supply reduction

Americans are dying. Entire towns are being destroyed. Local economies are crippled by addiction. Yet this epidemic can be stopped, it’s solvable.

Trump’s opioid commission quickly submitted an interim report that spells out the right approach: It emphasizes treatment, education about pain management for doctors, research and data collection, and rational “supply reduction.” It spells out policy goals based on facts and science. The president should listen to his own experts. Now.

Congress and the administration must approve a 2018 budget that provides sufficient funding for Medicaid. Of the 2 million Americans in treatment for opioid addiction, approximately 30% receive Medicaid. We must not make it harder for the most vulnerable addicts to obtain treatment.

anonymous asked:

Why is the government subsidizing the meat industry when the meat industry invests more money in the animals than what they earn from it? And why does society promote the eating of animal products even though people are eating less and less meat (at least in Belgium)? It doesn't make much sense if they are losing money, so why

It’s quite a complex issue to be honest, and it requires some historical context so you’ll have to bare with me here. In the 1920′s, Farm production had spiked as farms ramped up to feed war-ravaged Europe, including American farms. By the 1930′s farms were producing so much food though, that it drove the price of crops, particularly corn, so low that it became almost worthless. This was a tricky situation for the government, since it was them who had convinced farmers to up their production in the first place. To try and deal with this, the government convinced farmers to leave some of their land unplanted, “paid-land diversion”, often by supporting a set minimum price that they would expect to earn from it, called “minimum price supports”. But what began as a temporary stimulus became permanent, and since feed crops for livestock were so heavily subsidised, it made meat and dairy affordable for even poor people, pretty much for the first time. The advent of factory farming and the ability to raise and kill animals on an industrial scale made it even cheaper. 

Fast forward a few decades and the meat and dairy industry has grown rich, meaning they have an extremely powerful political lobby able to resist any potential cut to their subsidies, and to influence people to continue buying even against health warnings. People in Europe and America have also become accustomed to being able to afford meat due to the subsidies, and it would be a brave government indeed who would cut those, as it would likely increase prices at least three-fold. As it often does, history is now repeating itself, the corn surplus of the 1930′s is exactly what we are seeing again, except this time with dairy. Farms are producing more than people want to buy, which is driving down the price, and farmers are therefore asking for further subsidies, which again would be a temporary stimulus that would only solve the problem on a temporary basis. It’s basically what happens when the government steps in to disrupt market supply and demand, allowing farmers to produce a particular commodity at the same level of supply, despite a reduction of demand. You don’t have to be an economist to understand why this is a terrible idea. 

There is hope though, if demand keeps going down, supply will have to follow, as it already is beginning to do, since government can’t afford to subsidise it anymore and dairy farmers are starting to realise that there is growing profit to be made in plant milks. Essentially though, we’re stuck with it until people wise up to the fact that the consumption of animal products just isn’t sustainable, either environmentally or economically. It’s what makes that “vegan privilege” argument quite so hilariously ironic. 

In the NDP convention, this motion passed today:

It reads:


Vancouver East

BE IT RESOLVED THAT Canada’s NDP will approach the issue of problematic substance use as a health issue rather than a matter of public safety.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT Canada’s NDP will oppose abstinence based programs as the only drug treatment option available to Canadians.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT Canada’s NDP will continue to express its support for harm reduction initiatives like supervised injection facilities; prescription opiate maintenance programs; and access to harm reduction supplies in our communities, health care facilities and prisons.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT Canada’s NDP will support/pressure the Canadian government to repeal Bill C-2 the Respect for Communities Act which restricts access to supervised injection services like Insite.