California bans the sale of Denatured Alcohol

[RaymondR]

We'll drift her a bit more.

It's a plot by the newly legalified weed growers to get everyone switched from alcohol to the dreaded M. The first step is to get the contaminated alcohol banned and then they'll move on to the drinkable stuff.

You have been warned.

A certain character now resident in the opposite part of the country is to blame.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

No, the housing crisis in Bay area and southern CA is because so many people want to move there for the nice weather, recreational and cultural potential, and for great jobs. Gov't current failing there is in not promoting the construction of affordable housing, and not having more commuter transportation.

What? If CA was an independent economy, neighbours would still happily trade with them. tech, veggies, medical...

Ummm...you just inadvertently agreed with me. They make crazy rules regarding building housing and then wring their hands when no one builds affordable housing.

Would neighbors trade...sure but they also would trade at fair market value. California thru political action has gotten incredible amounts of electricity and water from the Colorado basin states far below market costs. If they were an independent nation, those prices would be through the roof and drive up costs. Tech & Medical likely wouldn't have formed in California as we know it now and the veggies would be competing with Mexico.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

We'll drift her a bit more.

It's a plot by the newly legalified weed growers to get everyone switched from alcohol to the dreaded M. The first step is to get the contaminated alcohol banned and then they'll move on to the drinkable stuff.

You have been warned.

A certain character now resident in the opposite part of the country is to blame.

You got s chuckle out of me. Unfortunately you may be correct?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

We'll drift her a bit more.

It's a plot by the newly legalified weed growers to get everyone switched from alcohol to the dreaded M. The first step is to get the contaminated alcohol banned and then they'll move on to the drinkable stuff.

You have been warned.

A certain character now resident in the opposite part of the country is to blame.

and her last name starts with a P.
Follow the money there .

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Ummm...you just inadvertently agreed with me. They make crazy rules regarding building housing and then wring their hands when no one builds affordable housing.

No I haven't. Nothing to do with "crazy rules". Absent pressure or inducements, no one wants to build affordable housing when you can make more from building premium housing.

[redneckrob]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Ummm...you just inadvertently agreed with me. They make crazy rules regarding building housing and then wring their hands when no one builds affordable housing.

Would neighbors trade...sure but they also would trade at fair market value. California thru political action has gotten incredible amounts of electricity and water from the Colorado basin states far below market costs. If they were an independent nation, those prices would be through the roof and drive up costs. Tech & Medical likely wouldn't have formed in California as we know it now and the veggies would be competing with Mexico.

I won't claim to be a water expert but electricity is my industry now and I happen to work in power markets. California doesn't get a Mwh of electricity from electric plants outside CA at "below market costs", in fact electricity is purchased in 15 minute increments in day ahead markets which are full on auctions at every locational marginal pricing point in the California Independent System Operator marketplace. (You can find far more details then I bet you're willing to read on the Markets section of their website at California ISO - Market Processes). And it doesn't get any electricity "from Colorado", although it may get electricity from investor owned generation facilities that happen to be located in Colorado. Not sure what makes you think those private companies would give their power to CA at below market rates, or did you actually think the State of Colorado owned the power plants and operated them on behalf of the State of CA at below market costs? If that was your line of thinking then your conclusion might have made sense, but since nothing is further from the truth, perhaps you might reconsider your position?

Also, having lived for a decade on the Peninsula between San Francisco and San Jose (the highest cost housing area in CA) I can tell you there isn't a single acre of empty unbuilt space there, you have to buy a house and tear it down to build a new house. That makes for expensive housing, not these phantom regulations that supposedly stop housing from being built. As evidenced by the fact that out in Tracy, Antioch, and further afield they built hundreds of thousands of tract homes before the 2008 housing crisis. You can still pick one up for not much....if you want to live out there which it turns out not as many people did as there were houses. I'd challenge you to point out which specific "crazy" laws or regulations make housing impossible to build in CA, again if you've developed a belief on these supposed laws you ought to be able to cite them off the top of your head, no?

[alctel]

Wow a lot of you in this thread need to get a lot better at actually identifying what a trusted source is and isn't before going off on a tear about 'illegals burning trash and banning denatured alcohol'

https://neurosciencenews.com/baby-bo...-spread-10492/

[StuM]

Originally Posted by alctel

Wow a lot of you in this thread need to get a lot better at actually identifying what a trusted source is and isn't before going off on a tear about 'illegals burning trash and banning denatured alcohol'

So do you consider your link to be a "trusted source" or is it an example of "fake news"


There are so many examples of statistical errors, implicit pre-conceptions and poor methodology in there that I'd certainly classify it as the latter.

[redneckrob]

Originally Posted by StuM

So do you consider your link to be a "trusted source" or is it an example of "fake news"


There are so many examples of statistical errors, implicit pre-conceptions and poor methodology in there that I'd certainly classify it as the latter.

And what would some specific examples of those "statistical errors" be in the underlying study? (quick off the top of your head, without going back and actually reading the study!)

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by newhaul

The originations of the web were actually a U.S. military secure WAN. That eventually morphed into what we have now . The new rumor mill.

Yes, it’s what eventually became the siprnet.
I thought that has always been accepted as the beginning of the “internet”?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by redneckrob

And what would some specific examples of those "statistical errors" be in the underlying study? (quick off the top of your head, without going back and actually reading the study!)

sorry but the source and the article itself as a whole doesn't pass the C.R.A.P test.

[redneckrob]

Originally Posted by newhaul

sorry but the source and the article itself as a whole doesn't pass the C.R.A.P test.

So we'll have to conclude that perhaps you didn't actually read the study in full (or at all) and didn't actually have any specific examples of the "statistical errors" that you claimed were there, but since you don't like the conclusions it's crap? 'Cause you say so? And threw in a face palm emoji! Well that's definitely in keeping with the intellectual rigor of all the "banned" posts we've seen in this thread so far, I'll give you that, although not sure we needed yet another example!

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by redneckrob

So we'll have to conclude that perhaps you didn't actually read the study in full (or at all) and didn't actually have any specific examples of the "statistical errors" that you claimed were there, but since you don't like the conclusions it's crap? 'Cause you say so, and threw in a face palm emoji? Well that's definitely in keeping with the intellectual rigor of all the "banned" posts we've seen in this thread so far, I'll give you that, although not sure we needed yet another example!

you really don't understand near as much as you feel that you do.
The Crap test is not an opinion it is actually a real thing .

[redneckrob]

Originally Posted by newhaul

you really don't understand near as much as you feel that you do.
The Crap test is not an opinion it is actually a real thing .

I'm sorry, I could have sworn you stated there were "statistical errors" in the study. Is it unreasonable to ask if you’ve actually identified these errors before claiming they're there? Or perhaps at a minimum read the study in question before claiming something as specific as “statistical errors”?

When asked to specify what those errors were, you cite a document which lists a set of potential errors one could find in a source in order to question it's veracity. As if that somehow proves that this particular study has these errors, without any basis or a single example? Do you somehow believe that since CRAP is an actual document your opinions on this specific study (that you haven't even read!) are therefore no longer opinions? Are we really having this conversation, this is almost surreal!

CRAP is great, I'd absolutely love for you to point out examples of each of the iterated CRAP items in the document in question. Of course, again that would require one to read the study before pronouncing judgement on it, wouldn’t it. Too much to ask?

BTW, I don’t feel I understand much outside of my specialties. That’s precisely why I ask question, look for primary sources (and read them!) and modify my beliefs when evidence shows that they are incorrect. I've yet to see any of that evidence on this thread, so far just opinions that have been demonstrated to be incorrect or unsupported. Again, any examples to the contrary I'm all ears. That's why I'm participating in this discussion!

[fatherchronica]

I live in Northern California and not only bought a can of denatured alcohol at the local marine supply but heat my home with a wood stove, that and over a 100 lineal feet of sunrooms. I suspect it is local authorities banning it in other places like the SCAQMD. When I was a kid in the San Fernando Valley you could not see the corner from our home probably 100 days a year due to pollutants. We had a cabin at Big Bear Lake when I was young and I did not see San Bernardino coming down Rim of the World Highway one time due to smog until I was a teenager.