch.com/article-archives/000011.html
"stoutman" <.@.> wrote in message news:DmCIb.244121$_M.1105176@attbi_s54...
> Apparently I am not the only one who has thought about the one sided ban
of
> ephedra and not tobacco.
>
> Do a google search using keywords: Tobacco and Ephedra.
>
> here are a couple I found. Some people explain this ridiculous situation
> better than I do.
>
> goto:
> Here is an FDA link. Read the whole thing:
>
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Mar03/032403/95N-0304-EC-386.htm
>
>
> Here is another:
>
> http://www.mccmedia.com/pipermail/brin-l/Week-of-Mon-20030310/014299.html
>
>
> I am NOT alone in this argument in using TOBACCO as a comparison.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "David P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:PbsIb.18170$xX.59867@attbi_s02...
> > I don't think you are making a proper comparison since your references
to
> > tobacco seem to be more targeted to the act of smoking. Go roll up some
> > Ephedra in a papers, smoke 10 or more of them a day, and see how long
you
> > live. Smoking anything, not just tobacco, is bad for you.
> >
> > As an alternate comparison, popping a few small tobacco pills every day
my
> > be safer than popping a few ephedra pills a day. I don't really know.
> The
> > point is you are comparing smoking to herbal supplements that are
> generally
> > taken orally. I can't remember the last time I smoked my vitamins
> although
> > that might not be a bad idea. ;)
> >
> >
> >
> > "stoutman" <.@.> wrote in message
news:VtoIb.10747$I07.20054@attbi_s53...
> > > Hmmmmm,
> > >
> > > Lets consider these two plants, Tobacco and Mau Haung (Ephedra).
> > >
> > > MauHaung (Ephedra) has reportedly killed 15 people in since its
reported
> > use
> > > by the diet industry.
> > > Tobacco kills 400,000 people per year.
> > >
> > > Which plant is more dangerous Tobacco or Mau Haung (Ephedra) ?
> > >
> > > I think I would pop a few ephedra every day before I puffed back a
> carton
> > of
> > > marlboros.
> > >
> > > I would like to politely ask you to 'Wake up and smell the coffee'.
The
> > > first couple of responders hit the nail on the head. It all comes
down
> to
> > > money $$$. :)
> > >
> > > It amuses me when the law makers tell me I can't take an herbal diet
> > > supplement then they retreat to their plush office and lite up a
lucky.
> > >
> > > Do you really think ephedra (remember, its a plant just like tobacco)
is
> > > more dangerous than tobacco? It's not. Tobacco is much much worse.
> Plus
> > > tobacco use is killing us nonsmokers.
> > >
> > > I think this is just one more reason to move to Canada. :)
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
My point is the government is banning the USE (smoke, chew, lick, eat,
swallow, stick in rectum, it doesn't matter) of a PLANT when another PLANT
(tobacco) does more harm to people.
Think...
"David P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:PbsIb.18170$xX.59867@attbi_s02...
> I don't think you are making a proper comparison since your references to
> tobacco seem to be more targeted to the act of smoking. Go roll up some
> Ephedra in a papers, smoke 10 or more of them a day, and see how long you
> live. Smoking anything, not just tobacco, is bad for you.
>
> As an alternate comparison, popping a few small tobacco pills every day my
> be safer than popping a few ephedra pills a day. I don't really know.
The
> point is you are comparing smoking to herbal supplements that are
generally
> taken orally. I can't remember the last time I smoked my vitamins
although
> that might not be a bad idea. ;)
>
>
>
> "stoutman" <.@.> wrote in message news:VtoIb.10747$I07.20054@attbi_s53...
> > Hmmmmm,
> >
> > Lets consider these two plants, Tobacco and Mau Haung (Ephedra).
> >
> > MauHaung (Ephedra) has reportedly killed 15 people in since its reported
> use
> > by the diet industry.
> > Tobacco kills 400,000 people per year.
> >
> > Which plant is more dangerous Tobacco or Mau Haung (Ephedra) ?
> >
> > I think I would pop a few ephedra every day before I puffed back a
carton
> of
> > marlboros.
> >
> > I would like to politely ask you to 'Wake up and smell the coffee'. The
> > first couple of responders hit the nail on the head. It all comes down
to
> > money $$$. :)
> >
> > It amuses me when the law makers tell me I can't take an herbal diet
> > supplement then they retreat to their plush office and lite up a lucky.
> >
> > Do you really think ephedra (remember, its a plant just like tobacco) is
> > more dangerous than tobacco? It's not. Tobacco is much much worse.
Plus
> > tobacco use is killing us nonsmokers.
> >
> > I think this is just one more reason to move to Canada. :)
> >
>
>
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 22:47:35 GMT, "Ron A"
<[email protected]> Crawled out of the shop and said. . .:
>Very simply, Ephedra is a drug, tobacco is not. FDA would like tobacco to
>be a drug so they can regulate it, but since tobacco has been around prior
>to the drug laws, it can not be regulated unless a specific law is enacted
>by congress to declare it a drug.
>
>R
>
you don't think tobacco is regulated?
guess again!
gotta be 18 in most states to purchase, and 21 in others.
its against the law to smoke indoors in many places, including some
states...
if that isn't "regulated" i don't know what is!
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 23:01:18 GMT, "stoutman" <.@.> Crawled out of the
shop and said. . .:
snip
>Mau Haung has also been used before drug laws.
>
>
snip
yup,,,right you are!
HOWEVER!
the drug in question and the one being "banned" is not pure, or "real"
ephedra...its actually synthesized, and its called "pseudoephedrine"
In article <[email protected]>, "Ron A" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Very simply, Ephedra is a drug, tobacco is not.
Nonsense -- cigarettes are a delivery system for nicotine which is
unquestionably a drug.
> FDA would like tobacco to
>be a drug so they can regulate it,
It already is a drug, and the FDA has had for many years the legal authority
to regulate it.
>but since tobacco has been around prior
>to the drug laws, it can not be regulated unless a specific law is enacted
>by congress to declare it a drug.
More nonsense. Marijuana and alcohol have been around a lot longer than drug
laws have existed, too, but we regulate them.
It comes down to one thing, and one thing only: money. State and Federal
governments make a shipload of money from taxes on tobacco. Since smokers
generally die early, they don't collect Social Security for as long as
nonsmokers do, which saves the Federal Gummint another shipload. Last but not
least, the tobacco industry contributes yet another shipload to the
politicians that continue to protect their existence.
--
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?
ephedra has been around as long as tobacco....
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 22:47:35 GMT, "Ron A"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Very simply, Ephedra is a drug, tobacco is not. FDA would like tobacco to
>be a drug so they can regulate it, but since tobacco has been around prior
>to the drug laws, it can not be regulated unless a specific law is enacted
>by congress to declare it a drug.
>
>R
>
Relax, stoutman. Just because someone is not convinced by your ravings to
join in your beliefs is no reason to get upset. I'm glad you liked my
responses and hopefully you found a little humor in them as well. Flattery
will get you everywhere, my dear. Cheers!
"stoutman" <.@.> wrote in message news:d7IIb.17125$I07.49681@attbi_s53...
> (snip)
>
> > Nor is David jumping on the fanatical bandwagon.
>
> Ok dave, you can pull that cactus out of your rectum now. I thought we
were
> having a discussion?
>
> (snip)
> >Others have answered this for you. Big business and money ensures
> tobacco's
> > survival.
>
> I read what others have posted, I agree it has to do with money. You were
> trying to explain it by discussing "methods of delivery" ?? Remember what
> you wrote? (method of delivery, not necessarily the plant itself). Do you
> really believe that? Hold on, I know what your answer is gonna be judging
> from your unintelligible responses such as:"Go roll up some Ephedra in a
> papers, smoke 10 or more of them a day," or my favorite: "Try sticking a
> cactus in your rectum"
>
> You also said I wasn't making a "proper comparison". I and others say
YOUR
> WRONG. Its an excellent comparison. Read what others have said:
> http://www.articleresearch.com/article-archives/000011.html
>
> Think David.
>
>
> "David P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:DSHIb.245455$_M.1121989@attbi_s54...
> > Haven't you been reading the news in the last few years? EVERYTHING
> causes
> > cancer. Soon the government is going to ban food and sunlight...we
better
> > stop them NOW with this Ephedra thing if we ever want to eat or get a
tan
> > again. Then what...WOOD...*gulp*...that's when I cross over to the Dark
> > Side.
> >
> > > If they can do that for ephedra
> > > (another plant, just like tobacco) why can't they do that for tobacco?
> >
> > Others have answered this for you. Big business and money ensures
> tobacco's
> > survival.
> >
> > > Your NOT thinking David.
> > Nor is David jumping on the fanatical bandwagon.
> >
> > "stoutman" <.@.> wrote in message
news:9hDIb.84960$VB2.187178@attbi_s51...
> > > (snip) A lot of the dangers are in the method of delivery, not
> necessarily
> > > the plant itself.
> > >
> > > Sure dangers be exacerbated by changing the route of administration.
If
> > you
> > > are implying that Tobacco is only dangerous when smoked you are
> mistaken.
> > > Tobacco dip causes moth cancer. Tobacco snuff throat cancer. How
else
> is
> > > tobacco administered? Is there a route of administration for tobacco
> that
> > I
> > > am unaware of that doesn't cause cancer?
> > >
> > > They are banning ephedra and not giving us the choice of route of
> > > administration. They are simply telling us "this stuff is bad for
you,
> it
> > > kills people, you can no longer use it". If they can do that for
> ephedra
> > > (another plant, just like tobacco) why can't they do that for tobacco?
> > >
> > > It's one sided.
> > >
> > > Your NOT thinking David.
> >
> >
>
>
It just pisses me off that they wanna ban ephedra when there is another
plant that is killing so many more people and it is left legal.
Doesn't make sense to me. It seems to me that if they wanted to ban the use
of a plant to 'protect us' then they would ban tobacco.
Marijuana dosn't stand a chance of being legal now. (if it ever did)
"DJ Delorie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "stoutman" <.@.> writes:
> > Lets consider these two plants, Tobacco and Mau Haung (Ephedra).
>
> No, let's not. I said nothing about whether the FDA was doing the
> right thing or not, just noting how the FDA claims jurisdiction over
> such items, and how that jurisdiction works. And also correcting the
> mistake that "ephedra is a drug", which it isn't.
>
> > I would like to politely ask you to 'Wake up and smell the coffee'.
>
> Assuming, of course, that I agree with the FDA, which I do not. Hence
> the "rightly or wrongly" comment. Since your entire post seems to be
> based on your assumptions about my beliefs, which turn out to be bad
> assumptions, your whole post becomes moot in this context.
>
> And I can't stand the smell of coffee.
That was 155 deaths for ephedra not 15. Sorry. Typo.
"stoutman" <.@.> wrote in message news:VtoIb.10747$I07.20054@attbi_s53...
> Hmmmmm,
>
> Lets consider these two plants, Tobacco and Mau Haung (Ephedra).
>
> MauHaung (Ephedra) has reportedly killed 15 people in since its reported
use
> by the diet industry.
> Tobacco kills 400,000 people per year.
>
> Which plant is more dangerous Tobacco or Mau Haung (Ephedra) ?
>
> I think I would pop a few ephedra every day before I puffed back a carton
of
> marlboros.
>
> I would like to politely ask you to 'Wake up and smell the coffee'. The
> first couple of responders hit the nail on the head. It all comes down to
> money $$$. :)
>
> It amuses me when the law makers tell me I can't take an herbal diet
> supplement then they retreat to their plush office and lite up a lucky.
>
> Do you really think ephedra (remember, its a plant just like tobacco) is
> more dangerous than tobacco? It's not. Tobacco is much much worse. Plus
> tobacco use is killing us nonsmokers.
>
> I think this is just one more reason to move to Canada. :)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "DJ Delorie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Ron A" <[email protected]> writes:
> > > Very simply, Ephedra is a drug, tobacco is not.
> >
> > Ephedrine is a drug. Ephedra is not.
> >
> > Ephedra is being banned for the same reason marijuana is - the FDA has
> > determined (rightly or wrongly) that the dangers of the item exceed
> > the benefits of the item, and that the general public is unable to
> > reliably avoid the dangers.
>
>
On 30 Dec 2003 19:28:11 -0500, DJ Delorie <[email protected]> Crawled out
of the shop and said. . .:
>
>"stoutman" <.@.> writes:
>> Lets consider these two plants, Tobacco and Mau Haung (Ephedra).
>
>No, let's not. I said nothing about whether the FDA was doing the
>right thing or not, just noting how the FDA claims jurisdiction over
>such items, and how that jurisdiction works. And also correcting the
>mistake that "ephedra is a drug", which it isn't.
>
>> I would like to politely ask you to 'Wake up and smell the coffee'.
>
>Assuming, of course, that I agree with the FDA, which I do not. Hence
>the "rightly or wrongly" comment. Since your entire post seems to be
>based on your assumptions about my beliefs, which turn out to be bad
>assumptions, your whole post becomes moot in this context.
>
>And I can't stand the smell of coffee.
hell lets ban that too,.. it burns people in drivethroughs, makes you
crave more, and tastes silly with cream and sugar,,,come to think of
it, lets ban that too!,,, cream and sugar kills thousands every year
because people are using it to supply their obesity habits.
what ever happened to personal responsibility?!!?!?
[email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt) writes:
> But if they did, I'd like to know how you know.
Shhhh!
"stoutman" <.@.> writes:
> Crack is cocaine based. However ephedrine can and is used to make
> methamphetamine and methcathinone. This could be the underlying reason
> that it is being banned and the health issue is a smoke screen.
>
> I don't use ephedrine, but banning ephedrine (I think its the first dietary
> supplement to be banned) could create a slippery slope. More will be
> banned.
Ephedrine is not being banned, ephedra is. You can still buy
ephedrine OTC.
"stoutman" <.@.> writes:
> Lets consider these two plants, Tobacco and Mau Haung (Ephedra).
No, let's not. I said nothing about whether the FDA was doing the
right thing or not, just noting how the FDA claims jurisdiction over
such items, and how that jurisdiction works. And also correcting the
mistake that "ephedra is a drug", which it isn't.
> I would like to politely ask you to 'Wake up and smell the coffee'.
Assuming, of course, that I agree with the FDA, which I do not. Hence
the "rightly or wrongly" comment. Since your entire post seems to be
based on your assumptions about my beliefs, which turn out to be bad
assumptions, your whole post becomes moot in this context.
And I can't stand the smell of coffee.
"Ron A" <[email protected]> writes:
> Very simply, Ephedra is a drug, tobacco is not.
Ephedrine is a drug. Ephedra is not.
Ephedra is being banned for the same reason marijuana is - the FDA has
determined (rightly or wrongly) that the dangers of the item exceed
the benefits of the item, and that the general public is unable to
reliably avoid the dangers.
I need to Relax?
I'm Fanatical?
I am all this because you don't understand and your confused.
Cheers right back at ya! :)
"David P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:rmIIb.699364$HS4.5012865@attbi_s01...
> Relax, stoutman. Just because someone is not convinced by your ravings to
> join in your beliefs is no reason to get upset. I'm glad you liked my
> responses and hopefully you found a little humor in them as well.
Flattery
> will get you everywhere, my dear. Cheers!
>
> "stoutman" <.@.> wrote in message news:d7IIb.17125$I07.49681@attbi_s53...
> > (snip)
> >
> > > Nor is David jumping on the fanatical bandwagon.
> >
> > Ok dave, you can pull that cactus out of your rectum now. I thought we
> were
> > having a discussion?
> >
> > (snip)
> > >Others have answered this for you. Big business and money ensures
> > tobacco's
> > > survival.
> >
> > I read what others have posted, I agree it has to do with money. You
were
> > trying to explain it by discussing "methods of delivery" ?? Remember
what
> > you wrote? (method of delivery, not necessarily the plant itself). Do
you
> > really believe that? Hold on, I know what your answer is gonna be
judging
> > from your unintelligible responses such as:"Go roll up some Ephedra in a
> > papers, smoke 10 or more of them a day," or my favorite: "Try sticking a
> > cactus in your rectum"
> >
> > You also said I wasn't making a "proper comparison". I and others say
> YOUR
> > WRONG. Its an excellent comparison. Read what others have said:
> > http://www.articleresearch.com/article-archives/000011.html
> >
> > Think David.
> >
> >
> > "David P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:DSHIb.245455$_M.1121989@attbi_s54...
> > > Haven't you been reading the news in the last few years? EVERYTHING
> > causes
> > > cancer. Soon the government is going to ban food and sunlight...we
> better
> > > stop them NOW with this Ephedra thing if we ever want to eat or get a
> tan
> > > again. Then what...WOOD...*gulp*...that's when I cross over to the
Dark
> > > Side.
> > >
> > > > If they can do that for ephedra
> > > > (another plant, just like tobacco) why can't they do that for
tobacco?
> > >
> > > Others have answered this for you. Big business and money ensures
> > tobacco's
> > > survival.
> > >
> > > > Your NOT thinking David.
> > > Nor is David jumping on the fanatical bandwagon.
> > >
> > > "stoutman" <.@.> wrote in message
> news:9hDIb.84960$VB2.187178@attbi_s51...
> > > > (snip) A lot of the dangers are in the method of delivery, not
> > necessarily
> > > > the plant itself.
> > > >
> > > > Sure dangers be exacerbated by changing the route of administration.
> If
> > > you
> > > > are implying that Tobacco is only dangerous when smoked you are
> > mistaken.
> > > > Tobacco dip causes moth cancer. Tobacco snuff throat cancer. How
> else
> > is
> > > > tobacco administered? Is there a route of administration for
tobacco
> > that
> > > I
> > > > am unaware of that doesn't cause cancer?
> > > >
> > > > They are banning ephedra and not giving us the choice of route of
> > > > administration. They are simply telling us "this stuff is bad for
> you,
> > it
> > > > kills people, you can no longer use it". If they can do that for
> > ephedra
> > > > (another plant, just like tobacco) why can't they do that for
tobacco?
> > > >
> > > > It's one sided.
> > > >
> > > > Your NOT thinking David.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>