politics: January 2008 Archives

This story is apparently being talked about in many of the science blogs out there, and Clarke brought it to my attention, via PZ Myers's blog on Science Blogs:

Narcan is the commercial name for Naloxone, a rapid acting drug used to counteract the effects of opioid overdose by combating the depression of the central nervous and respiratory systems.

It costs only $9.50 per dose and is easily administered via a nasal spray, saving the life of someone who has overdosed on heroin or morphine.

The White House's deputy director of the Office on National Drug Control Policy, Dr. Bertha Madras, opposes the use of the life saving heroin overdose antidote:

"First of all, I don't agree with giving an opioid antidote to non-medical professionals. That's No. 1," she says. "I just don't think that's good public health policy."

Madras says drug users aren't likely to be competent to deal with an overdose emergency. More importantly, she says, Narcan kits may actually encourage drug abusers to keep using heroin because they know overdosing isn't as likely.

Madras says the rescue programs might take away the drug user's motivation to get into detoxification and drug treatment.

"Sometimes having an overdose, being in an emergency room, having that contact with a health care professional is enough to make a person snap into the reality of the situation and snap into having someone give them services," Madras says.

The White House's position is absolutely absurd. These people WILL DIE without the antidote, and you want to deny people in drug treatment and response programs the use of this drug?!

The argument that it will encourage more drug use just because it makes overdose "safer" is absolutely ludicrous coming from a White House that has professed a love for all life, promoting their "Pro-Life" agenda in other issues such as abortion.

The key point is Narcan saves people from dying. A person can't go through drug rehabilitation if they're dead. They can't keep using the drug if they're dead.

Perhaps that the end goal of the White House, to let all those on the bottom rung of the drug war to die in dark, filthy corners basking in their poverty and misfortune. I doubt the White House cares enough about them, and its obvious from many of their policies that they don't.

It's a ridiculous point of view to take when you turn around and profess all life as sacred from the moment a sperm hits an egg.

Hypocrites.

The European Court of Human Rights has overruled a French court and stated that adoption by single, gay individuals is legal in the European Union:

In a 10-7 vote, the Strasbourg-based court ruled Tuesday that a plaintiff identified only as Emmanuelle B. had been the victim of illegal discrimination when successive French authorities denied her request to adopt a child in 1998. The court faulted the French courts for citing "the lack of a paternal referent in the household", and said the woman's homosexuality had been "if not explicit, at least implicit" in France's rejection of her adoption request. The Court judged France had violated the European Convention on Human Rights — to which France and the other 46 Council of Europe members are signatories — by failing to assess adoption by a lesbian the same way it would a single heterosexual.

This decision means that it is no longer legal in the EU to discriminate between gay and straight individuals in regards to adoption applications; however, the decision does not apply to couples, so gay couples can still be denied adoption.

Baby steps.

Why do people think cars will save the world? In the past month, there has been news that the Smart car will be coming out locally, that India is planning to release a small $2.5k car, and that a presidential candidate has promised to revive the domestic automotive industry. Yeah, just what we need: more cars. It's good that the smart car and the new car in India will be more fuel efficient than a lot of the vehicles on the road, but really, how much of an effect will good fuel efficiency have when, in India's case, there are that many more cars on the road? I know that where I live, if people were willing to give up their SUVs and trucks--which at first glance while riding my bike (and avoiding getting hit) seem to make up at least 2/5ths of the vehicles on the road--then there would be a definitive impact on air quality. We're talking about a jump to 40mpg city up from -5--I kid, of course. The number of people who'd drive the Smart car over SUVs won't be that large, though, since they'd only be the people who can actually afford having two vehicles (though I'd be curious to know how many people who own SUVs have another vehicle) unless they trade in their current vehicles towards a Smart Car, and on top of that the cost is prohibitive ($28k was it?).

On the more socially and globally responsible note, Planetizen makes a good point about people like me commenting on developments in "developing" countries:

Of course there is deep hypocrisy in developed countries criticizing the driving habits of the developing world. Developed countries’ environmental critiques and campaigns need to start at home. Politicians, labor unions and environmental activists have a responsibility not to brandish global warming as a stick to bash workers and consumers in India or China. Instead the argument for progressive global warming policy must begin with the acknowledgment of the destructive policies of our home governments and corporations; this includes taking responsibility for developed countries majority contribution to the climate crisis.

Or you could go the route of AFS Trinity and get 150mpg (and potentially unlimited). According to the Salon article I heard about the company from, it does it with technology that's available to us now (and was available years ago):

Instead of waiting for a battery that can deliver both energy and power cheaply, it uses current lithium-ion batteries for energy, and then adds something called an ultracapacitor for rapid discharge during acceleration.

Ultracaps have 10 to 100 times the power density of typical batteries, but only one-tenth the energy density, so this is a marriage made in heaven, or at least Silicon Valley. The ultracap is the electrical equivalent of the shaken champagne bottle -- although even that analogy is flawed since ultracaps do not just discharge quickly, they also charge quickly. That's another benefit that ultracaps bring to hybrids.

Regular hybrids get much of their efficiency gains from their ability to capture the energy normally lost during braking and convert it to electricity. Current hybrid batteries take up only about half of this electricity, but fast-acting ultracaps can take up much more.

So, like any other politics nut I'm following the results of the New Hampshire primaries, and upon loading CNN's front page to see the current results, I couldn't help but notice one bullet point about the results of an exit poll, pictured at right:

• Exit polls showed issues swayed Democrats but Republicans were moved by personality.

And that, I think, is exactly the difference between Democrats and Republicans right now. Are you serious, Republicans?

I always used to pull a very neat example in Debate Team whenever someone argued that it was better to judge someone by their character and personality in elections. I would describe for them several different personalities, of which I can only remember two of now:

1. One was a womaniser, a drunkard, and adulterer.
2. One was a vegetarian, clean record, etc.

I asked them to choose which they would judge as the better candidate, using their personality guidelines. Invariably, they'd choose the clean cut vegetarian.

It was at that point I told them they had just chosen Adolf Hitler over Winston Churchill. A trap question, to be sure, but it drove the point home.