7 ms·

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 househo

by throwaway2016a 8y ago

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 dining will soon become hugely popular like the eating of crayfish”. So something is dangerous and people are going to do it anyway so they legalize it and try to make it safer instead of criminalizing it. The US could learn from China on this one. Edit: Not explicitly referring to puffer fish. Just I like the general idea policy wise of using tools other than prohibition. I apologize for being off topic a little. (even though I quote the article)

sigstoat 8y ago
> So something is dangerous and people are going to do it anyway so they legalize it and try to make it safer instead of criminalizing it. The US could learn from China on this one. every country could stand to learn that lesson.
refurb 8y ago
Pufferfish is legal in the US as well along as it comes from specific sources.[1] [1]https://www.fda.gov/Food/ResourcesForYou/Industry/ucm085458.htm https://www.fda.gov/Food/ResourcesForYou/Industry/ucm085458....
- moate 8y ago
  I think he was likely referring to other restrictions on personal liberty, specifically drug (cocaine, pot, heroin, etc) prohibition.
  - dnautics 8y ago
    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.
    - njarboe 8y ago
      Except at the federal level it is still classified as a Schedule I drug with huge penalties. Strange times we do live in. From the DEA website[1]: "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 [1] https://www.dea.gov/drug-scheduling https://www.dea.gov/drug-scheduling
gamblor956 8y ago
So something is dangerous and people are going to do it anyway so they legalize it and try to make it safer instead of criminalizing it. The US could learn from China on this one. Pufferfish has been legal in the US for decades at least, there is a classic Simpons episode in which Homer consumes one. If you meant to comment on drug policy: many drugs are illegal not because of the harm they cause to the user but because of the harm the user causes to others, and it's not feasible to make a "safer" dose because the nature of these drugs encourages addicts to use larger or stronger doses over time. This is in contrast to alcohol [edit: and marijuana], which is legal because (a) it's potency has remained unchanged for centuries, (b) it's easy to control consumption, and (c) the amount of liquid necessary to be ingested to reach debilitating or unsafe levels of intoxication are generally large enough that this level of consumption is the exception, not the norm, among the alcohol-consuming population.
- darkpuma 8y ago
  Alcohol also has the self-limiting property of consumption being marginally reversible. I can throw up a stomach full of vodka, but I can't throw up a vein full of heroin. Certainly alcohol poisoning deaths still occur, but far fewer of them occur than if throwing up weren't possible. Even so, I think more regulation, not less, of the alcohol industry is a good idea. Hitting the alcohol industry with advertising bans as harsh as the tobacco industry has would probably do a lot of good. Regulations requiring plain packaging might also do some good.
  - moate 8y ago
    Alcohol is also a true physical addiction. You might want to die from heroin withdrawal, but it won't kill you if you quit cold turkey. The same cannot be said of high level alcoholism.
    - darkpuma 8y ago
      Yes, that's right. DT can kill, a property alcohol addiction shares only with benzos to my knowledge. There is something to be said however about the relative addictiveness of alcohol and opiods. Most consumers of alcohol don't experience any negative symptoms at all when they go weeks without drinking, because most people who drink alcohol do it with insufficient intensity and frequency to develop an addiction. Most people never experience the side effects of cannabis withdrawal for the same reason (which are physiologically terrifying but not physically dangerous.) I know some people claim to be casual consumers of heroin. But I also know from personal experience that opiod addicts are liars. I've known one person killed by alcohol (a drunk driver, not DT) but three who were proscribed pain killers (two for workplace injuries, the other because his morbid obesity was causing back pain...) Before they wound up dead, each of these people turned into lying manipulators seeking more and more drug as their tolerance grew. The medical industry needs a lot more regulation. A fat person never should have been prescribed opium derivatives to treat pain caused by the strain his obesity was putting on his skeleton. That man got himself into medical trouble in the first place by having very poor self control, and instead of treating that psychological deficiency or treating his weight gain, the doctor gives him powerful addictive pain killers to mask the pain? That doctor belongs in prison. I know three people who took doctor prescribed doses for no more than a few weeks and got hooked and eventually killed. The alcohol industry is bad, but it's not that bad. The pharma/medical industry is getting away with murder and few are critical of it. EDIT: > "The alcohol industry is bad, but it's not that bad." I regret that phrasing. I believe on an individual level that opiods are more addictive than alcohol, but the alcohol and tobacco industries are scum on par with the painkiller industry and I would love to see them punished with very harsh regulation. Banning alcohol from television/radio/billboards would be a great start. I believe some countries also restrict tobacco to plain packaging, white cartons with black lettering. I'd like to see that brought to America and applied to the alcohol industry as well. The corporate lobbying against such regulation would be intense, but I think it would be worth the fight.
pwaai 8y ago
> So something is dangerous and people are going to do it anyway so they legalize it and try to make it safer instead of criminalizing it. The US could learn from China on this one. 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.
- ngokevin 8y ago
  Any post supporting or defending China in any way is definitely an exception. I'm surprised to see any "China #1" posts anywhere. Anti-China sentiments are universal on HN and Reddit if you search any thread mentioning China. I wouldn't say though that life is below UN standards for the average city citizen. I'd still count it a first-world country purely on lifestyle.
  - pwaai 8y ago
    I wouldn't say there's anti-Chinese sentiments that is unwarranted. China is actively stealing from advanced technology holding countries. Whataboutism is a common way to justify the behavior, which further inflmmates and even conjures up the good old sinophobia. I think that much of what you read as anti-Chinese content is simply anything that describes a future without China as a hegemony. China faces a huge risk of fragmenting like the USSR did, from which it would never fully recover. but given the iron grip of the government and the military it is far more likely we will see China slip into a authoritarian state much like Putin's Russia or North Korea. I think instead a far more likely candidate that could possibly challenge the US hegemony is a sort of EURO-ASIA partnership, where European countries would compete for highly educated workforces. Culture might be a barrier, but I feel that Japanese and Koreans work well with Europeans. So it would be a China exclusive economic coalition that would pose a challenge to the US, if they do not move away from their current trajectory. Russia will 100% fragment in the next 5 years, as they are literally on their last reserves and China is also not far off because their debt is staggering, not unlike the Japanese real estate bubble crisis. Again my prediction is the US hegemony is unlikely to be challenged by a sole country superpower, but rather economically and technological coalition of outside countries that can pose a challenge (basically US vs the rest of the world which is even unlikely....as the US has port calls all over the world). If China is to replace US, it needs to start building those nuclear carriers fast and well, something which is an impossibility at this current rate.
Pharmakon 8y ago
China is no role model in that respect; look at their attempt to incite an international ban on ketamine! They only have led down when the WHO and other countries told them to fuck off, because ketamine is a critically important drug in developing contexts. Ketamine is the only general anesthetic you don’t have to worry about respiratory depression with, and one of the few with no risk of malignant hyperthermia. Still, China has a massive problem with extreme ketamine abuse, so they want it banned worldwide. Haunting, but good read: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-china-33472971/inside-a-chinese-ketamine-village https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-china-33472971/inside...
dopamean 8y ago
China could learn something from China on this. See their draconian punishments for drug offenses.

sigstoat 8y ago

> So something is dangerous and people are going to do it anyway so they legalize it and try to make it safer instead of criminalizing it. The US could learn from China on this one. every country could stand to learn that lesson.

refurb 8y ago

Pufferfish is legal in the US as well along as it comes from specific sources.[1] [1]https://www.fda.gov/Food/ResourcesForYou/Industry/ucm085458.htm https://www.fda.gov/Food/ResourcesForYou/Industry/ucm085458....

moate 8y ago
I think he was likely referring to other restrictions on personal liberty, specifically drug (cocaine, pot, heroin, etc) prohibition.
- dnautics 8y ago
  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.
  - njarboe 8y ago
    Except at the federal level it is still classified as a Schedule I drug with huge penalties. Strange times we do live in. From the DEA website[1]: "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 [1] https://www.dea.gov/drug-scheduling https://www.dea.gov/drug-scheduling

gamblor956 8y ago

So something is dangerous and people are going to do it anyway so they legalize it and try to make it safer instead of criminalizing it. The US could learn from China on this one. Pufferfish has been legal in the US for decades at least, there is a classic Simpons episode in which Homer consumes one. If you meant to comment on drug policy: many drugs are illegal not because of the harm they cause to the user but because of the harm the user causes to others, and it's not feasible to make a "safer" dose because the nature of these drugs encourages addicts to use larger or stronger doses over time. This is in contrast to alcohol [edit: and marijuana], which is legal because (a) it's potency has remained unchanged for centuries, (b) it's easy to control consumption, and (c) the amount of liquid necessary to be ingested to reach debilitating or unsafe levels of intoxication are generally large enough that this level of consumption is the exception, not the norm, among the alcohol-consuming population.

darkpuma 8y ago
Alcohol also has the self-limiting property of consumption being marginally reversible. I can throw up a stomach full of vodka, but I can't throw up a vein full of heroin. Certainly alcohol poisoning deaths still occur, but far fewer of them occur than if throwing up weren't possible. Even so, I think more regulation, not less, of the alcohol industry is a good idea. Hitting the alcohol industry with advertising bans as harsh as the tobacco industry has would probably do a lot of good. Regulations requiring plain packaging might also do some good.
- moate 8y ago
  Alcohol is also a true physical addiction. You might want to die from heroin withdrawal, but it won't kill you if you quit cold turkey. The same cannot be said of high level alcoholism.
  - darkpuma 8y ago
    Yes, that's right. DT can kill, a property alcohol addiction shares only with benzos to my knowledge. There is something to be said however about the relative addictiveness of alcohol and opiods. Most consumers of alcohol don't experience any negative symptoms at all when they go weeks without drinking, because most people who drink alcohol do it with insufficient intensity and frequency to develop an addiction. Most people never experience the side effects of cannabis withdrawal for the same reason (which are physiologically terrifying but not physically dangerous.) I know some people claim to be casual consumers of heroin. But I also know from personal experience that opiod addicts are liars. I've known one person killed by alcohol (a drunk driver, not DT) but three who were proscribed pain killers (two for workplace injuries, the other because his morbid obesity was causing back pain...) Before they wound up dead, each of these people turned into lying manipulators seeking more and more drug as their tolerance grew. The medical industry needs a lot more regulation. A fat person never should have been prescribed opium derivatives to treat pain caused by the strain his obesity was putting on his skeleton. That man got himself into medical trouble in the first place by having very poor self control, and instead of treating that psychological deficiency or treating his weight gain, the doctor gives him powerful addictive pain killers to mask the pain? That doctor belongs in prison. I know three people who took doctor prescribed doses for no more than a few weeks and got hooked and eventually killed. The alcohol industry is bad, but it's not that bad. The pharma/medical industry is getting away with murder and few are critical of it. EDIT: > "The alcohol industry is bad, but it's not that bad." I regret that phrasing. I believe on an individual level that opiods are more addictive than alcohol, but the alcohol and tobacco industries are scum on par with the painkiller industry and I would love to see them punished with very harsh regulation. Banning alcohol from television/radio/billboards would be a great start. I believe some countries also restrict tobacco to plain packaging, white cartons with black lettering. I'd like to see that brought to America and applied to the alcohol industry as well. The corporate lobbying against such regulation would be intense, but I think it would be worth the fight.

pwaai 8y ago

> So something is dangerous and people are going to do it anyway so they legalize it and try to make it safer instead of criminalizing it. The US could learn from China on this one. 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.

ngokevin 8y ago
Any post supporting or defending China in any way is definitely an exception. I'm surprised to see any "China #1" posts anywhere. Anti-China sentiments are universal on HN and Reddit if you search any thread mentioning China. I wouldn't say though that life is below UN standards for the average city citizen. I'd still count it a first-world country purely on lifestyle.
- pwaai 8y ago
  I wouldn't say there's anti-Chinese sentiments that is unwarranted. China is actively stealing from advanced technology holding countries. Whataboutism is a common way to justify the behavior, which further inflmmates and even conjures up the good old sinophobia. I think that much of what you read as anti-Chinese content is simply anything that describes a future without China as a hegemony. China faces a huge risk of fragmenting like the USSR did, from which it would never fully recover. but given the iron grip of the government and the military it is far more likely we will see China slip into a authoritarian state much like Putin's Russia or North Korea. I think instead a far more likely candidate that could possibly challenge the US hegemony is a sort of EURO-ASIA partnership, where European countries would compete for highly educated workforces. Culture might be a barrier, but I feel that Japanese and Koreans work well with Europeans. So it would be a China exclusive economic coalition that would pose a challenge to the US, if they do not move away from their current trajectory. Russia will 100% fragment in the next 5 years, as they are literally on their last reserves and China is also not far off because their debt is staggering, not unlike the Japanese real estate bubble crisis. Again my prediction is the US hegemony is unlikely to be challenged by a sole country superpower, but rather economically and technological coalition of outside countries that can pose a challenge (basically US vs the rest of the world which is even unlikely....as the US has port calls all over the world). If China is to replace US, it needs to start building those nuclear carriers fast and well, something which is an impossibility at this current rate.

Pharmakon 8y ago

China is no role model in that respect; look at their attempt to incite an international ban on ketamine! They only have led down when the WHO and other countries told them to fuck off, because ketamine is a critically important drug in developing contexts. Ketamine is the only general anesthetic you don’t have to worry about respiratory depression with, and one of the few with no risk of malignant hyperthermia. Still, China has a massive problem with extreme ketamine abuse, so they want it banned worldwide. Haunting, but good read: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-china-33472971/inside-a-chinese-ketamine-village https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-china-33472971/inside...

dopamean 8y ago

China could learn something from China on this. See their draconian punishments for drug offenses.