They are replicating synthetic chemicals in China that can legally replicate class A drugs in the UK like heroin, crack cocaine, morphine and all the others.

The chemists are ahead of the authorities by several years and I have just watched a documentary on channel 4 and the kids are like the kids from the film Trainspotting off their heads like I mean proper crackheads, desperate and hopeless all done legally! I didn't realise that's how strong they were if I had I would be campaigning.

All legal if you label it “not safe for human consumption” you can legalize any synthetic high no matter how poisonous it is.

What a disgrace.

The Chinese are experts at replication, like Japan used to be before they moved to innovation. The US (IDK about the UK and other "innovative" countries) makes it much easier for replicators to succeed by publishing so much scientific and technical data and specs.

"Made in China", not just the legal products, but also bootleg videos, etc... When it comes to drugs, the black market goes way beyond the illegal ones - knock-offs of pharmaceuticals is big biz.

Yesterday, I read about a bust by the US Justice Dept of two men in Chicago who were selling $4 million worth of counterfeit Viagra. Kind of an old game, at this point.

Viagra and Lipitor have both been replicated and sold over the internet by Chinese counterfeiters since 2006. Several rings have been busted, but I understand that it's highly profitable for those in the game.

Pfizer ain't happy about it, obviously, and has an internal team working to scope out these fraudulent producers/distributors, and to coordinate with US Justice Dept authorities and their Chinese counterparts in attempts to minimize intellectual property infringement. Big job and a never-ending cycle.

(08-08-2013, 06:20 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: intellectual property infringement.

The problem within China is there is no such thing. No copyright. No patent. It's virtually non-existent. If Pfizer are indeed getting the Chinese authorities even remotely interested in doing anything about it, it would be costing them a fuckload of money.

I think the real hard heads in the US are more worried that the Chinese don't crack some new technology in jet engines for their fighter jets. Or the Russians don't sell it to them. They already have the radar and weapon systems nailed.

(08-08-2013, 06:48 PM)crash Wrote:

(08-08-2013, 06:20 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: intellectual property infringement.

The problem within China is there is no such thing. No copyright. No patent. It's virtually non-existent. If Pfizer are indeed getting the Chinese authorities even remotely interested in doing anything about it, it would be costing them a fuckload of money.

China has been promising to crack down on illegal replication of products with copyrights, trademarks, and patents held in other countries for years - particularly as the 2008 Beijing Olympics approached. I know that Hillary Clinton and Chinese leaders focused a fair amount of time on such matters during the annual US/China trade conferences as well.

There's a good deal of tit for tat involved; with the US opening more markets to China's exports in return for China cracking down on infringement. I've read about quite a few sophisticated counterfeit rings (different product types) being busted in China in the last several years; busts that probably wouldn't have gone down 10 or 15 years ago. But, at a cost - we're not gonna get something for nothing from China.

You're right about Pfizer; definitely costing them big bucks. But, the company has big bucks and I'm sure its brainy bean counters have done the ROI analysis. Pfizer's gotta be saving a lot more in profits by thwarting the counterfeiters than its spending to employ anti-counterfeiting teams. IMO.

(08-08-2013, 06:48 PM)crash Wrote: I think the real hard heads in the US are more worried that the Chinese don't crack some new technology in jet engines for their fighter jets. Or the Russians don't sell it to them. They already have the radar and weapon systems nailed.

Could be, crash. I'm not sure.

But, I wouldn't be surprised if US trade and economic leaders are as concerned about commercial/private technology cracks as their military counterparts are about aerospace technology cracks. For different reasons. Big business gets politicians elected (and, according to polls, the economy is at least as big a concern for most US citizens as national security).

I think we're both looking from the same vantage point. Sure, there are more 'efforts' today than there were ten years ago, but I think a lot of the time these are token efforts for publicity purposes. The Chinese government and Chinese authorities are heavily funded by Chinese organised crime. Corruption is so rife in China, it's the single most popular reason that many Chinese academics and professionals emigrate to other countries.

The Chinese syndicates funding the government stand to lose just as much as their US counterparts and Pfizer

(08-08-2013, 07:41 PM)crash Wrote: I think we're both looking from the same vantage point. Sure, there are more 'efforts' today than there were ten years ago, but I think a lot of the time these are token efforts for publicity purposes.

I agree that a lot of international agreements and public statements are made primarily for publicity purposes and likely don't reflect what's really going down in behind the scenes negotiation.

I also agree that some degree of true progress has been made over the last decade or so; largely due to a greater awareness by US leaders when it comes to the different cultural mindset and how that affects business negotiations.

From my viewpoint, there's presently less time spent publicly condemning each other and more time spent attempting to benefit (financially) from one another. Much better global business strategy.

In fairness, just like China's not doling out something for nothing, neither is the US (nor any country involved in hard core negotiations that potentially affect its economic future significantly). Doesn't matter, IMO. As long as both parties can walk away feeling like they won something (or at least reduced previous losses), gradual progress continues.

I'd like go back to China; only been for business and only to Beijing. I'd be down for a Mock global research expedition, just to test the validity of our opinions and viewpoints. An academic venture, really.

I also just happen to really wanna check out Danxia Geo Park, as stunning as some of Arizona's formations, IMO.

(08-08-2013, 08:16 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: In fairness, just like China's not doling out something for nothing, neither is the US (nor any country involved in hard core negotiations that potentially affect its economic future significantly). Doesn't matter, IMO. As long as both parties can walk away feeling like they won something (or at least reduced previous losses), gradual progress continues.

Ahhh...HotD...*sigh*

The woman who openly admits to sucking cock to make him feel good and also has the ability to stimulate the mind with similar articulation...

If I was MS, I'd be PMing you for snapchats!

*Ahem*

Now...yes, but the bestest of the negotiators get what they want without giving much at all away but leave the other side feeling they've won the sweepstakes and it was their idea in the first place.

As in anything of this nature, progress is often at a glacial pace, but if it is continuous it's a good thing, and if the world as a whole "spent less time condemning" solutions would come a lot easier.

China is fascinating. The people are, on the whole, lovely. I've only been a handful of times but have absolutely loved every one. It's one of the few things on my bucket list, for want of a better term, to spend some time boot slogging it around the village areas in the north.

I've only ever seen photos of the Gansu region, but I'd love to go. The Danxia landforms were heritage listed, a few years ago I think, to protect the area from mining of the mineral deposits in the area. I hope it's not overruled in anyway in the future.

I'm gonna start working on a research grant proposal tomorrow, crash.

Exploratory pilgrimages don't often get academic funding, IIRC, but I'm definitely motivated to push for it.

Global Vantage Points:
China - the culture, the geography, the business of politics - as seen through the eyes of an Australian man and an American woman (both with unabashed oral proclivities).

Hell, who needs a grant? Maybe Rolling Stone or Psychiatry Today will pick it up (okay, more like The Mail, but still...).