Jump to content

Legalization of "Hard" Drugs


smac97

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

And more to the point, she was stabbed.  By a guy on drugs.  Is a money judgment against a judgment-proof defendant really going to be a feasible "remedy" for "drug abuse?"  Is it going to make her whole?

Thanks,

-Smac

Stabbing is a separate crime.

Why aren't you arguing for prohibition of alcohol, cigarettes, and sugared soft drinks? You obviously are in favor of the nanny state. 

Link to post
4 hours ago, Stargazer said:
Quote

I'm a big fan of libertarianism, but it has some real practical constraints on it.

Yeah, same here, but...

Why don't we restrict mountain-climbing, wing-suiting, or sky-diving?  Not to mention other activities which have relatively high personal risks?

Because the individuals engaging in such behavior are endangering themselves only.  If they want to assume the risk to their own life and limb, they generally have the liberty to do so.

That said, the states could restrict mountain climbing, wing suiting and sky diving.

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Pure libertarianism runs to anarcho-capitalism if taken to its logical conclusion.

Yep.  Hence the constraints on its application.

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

And my right to swing my fist ends where your personal space begins.  What if I decide to starve myself to death?

If you are mentally competent, I guess you can do so.  

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Should I or should I not be permitted to do so? Or should the State be empowered to force feed me?

That depends on your mental competency.

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

But I do indeed feel that hard drugs can and do take people past the point where their freedom becomes slavery.

And hard drugs tend to have wide-reaching effects.  On family members, on victims of the car accidents and crimes and such committed by people under the influence.  On society in general.  

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

And even if they seek to escape, they often cannot, without some force exerted on their behalf, even without their consent. Because it can be said that their consent is impaired. But I'm still conflicted about it.

Understandable.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

Why aren't you arguing for prohibition of alcohol, cigarettes, and sugared soft drinks? You obviously are in favor of the nanny state. 

If discussing politics was not restricted on this board I would ask you what moves you to vote as you do.  What you are personally for or against, or what other people are for or against?  But since discussing politics is restricted I will not ask that.

Link to post
1 minute ago, Ahab said:

If discussing politics was not restricted on this board I would ask you what moves you to vote as you do.  What you are personally for or against, or what other people are for or against?  But since discussing politics is restricted I will not ask that.

There's a lot that goes into my philosophy:

1.  The Book of Mormon's supreme advocacy of the position of free will in the atonement.  We are not controlled by externalities, but we control our own decisions by the afflictions we experience.  I'm impressed with the Book of Mormon's position on free will.  It is quite sophisticated, and it puts to rest the external determinism I've read in Catholic and Protestant thought.

2.  Milton Friedman's books, "Free to Choose."

3.  Ronald Reagan's approach to personal self-determination.  He walked the walk.

4.  Bill Clinton's signing of various free-trade treaties and the elimination of many tariffs.  He was a true believer. 

5.  The Nobel Prize winner, Amartya Sen , Development as Freedom.

6.  The Paris Climate accord - a naked attempt by the big industrial governments to engage in race and economic war against emerging nations.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:
Quote

And more to the point, she was stabbed.  By a guy on drugs.  Is a money judgment against a judgment-proof defendant really going to be a feasible "remedy" for "drug abuse?"  Is it going to make her whole?

Stabbing is a separate crime.

Right.  And it's a tort as well.  Punishment for the crime ostensibly makes society whole.  A money judgment against a judgment-proof defendant will do little to make Auntie whole.

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

Why aren't you arguing for prohibition of alcohol, cigarettes, and sugared soft drinks?

A few reasons:

First, alcohol can be consumed in moderation.  There are plenty of people who drink responsibly, and I do not want to impair their right to enjoy a glass of wine or a beer here and there.  Same goes for soft drinks.

Second, there is an "entrenchment" problem.  Alcohol, tobacco and soft drings are too well-entrenched in mainstream society.

Third, I think education, coupled with (mild) social opprobrium, is working to reduce tobacco use.

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

You obviously are in favor of the nanny state. 

I am not.  I am saying states have, under the Tenth Amendment, the constitutional authority to regulate harmful and addictive substances, and that such authority can and ought to be "judicious{ly} exercised."  I don't think that's nanny statism.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
5 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

There's a lot that goes into my philosophy:

1.  The Book of Mormon's supreme advocacy of the position of free will in the atonement.  We are not controlled by externalities, but we control our own decisions by the afflictions we experience.  I'm impressed with the Book of Mormon's position on free will.  It is quite sophisticated, and it puts to rest the external determinism I've read in Catholic and Protestant thought.

2.  Milton Friedman's books, "Free to Choose."

3.  Ronald Reagan's approach to personal self-determination.  He walked the walk.

4.  Bill Clinton's signing of various free-trade treaties and the elimination of many tariffs.  He was a true believer. 

5.  The Nobel Prize winner, Amartya Sen , Development as Freedom.

6.  The Paris Climate accord - a naked attempt by the big industrial governments to engage in race and economic war against emerging nations.

Maybe if I had asked the question I had in mind then I would have gotten a better response, a more direct reply to my question.  But since I did not ask it I suppose I will have to settle for what I got.

Link to post
6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Right.  And it's a tort as well.  Punishment for the crime ostensibly makes society whole.  A money judgment against a judgment-proof defendant will do little to make Auntie whole.

A few reasons:

First, alcohol can be consumed in moderation.  There are plenty of people who drink responsibly, and I do not want to impair their right to enjoy a glass of wine or a beer here and there.  Same goes for soft drinks.

Second, there is an "entrenchment" problem.  Alcohol, tobacco and soft drings are too well-entrenched in mainstream society.

Third, I think education, coupled with (mild) social opprobrium, is working to reduce tobacco use.

I am not.  I am saying states have, under the Tenth Amendment, the constitutional authority to regulate harmful and addictive substances, and that such authority can and ought to be "judicious{ly} exercised."  I don't think that's nanny statism.

Thanks,

-Smac

So, you trust government to make decisions about alcohol and drugs?  The government is in complete collapse over the challenge presented by COVID19.  

Just because it is in the constitution (or Bill of Rights) doesn't make it right.  I roundly criticize the Second Amendment and legislation meant to protect the gun industry.  I would never think to say -- well, it is in the Bill of Rights so it must be God-breathed. 

Link to post
7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am saying states have, under the Tenth Amendment, the constitutional authority to regulate harmful and addictive substances, and that such authority can and ought to be "judicious{ly} exercised."  I don't think that's nanny statism.

Thanks,

-Smac

In other words, state government representatives have the constitutional right to act as nannies for citizens of their states and you expect them to be good nannies when they act like the nannies they are legally authorized to be.

Link to post
5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Maybe if I had asked the question I had in mind then I would have gotten a better response, a more direct reply to my question.  But since I did not ask it I suppose I will have to settle for what I got.

And so, somehow, this is my fault.  

I'm rather amazed at the number of Mormons on this site who look to the government to rescue them, to bail them out and protect them.  

I recall when the Republican Party engaged in an all-out assault to put the Church out of business.  Confiscated all of its assets without a hearing; disenfranchised women's right to vote; imprisoned men (and one women) sometimes without a hearing; grilled leaders about their closely-held government beliefs.  A complete abuse of power.  And we are to trust this government?

Link to post
14 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

There's a lot that goes into my philosophy:

1.  The Book of Mormon's supreme advocacy of the position of free will in the atonement.  We are not controlled by externalities, but we control our own decisions by the afflictions we experience.  I'm impressed with the Book of Mormon's position on free will.  It is quite sophisticated, and it puts to rest the external determinism I've read in Catholic and Protestant thought.

Alma 46:

Quote

34 Now, Moroni being a man who was appointed by the chief judges and the voice of the people, therefore he had power according to his will with the armies of the Nephites, to establish and to exercise authority over them.

35 And it came to pass that whomsoever of the Amalickiahites that would not enter into a covenant to support the cause of freedom, that they might maintain a free government, he caused to be put to death; and there were but few who denied the covenant of freedom.

Alma 62:

Quote

8 And behold, Pachus was slain and his men were taken prisoners, and Pahoran was restored to his judgment-seat.

9 And the men of Pachus received their trial, according to the law, and also those king-men who had been taken and cast into prison; and they were executed according to the law; yea, those men of Pachus and those king-men, whosoever would not take up arms in the defence of their country, but would fight against it, were put to death.

10 And thus it became expedient that this law should be strictly observed for the safety of their country; yea, and whosoever was found denying their freedom was speedily executed according to the law.

"Supreme advocacy of the position of free will in the atonement" is indeed found in The Book of Mormon.  But free will as a function of living in an earth-bound society seems to always have some constaints on it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
7 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

And so, somehow, this is my fault.  

Could be.  I don't know.  I don't have enough data to make that determination.

7 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I'm rather amazed at the number of Mormons on this site who look to the government to rescue them, to bail them out and protect them.  

I recall when the Republican Party engaged in an all-out assault to put the Church out of business.  Confiscated all of its assets without a hearing; disenfranchised women's right to vote; imprisoned men (and one women) sometimes without a hearing; grilled leaders about their closely-held government beliefs.  A complete abuse of power.  And we are to trust this government?

I was only thinking about asking you what moves you to vote as you do.  Some people vote to express what they personally want/like, while other people vote to express they want to allow others to do what they want/like.

Like the vote on same sex marriage, for example, when the majority of voters voted to allow same sex couples to be married even though the majority of voters did not want/like same sex marriages for themselves, personally.

When I vote I am expressing my personal desires and convictions, rather than adopting an attitude that everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want/like to do.

Link to post
20 hours ago, Ahab said:
Quote

I am saying states have, under the Tenth Amendment, the constitutional authority to regulate harmful and addictive substances, and that such authority can and ought to be "judicious{ly} exercised."  I don't think that's nanny statism.

In other words,

No, not "in other words."  Your characterization of what I am saying is not accurate.

20 hours ago, Ahab said:

state government representatives have the constitutional right to act as nannies for citizens of their states and you expect them to be good nannies when they act like the nannies they are legally authorized to be.

Again, under the Tenth Amendment, the constitutional authority to regulate harmful and addictive substances, and that such authority can and ought to be "judicious{ly} exercised."  I don't think that's nanny statism.

From Wikipedia:

Quote

Nanny state is a term of British origin that conveys a view that a government or its policies are overprotective or interfering unduly with personal choice. The term "nanny state" likens government to the role that a nanny has in child rearing. 
...
Some laws considered nannying at the time, such as mandatory seatbelts and smoking bans, were later accepted as common sense.

If the use of "hard" drugs had zero or limited adverse consequences to society, then I would oppose governmental regulation.  However, the adverse consequences to society stemming from the use of such substances are huge.  The individual user is not just harming himself, he is harming others.  Many others.  In substantial ways.  So for me the "your right to swing your arm leaves off where my right not to have my nose struck begins"-style sentiment supersedes competing/contrary libertarian sentiments.  

Consider this Wikipedia article on Civil Libertarianism:

Quote

In the domain of libertarian philosophy, the primary concern of the civil libertarian is the relationship of the government to the individual. In theory, the civil libertarian seeks to restrict this relationship to an absolute minimum in which the state can function and provide basic services and securities without excessively interfering in the lives of its citizens.

I like this sentiment in the abstract, and in most ways.  However, I am hard-pressed to object to "social safety nets" pertaining to things like housing, food, medical care, education, and so on, even though such things generally go beyond the "absolute minimum in which the state can function and provide basic services."  I don't want the poor dependent on the government, and I have grave concerns about the Welfare State.  I think such matters can and ought to be managed more at the state level, but I have a hard time with the notion that we ought to abolish them altogether on the theory that they are emblematic of the "Nanny State."

Quote

One key cause of civil libertarianism is upholding free speech. Specifically, civil libertarians oppose bans on hate speech and obscenity.  Although they may or may not personally condone behaviors associated with these issues, civil libertarians hold that the advantages of unfettered public discourse outweigh all disadvantages.

I'm a big fan of Free speech.  i strongly oppose bans on "hate speech."  I find the constitutional analysis regarding "obscenity" to be hopelessly muddled, and hence would look to alternative solutions (market forces, for example) to combat such things (the recent story about Netflix losing millions of subscribers because of the "Cuties" movie is a good example of this).

Quote

Other civil libertarian positions include support for at least partial legalization of illicit substances (marijuana and other soft drugs),

I have previously been open to such an idea, or at least decriminalization.  However, the adverse effects of legalization I pointed to in the OP (particularly those itemized here) have caused me to seriously reconsider my position on this issue.

Quote

prostitution,

I have pragmatic, moral and legal qualms about legalizing prostitution.  STIs are a big concern, and go beyond those consenting to a sexual transaction with a prostitute (the john's wife, for example).  I am also concerned about compulsory prostitutition.  Sex slavery, basically.  And then there is the moral dimension, of course.

Quote

abortion,

I generally have no objection to a woman doing what she wants to her own body.  Abortion, however, involves another person, or at least a nascent person.

Quote

privacy,

I'm a big fan of this.

Quote

assisted dying

I have ethical and legal concerns about this.  Differentiating them from murder can be difficult.  I am also concerned that widespread acceptance of "assisted dying" will create an implicit - or perhaps even explicit - expectation for the sick and elderly to submit to it.  

Quote

or euthanasia,

Big concerns here.  Who decides?

Quote

the right to bear arms, 

Big fan.

Quote

youth rights,

A mixed bag.

Quote

topfree equality,

Let the local community/society make the call.

Quote

a strong demarcation between religion and politics

I support this.

Quote

and more recently support for same-sex marriage.

I think this should have been left to the states.

As you can see, I'm not an all-or-nothing libertarian.  I subscribe to those portions which I find sensible, and also morally/ethically correct.

One final example: Last fall I installed a wood stove in my home (I replaced an old one from the 60s with a new, smaller, efficient one).  I live in Provo, which sits at an elevation of 4,551 feet above sea level, and which therefore has frequent days of poor air quality.  Consequently, the State of Utah has promulgated regulations pertaining to the types of wood stoves that can be used in our area, and also imposes restrictions on their use when the air quality is poor.  For example, the Division of Environmental Quality has today listed as a "Voluntary Action" day, meaning that "{i}ndividuals are asked to voluntarily not use solid fuel burning devices, reduce/stop open burning, and reduce vehicle use by consolidating trips."  Tomorrow and Sunday are listed as "Unrestricted Action," meaning there are no restrictions on wood stoves.

Is this "Nanny Statism?"  I don't think so.  It is the state government (not federal) imposing reasonable restrictions on behaviors that may adversely affect others.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
22 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:
Quote

Right.  And it's a tort as well.  Punishment for the crime ostensibly makes society whole.  A money judgment against a judgment-proof defendant will do little to make Auntie whole.

A few reasons:

First, alcohol can be consumed in moderation.  There are plenty of people who drink responsibly, and I do not want to impair their right to enjoy a glass of wine or a beer here and there.  Same goes for soft drinks.

Second, there is an "entrenchment" problem.  Alcohol, tobacco and soft drings are too well-entrenched in mainstream society.

Third, I think education, coupled with (mild) social opprobrium, is working to reduce tobacco use.

I am not.  I am saying states have, under the Tenth Amendment, the constitutional authority to regulate harmful and addictive substances, and that such authority can and ought to be "judicious{ly} exercised."  I don't think that's nanny statism.

So, you trust government to make decisions about alcohol and drugs? 

Sort of.  If the state or local government misbehaves, then the locals have a much better chance of doing something about it (as opposed to federal overreach/misconduct).

Quote

The government is in complete collapse over the challenge presented by COVID19.

"Complete collapse?"

To be sure, things could have been handled better.

Quote

Just because it is in the constitution (or Bill of Rights) doesn't make it right. 

Okay.  But I think the state government has both the right and obligation to prudently exercise the Police Power.  I think the Police Power is inherently "right" and good, since the lack of it is . . . anarchy.  Somalia, anyone?

Quote

I roundly criticize the Second Amendment and legislation meant to protect the gun industry. 

I am grateful for the Second Amendment, particularly given recent social unrest.  When seconds count, the police are minutes away.  Or have been defunded.

Quote

I would never think to say -- well, it is in the Bill of Rights so it must be God-breathed. 

I haven't said that either.  Nevertheless, I believe the Constitution to be the best basis for government ever created.  And I believe a lot of inspiration went into its creation.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

No, not "in other words."  Your characterization of what I am saying is not accurate.

Again, under the Tenth Amendment, the constitutional authority to regulate harmful and addictive substances, and that such authority can and ought to be "judicious{ly} exercised."  I don't think that's nanny statism.

From Wikipedia:

If the use of "hard" drugs had zero or limited adverse consequences to society, then I would oppose governmental regulation.  However, the adverse consequences to society stemming from the use of such substances are huge.  The individual user is not just harming himself, he is harming others.  Many others.  In substantial ways.  So for me the "your right to swing your arm leaves off where my right not to have my nose struck begins"-style sentiment supersedes competing/contrary libertarian sentiments.  

Consider this Wikipedia article on Civil Libertarianism:

I like this sentiment in the abstract, and in most ways.  However, I am hard-pressed to object to "social safety nets" pertaining to things like housing, food, medical care, education, and so on, even though such things generally go beyond the "absolute minimum in which the state can function and provide basic services."  I don't want the poor dependent on the government, and I have grave concerns about the Welfare State.  I think such matters can and ought to be managed more at the state level, but I have a hard time with the notion that we ought to abolish them altogether on the theory that they are emblematic of the "Nanny State."

I'm a big fan of Free speech.  i strongly oppose bans on "hate speech."  I find the constitutional analysis regarding "obscenity" to be hopelessly muddled, and hence would look to alternative solutions (market forces, for example) to combat such things (the recent story about Netflix losing millions of subscribers because of the "Cuties" movie is a good example of this).

I have previously been open to such an idea, or at least decriminalization.  However, the adverse effects of legalization I pointed to in the OP (particularly those itemized here) have caused me to seriously reconsider my position on this issue.

I have pragmatic, moral and legal qualms about legalizing prostitution.  STIs are a big concern, and go beyond those consenting to a sexual transaction with a prostitute (the john's wife, for example).  I am also concerned about compulsory prostitutition.  Sex slavery, basically.  And then there is the moral dimension, of course.

I generally have no objection to a woman doing what she wants to her own body.  Abortion, however, involves another person, or at least a nascent person.

I'm a big fan of this.

I have ethical and legal concerns about this.  Differentiating them from murder can be difficult.  I am also concerned that widespread acceptance of "assisted dying" will create an implicit - or perhaps even explicit - expectation for the sick and elderly to submit to it.  

Big concerns here.  Who decides?

Big fan.

A mixed bag.

Let the local community/society make the call.

I support this.

I think this should have been left to the states.

As you can see, I'm not an all-or-nothing libertarian.  I subscribe to those portions which I find sensible, and also morally/ethically correct.

One final example: Last fall I installed a wood stove in my home (I replaced an old one from the 60s with a new, smaller, efficient one).  I live in Provo, which sits at an elevation of 4,551 feet above sea level, and which therefore has frequent days of poor air quality.  Consequently, the State of Utah has promulgated regulations pertaining to the types of wood stoves that can be used in our area, and also imposes restrictions on their use when the air quality is poor.  For example, the Division of Environmental Quality has today listed as a "Voluntary Action" day, meaning that "{i}ndividuals are asked to voluntarily not use solid fuel burning devices, reduce/stop open burning, and reduce vehicle use by consolidating trips."  Tomorrow and Sunday are listed as "Unrestricted Action," meaning there are no restrictions on wood stoves.

Is this "Nanny Statism?"  I don't think so.  It is the state government (not federal) imposing reasonable restrictions on behaviors that may adversely affect others.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think we simply differ on how we define what a nanny is, and I'll say right off the bat that I have no problem at all with someone being a nanny as long as that person is a good nanny.

... a fountain of good advice laced with love and knowledge and wisdom and a general concern for anyone around that person, always ready and willing to help. 

A nanny need not be overbearing and if a nanny is overbearing or abusive I would say that person is not a good nanny.

Link to post
On 11/5/2020 at 5:03 PM, california boy said:

Exactly.  We also tried a war on drugs and it did not go well either.  Thousands of people incarcerated in jails for using a substance far less harmful than alcohol.

I am pointing out the irrational approach to drugs, not advocating the outlawing of alcohol.

 

Well, I didn't think you were, actually. 

I tend to laissez faire in most matters. As long as it isn't harming another person, have at it. When they presented the legalization of marijuana in Washington state, my wife and I both voted Yes.  Of course there are always edge cases, such as the breadwinner of a family doing something that impairs his or her ability to support the family. It does harm in that sense, but it isn't the same as deliberate harm. 

Link to post
On 11/5/2020 at 8:37 PM, smac97 said:

I am not.  I am saying states have, under the Tenth Amendment, the constitutional authority to regulate harmful and addictive substances, and that such authority can and ought to be "judicious{ly} exercised."  I don't think that's nanny statism.

Except that states can take it into nanny statism. 

Just because a law is constitutional does not make it right. The 18th Amendment is a case in point. It accomplished little, and made being a criminal, especially an organized criminal, so much more profitable. The war on drugs has done the same for drugs.  Let's say I have a grudge against you.  So I obtain marijuana seeds and plant them on your land.  And if you fail to notice, and then I call the authorities to tell them that you have a "growing operation", this could go badly for you, even if they can't prove you planted them. Because there is the civil forfeiture thing.  Even if they don't have enough evidence that you were the one who planted it, the mere presence of the plants can lead to asset civil forfeiture, violating all kinds of rights. There have been law enforcement agencies in the US which have financed some capital and equipment purchases through this, giving them incentive for making such seizures.

There are arguments, even by SCOTUS justices, that civil forfeiture is a "necessary tool" in law enforcement. Maybe it is, but many innocent parties have been legally robbed by the government by this means. 

  • Like 1
Link to post

More often than not I find myself on the side of legalizing drugs. There should be some degree of reasonableness to guide dispensing drugs, but if you want it, then you should be able to buy it.

I recognize that the nation is just now getting over a Opioid epidemic, which bankrupted a pharmaceutical company. I dislike or more strongly, reject such an action. If an individual wants to take drugs and they overdose of their own volition, then tough. There is no avenue to make someone else or a company responsible for your actions. "You" are responsible for your actions....full stop.

 

Link to post
2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

. I dislike or more strongly, reject such an action. If an individual wants to take drugs and they overdose of their own volition, then tough. There is no avenue to make someone else or a company responsible for your actions.

The pharmaceutical company misrepresented the addictive nature of Oxy and promoted its use. 
 

It should not be responsible for those who picked it up recreationally, but those who became addicted through being prescribed by doctors telling them it was safe...damn right the company should go bankrupt imo or rather its owners who allowed such practices which probably won’t happen as they will be shielded by the bankruptcy and be able to keep their billions I am guessing from what I have read...and I speak as someone who requires those drugs as the only thing that manages my disorder and hates the hoops the government requires of both me and my doctor so I can get it.  And in many places those who have my disorder can’t get it. 
 

But the restrictions exist to a good part due to fraudulent business practices. 
 

Quote

The company and three executives pleaded guilty in federal court to fraudulently marketing OxyContin and agreed to pay $600 million. 

https://www.statnews.com/2019/09/16/purdue-pharma-maker-of-oxycontin-and-other-drugs-files-for-bankruptcy/

Edited by Calm
Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

The pharmaceutical company misrepresented the addictive nature of Oxy and promoted its use. 
 

It should not be responsible for those who picked it up recreationally, but those who became addicted through being prescribed by doctors telling them it was safe...damn right the company should go bankrupt imo or rather its owners who allowed such practices which probably won’t happen as they will be shielded by the bankruptcy and be able to keep their billions I am guessing from what I have read...and I speak as someone who requires those drugs as the only thing that manages my disorder and hates the hoops the government requires of both me and my doctor so I can get it.  And in many places those who have my disorder can’t get it. 
 

But the restrictions exist to a good part due to fraudulent business practices. 
 

https://www.statnews.com/2019/09/16/purdue-pharma-maker-of-oxycontin-and-other-drugs-files-for-bankruptcy/

As you know and I have experienced, doctors don't feel comfortable managing any form of pain. Most just tend to avoid prescribing almost all form of pain killers beyond Tylenol and NSAIDS. 

I agree that I would have preferred to see the the owners lose their money made from the company, rather than the company itself. 

I do find it difficult to believe that the addictive nature of Opioids just fell out of the sky all of a sudden. I was counseled about their addictive nature almost 30 years ago. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
3 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

was counseled about their addictive nature almost 30 years ago. 

Good for your doctor. That was not my experience until my current doctor, who is both careful but derogatory about the insurance and government getting in the way of him helping his longtime patients who have demonstrated the ability to control.  
 

And it was only about 15 years ago I started to see raised eyebrows from my nonsleep doctors about use though Canadian doctors did not consider them an option for off script prescribed...which is why my current state is severe even with drugs. 
 

Prior to diagnosis of rls in 1999, I could get pain killers for back injury easily in every case for 20+ years across three states and two countries except one time where I was told to exercise instead and he gave them to my husband without caution...I injured my back every three to six months until my sleep/movement disorder was diagnosed. 
Only when I suggested to my doctor that the codeine would be an effective treatment for my RLS with no side effects for me based on the tenish times she had prescribed it for me in previous years and gave her the research that demonstrated it a safe and effective Rls treatment (which she ignored) did she suddenly start refusing narcotics for pain in injuries as well and then dropped me as a patient.  I am thinking her lack of knowledge of RLS (she informed me she was clueless and her prescribing the worse drug for it for me proved that, but she sent me to a specialist...unfortunately took 3 months to get in which meant the rls was already much worse) scared her that she had created an addict with her previous “here, take this for a couple of weeks” attitude.  

Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

Good for your doctor. That was not my experience until my current doctor, who is both careful but derogatory about the insurance and government getting in the way of him helping his longtime patients who have demonstrated the ability to control.  
 

And it was only about 15 years ago I started to see raised eyebrows from my nonsleep doctors about use though Canadian doctors did not consider them an option for off script prescribed...which is why my current state is severe even with drugs. 
 

Prior to diagnosis of rls in 1999, I could get pain killers for back injury easily in every case for 20+ years across three states and two countries except one time where I was told to exercise instead and he gave them to my husband without caution...I injured my back every three to six months until my sleep/movement disorder was diagnosed. 
Only when I suggested to my doctor that the codeine would be an effective treatment for my RLS with no side effects for me based on the tenish times she had prescribed it for me in previous years and gave her the research that demonstrated it a safe and effective Rls treatment (which she ignored) did she suddenly start refusing narcotics for pain in injuries as well and then dropped me as a patient.  I am thinking her lack of knowledge of RLS (she informed me she was clueless and her prescribing the worse drug for it for me proved that, but she sent me to a specialist...unfortunately took 3 months to get in which meant the rls was already much worse) scared her that she had created an addict with her previous “here, take this for a couple of weeks” attitude.  

I am pained when I hear such stories and have heard them countless times. I have been lucky, most of the time, with doctors that were relatively skilled in pain management. My chronic back pain can often be controlled with exercise and stretching, but when it goes out, the pain is best treated with muscle relaxer and a strong narcotic such as oxycodone. More recently, I have been offered tramadol, but that does nothing for me. 

My knee pain is one area that simply does not have an easy answer. It is a pain that I live with out of necessity.

Link to post
27 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I am pained when I hear such stories and have heard them countless times. I have been lucky, most of the time, with doctors that were relatively skilled in pain management. My chronic back pain can often be controlled with exercise and stretching, but when it goes out, the pain is best treated with muscle relaxer and a strong narcotic such as oxycodone. More recently, I have been offered tramadol, but that does nothing for me. 

My knee pain is one area that simply does not have an easy answer. It is a pain that I live with out of necessity.

I hope you find your solution for your knee. Pain is exhausting.  
 

One reason I talk about my stuff all the time is to get more proactive about their health. There is just too much info out there for doctors to know enough about anything that is the slightest complicated. You need to learn risks and benefits for yourself. Mistakes get made. Years wasted when solutions are already there. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
On 11/5/2020 at 9:51 AM, Stargazer said:

I think we tried that once. It did not go well.

While it did not work out and did not last alcohol use has to this day not risen back to pre-prohibition levels. A break to end generations of pervasive functional (and non-functional) alcoholism may have been a good thing. Plus when we shut down all the breweries many were converted to ice cream production and this led to the American love of ice cream. Another positive.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

While it did not work out and did not last alcohol use has to this day not risen back to pre-prohibition levels. A break to end generations of pervasive functional (and non-functional) alcoholism may have been a good thing. Plus when we shut down all the breweries many were converted to ice cream production and this led to the American love of ice cream. Another positive.

Ice cream aside, this turns out not to be the case. The country drank whiskey like it was water during the early 1800s. The source that I found said that Americans were drinking the equivalent of "...7 gallons of ethanol per year, per capita. ... If we were drinking at 1830 levels, we would be plowing through roughly 3.4 standard, 750 ml bottles of Jim Beam White Label Bourbon per week, in a single household." (emphasis in source)

But after 1830 (the peak year, apparently), consumption tailed off gradually and was still tailing off when Prohibition hit. Prohibition might have caused a break, as you suggest, but it really wasn't much of one. Compare then with now in this chart, found here: America’s Consumption of Alcohol Over Time Since 1860.

 

chart2.png

Link to post
53 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Ice cream aside, this turns out not to be the case. The country drank whiskey like it was water during the early 1800s. The source that I found said that Americans were drinking the equivalent of "...7 gallons of ethanol per year, per capita. ... If we were drinking at 1830 levels, we would be plowing through roughly 3.4 standard, 750 ml bottles of Jim Beam White Label Bourbon per week, in a single household." (emphasis in source)

But after 1830 (the peak year, apparently), consumption tailed off gradually and was still tailing off when Prohibition hit. Prohibition might have caused a break, as you suggest, but it really wasn't much of one. Compare then with now in this chart, found here: America’s Consumption of Alcohol Over Time Since 1860.

 

chart2.png

Yeah, the drinking per capita is still not that different but the distribution is different. There are a few alcoholics, a few who drink a lot, and then a lot of people who drink occasionally or not at all. Those who drink a lot skew the numbers. I should have said the median drinks per person has gone down, not per capita.

 

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...