THE ONGOING DRUG INDUSTRY CON-JOB
Ilena Rose
http://www.redflagsweekly.com/regush/2002_april22P.htm
THE ONGOING DRUG INDUSTRY CON-JOB
OR HOW DOCTORS ARE ADDICTED TO PERKS LIKE MOIST SLIVERS OF PEKING DUCK AND
EXPENSE-PAID TRIPS TO VACATIONLAND
By Nicholas Regush
April 22, 2002 - Flashback: I remember the moist slivers of Peking Duck.
The juicy lemon chicken was divine. The doctors ‹ all one hundred or so ‹
were extremely pleased with the dinner at the Chinese Palace Restaurant in
Toronto. There was no end to the joy of feasting that evening as waiters
placed one steaming platter after another on the twenty round tables in
the banquet hall. Some of the guests even joked with devilish delight that
they might not be able to handle dessert.
At a corner table ‹ the table of honor ‹ the drug company representative
watched his six companions behave as if they hadnąt eaten a meal in a
week. He looked very happy. The evening was working out well. As head of
his companyąs special division, it was his job to sponsor meetings to help
educate doctors about new drug products. And he certainly ran a class act.
There were only small reminders ‹ company pens and notebooks placed at the
table settings ‹ that the company was springing for the bill ‹ likely of
several thousand dollars ‹ for the open bar and Chinese feast, complete
with wine.
And the lecture, of course, which essentially was a piece of deft
propaganda for the companyąs new contraceptive product.
That event occurred in 1985. But not much has changed.
Over the years, doctors have continued to receive "special education"
classes supported by the drug industry. Doctors have continued to be wined
and dined and invited to exotic climes, to partake of "seminars" and
"brain-storming sessions (about the companyąs products, of course.) In
fact, in some quarters, not to be invited is a sign of a career decline.
Mind you, there are some doctors that tell the companies to take a hike,
but they are in the minority. Status and power in the medical community is
often measured in terms of where you give your talks and how many you give
‹ courtesy, in most cases, of the sponsoring drug companies.
So forgive me if I hoot a little when I come across a so-called new
"voluntary" code the drug industry has devised that will supposedly govern
how its representatives market drugs to physicians.
What? The code, which will take effect on July 1, will prohibit or cut
back on entertainment for doctors? And no more gym bags, golf balls, VCRs,
and freebies to the theater?
Really. What are the drug companies going to do with the $13 billion
dollars they spent last year giving doctors all those perks in exchange
for a chummy hearing on their products?
What one must keep in mind is the term "voluntary." For the drug industry,
if history is any guide, "voluntary" is equivalent to "See, Hear and Speak
No Evil." This is a code worth about as much as one-quarter-ply toilet
paper.
Watch for fancy shifts in promotion. Rather than freebies to a basketball
or baseball game, where the rep would manage to get in a few words about a
drug product, the promotions will shift more to locales where doctors
might better internalize the promos.
Like exotic boat trips where the doctors can huddle over complex
statistics, hot-spot vacationland conference centers where "objective"
seminars can be conducted ‹ and Iąm even betting that there will be more
educational events at gourmet Chinese restaurants.
Do you really think that the $13 billion will be used to cut back on
prices of medication?
Gretchen Evans
I certainly do.. About the same time that pigs start flying.
pixie
z9listener
> http://www.redflagsweekly.com/regush/2002_april22P.htm
>
> THE ONGOING DRUG INDUSTRY CON-JOB
>
> OR HOW DOCTORS ARE ADDICTED TO PERKS LIKE MOIST SLIVERS OF PEKING DUCK AND
> EXPENSE-PAID TRIPS TO VACATIONLAND
>
> By Nicholas Regush
>
> April 22, 2002 - Flashback: I remember the moist slivers of Peking Duck.
> The juicy lemon chicken was divine. The doctors < all one hundred or so <
> were extremely pleased with the dinner at the Chinese Palace Restaurant in
> Toronto. There was no end to the joy of feasting that evening as waiters
> placed one steaming platter after another on the twenty round tables in
> the banquet hall. Some of the guests even joked with devilish delight that
> they might not be able to handle dessert.
>
> At a corner table < the table of honor < the drug company representative
> week. He looked very happy. The evening was working out well. As head of
> educate doctors about new drug products. And he certainly ran a class act.
> There were only small reminders < company pens and notebooks placed at the
> table settings < that the company was springing for the bill < likely of
> several thousand dollars < for the open bar and Chinese feast, complete
> with wine.
>
> And the lecture, of course, which essentially was a piece of deft
> That event occurred in 1985. But not much has changed.
>
> Over the years, doctors have continued to receive "special education"
> classes supported by the drug industry. Doctors have continued to be wined
> and dined and invited to exotic climes, to partake of "seminars" and
> fact, in some quarters, not to be invited is a sign of a career decline.
> Mind you, there are some doctors that tell the companies to take a hike,
> but they are in the minority. Status and power in the medical community is
> often measured in terms of where you give your talks and how many you give
> < courtesy, in most cases, of the sponsoring drug companies.
So what? This is part and parcel of product promotion in any large,
competitive industry. The same thing goes on in the electronics industry,
aerospace, automotive, you name it. And they all go the extra mile to
wine and dine their very best customers. This is nothing new or unusual.
As long as you don't have to promise to buy X number of lots of the product
as a price of admission (which would amount to a kickback) I have no problem
with it. I've been to numerous similar functions in my industry, and frankly,
it didn't make me any more likely to buy Vendor A's product over Vendor B.
> So forgive me if I hoot a little when I come across a so-called new
> "voluntary" code the drug industry has devised that will supposedly govern
> how its representatives market drugs to physicians.
>
> What? The code, which will take effect on July 1, will prohibit or cut
> back on entertainment for doctors? And no more gym bags, golf balls, VCRs,
> and freebies to the theater?
>
> Really. What are the drug companies going to do with the $13 billion
> dollars they spent last year giving doctors all those perks in exchange
> for a chummy hearing on their products?
>
> What one must keep in mind is the term "voluntary." For the drug industry,
> if history is any guide, "voluntary" is equivalent to "See, Hear and Speak
> No Evil." This is a code worth about as much as one-quarter-ply toilet
> paper.
>
> Watch for fancy shifts in promotion. Rather than freebies to a basketball
> or baseball game, where the rep would manage to get in a few words about a
> drug product, the promotions will shift more to locales where doctors
> might better internalize the promos.
>
> Like exotic boat trips where the doctors can huddle over complex
> statistics, hot-spot vacationland conference centers where "objective"
> seminars can be conducted < and Išm even betting that there will be more
> educational events at gourmet Chinese restaurants.
>
> Do you really think that the $13 billion will be used to cut back on
> prices of medication?
Do you think that if Sony cuts back on it's advertising budget, they pass
the cost savings on to the consumer?
BTW, I don't know if the $13 bil figure is accurate or not, but I'm willing
to bet that if you looked at the combined advertising budgets of all the
companies in any large industry, you'd come up with similar or larger numbers.
Cheers,
Z
George Conklin
z9listener <z9lis...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>il...@san.rr.com (Ilena Rose) wrote in message news:<ilena-22040...@dt011n65.san.rr.com>...
>> http://www.redflagsweekly.com/regush/2002_april22P.htm
>>
>> THE ONGOING DRUG INDUSTRY CON-JOB
>>
>> OR HOW DOCTORS ARE ADDICTED TO PERKS LIKE MOIST SLIVERS OF PEKING DUCK AND
>> EXPENSE-PAID TRIPS TO VACATIONLAND
>>
>> By Nicholas Regush
>>
>> April 22, 2002 - Flashback: I remember the moist slivers of Peking Duck.
>> The juicy lemon chicken was divine. The doctors < all one hundred or so <
>> were extremely pleased with the dinner at the Chinese Palace Restaurant in
>> Toronto. There was no end to the joy of feasting that evening as waiters
>> placed one steaming platter after another on the twenty round tables in
>> the banquet hall. Some of the guests even joked with devilish delight that
>> they might not be able to handle dessert.
>>
>> At a corner table < the table of honor < the drug company representative
>> watched his six companions behave as if they hadnšt eaten a meal in a
>> week. He looked very happy.
>So what? This is part and parcel of product promotion in any large,
>competitive industry. The same thing goes on in the electronics industry,
>aerospace, automotive, you name it.
True, but if we had more access to drugs without prescriptions,
then a whole lot of money would be saved. Claritin will go off
prescription and is otc in many countries already. More drugs
should be OTC, even though I am still sick and tired of hearing
about the PURPLE PILL..(not off prescription).
--
# If HMOs ran the post office, 44.3 million Americans would get no mail. #
# Phono FAQ: http://www.pagesz.net/~henryj/phono.htm. #
# Support Medicare for All Ages. Urban Myth FAQ under development. #
# Support Cygnet Horns for Edison Firesides-george conklin, KB4NCI #
paramadman
> >So what? This is part and parcel of product promotion in any large,
> >competitive industry. The same thing goes on in the electronics industry,
> >aerospace, automotive, you name it.
>
> True, but if we had more access to drugs without prescriptions,
> then a whole lot of money would be saved. Claritin will go off
> prescription and is otc in many countries already. More drugs
> should be OTC, even though I am still sick and tired of hearing
> about the PURPLE PILL..(not off prescription).
I fully agree. I think that there should be NO limitations on the
availabilty of any drugs other than antibiotics. The over use of these
has been demonstrated to represent a great danger to the pubic health
generally, and as such, should not be over the counter.
As for just about anything else, if an adult is foolish enough to risk
their lives with substances that they nither understand the function
or potential interactions of, so be it. The average person could read
the literature until their eyes cease to function, and the information
is meaningless absent the proper trainning. However, children would
die as a result of such *freedom*. Adults kill themselves all the time
by taking numerous compounds containing Tylonol, completely ignorant
of their impending (long/drawn-out) deaths as a result of liver
failure.
They have the right to do this to themselves, but not to children. If
they do not pay close enough attention to the drugs they take
themselves (and fail to understand the simplest directions for its
use) it is a cinch that they will fail to do so with their children.
Just look at the numbers of youngsters that die each year from such
ignorance on the part of their parents.
paramadman
Brandon Stahl
one of the functions of a government is to protect its citizens.
The quickest and easiest dismissal of an argument like yours is to bring
in children. Most Americans will at one point have at least one. If
their child gets an ache or pain, and a neighbor says that you can fix
them by giving them some dandy oxycontin, what, exactly, have you
accomplished? Well, you've masked the pain of a Wilm's tumor and killed
a child who otherwise may have lived had he been brought to medical
attention.
The most complete way to dismantle your argument would be to take it
from a societal and utilitarian standpoint - we simple can't afford
(literally) to allow self medication. While cutting a few office visits
here and there, you will effectively create a frighteningly unhealthy
nation - one where pre menopausal women who think they are post
menopausal because their neighbor had symptoms just like theirs and of
course it must be menopause are freely taking unopposed estrogen for
replacement therapy, based on whichever pamphlet they read last week.
When they die an early death from cancer because of this, you'll say,
well, it was the person's "free will". To a degree, maybe. But to a
much further degree, it would be a lack of society's stepping and
realizing that to use medications to any useful end requires a great
deal of education, which is why we have only those educated in such
matters allowed to prescribe medications.
--
This message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of
the designated recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended
recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any review,
dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly
prohibited.
M Tools
do not want some bozo who went to med school and passed some tests to take
my health care from me. It is MY life and I want it. You must be a yellow
dog democrat.
"Brandon Stahl" <bst...@bu.edu> wrote in message
news:3CCC1080...@bu.edu...
Brandon Stahl
M Tools
Brandon Stahl
Rich Andrews
news:kZUy8.11435$8p3.9...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
> So fix the educational system. health is not really that complicated.
> "Brandon Stahl" <bst...@bu.edu> wrote in message
> news:3CCC19A0...@bu.edu...
>> It's not a matter of "right and wrong". It's an educational issue.
>>
>> M Tools wrote:
>> >
>> > I have more confidence in the peoples ability to sort out what is
>> > wrong.
> I
>> > do not want some bozo who went to med school and passed some tests
>> > to
> take
>> > my health care from me. It is MY life and I want it. You must be a
> yellow
>> > dog democrat.
Health not that complicated? Care to test your diagnostic skills there
tools?
r
--
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, de-briefed, or
numbered...My life is my own."
"I am not a number. I am a free man."
No. 6
Brandon Stahl
Rich Andrews wrote:
>
> "M Tools" <medt...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:kZUy8.11435$8p3.9...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
>
> > So fix the educational system. health is not really that complicated.
> > "Brandon Stahl" <bst...@bu.edu> wrote in message
> > news:3CCC19A0...@bu.edu...
> >> It's not a matter of "right and wrong". It's an educational issue.
> >>
> >> M Tools wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I have more confidence in the peoples ability to sort out what is
> >> > wrong.
> > I
> >> > do not want some bozo who went to med school and passed some tests
> >> > to
> > take
> >> > my health care from me. It is MY life and I want it. You must be a
> > yellow
> >> > dog democrat.
>
> Health not that complicated? Care to test your diagnostic skills there
> tools?
lol... toolman would likely feed himself zantac for a continual
heartburn a few weeks before keeling over from a massive heart attack.
fred & michele
> It's not a matter of "right and wrong". It's an educational issue.
>
> M Tools wrote:
> >
> > I have more confidence in the peoples ability to sort out what is wrong.
I
> > do not want some bozo who went to med school and passed some tests to
take
> > my health care from me. It is MY life and I want it. You must be a
yellow
> > dog democrat.
> > "Brandon Stahl" <bst...@bu.edu> wrote in message
> > news:3CCC1080...@bu.edu...
It's a matter of some people wanting things both ways. If the doctors won't
give 'em the prescriptions they want, the doc is to blame -- if they can
dose themselves up six ways to Sunday without an MD's okay, it would STILL
be the MD's fault if there were problems -- as they whined "Nobody told me
about this problem & how can I be expected to know?".
The doctor will get the blame either way. At least that's until these same
people start blaming the drug manufacturers........
Michele
Brandon Stahl
fred & michele wrote:
>
> "Brandon Stahl" <bst...@bu.edu> wrote in message
> news:3CCC19A0...@bu.edu...
> > It's not a matter of "right and wrong". It's an educational issue.
> >
> > M Tools wrote:
> > >
> > > I have more confidence in the peoples ability to sort out what is wrong.
> I
> > > do not want some bozo who went to med school and passed some tests to
> take
> > > my health care from me. It is MY life and I want it. You must be a
> yellow
> > > dog democrat.
> > > "Brandon Stahl" <bst...@bu.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:3CCC1080...@bu.edu...
>
> It's a matter of some people wanting things both ways. If the doctors won't
> give 'em the prescriptions they want, the doc is to blame
So... you go to your doctor and complain that you ate a large meal,
walked up a flight of stairs and had nasty heartburn for about 40
minutes and request zantac, because it's popular and well advertised and
your friends say it works great. Your doctor asks if this pain ever
radiates anywhere, and you say "well, yeah, a little bit down my left
arm, but Bob at work has the same thing and zantac works for him, so I
want it too. I know I don't have anything wrong with my heart".
The doc will say "no zantac for you!". But you would "blame" him?
Nice. You should *thank* him.
Gretch
>Though I believe in individual freedoms to a greater extent than many,
>one of the functions of a government is to protect its citizens.
>
>The quickest and easiest dismissal of an argument like yours is to bring
>in children. Most Americans will at one point have at least one. If
>their child gets an ache or pain, and a neighbor says that you can fix
>them by giving them some dandy oxycontin, what, exactly, have you
>accomplished? Well, you've masked the pain of a Wilm's tumor and killed
>a child who otherwise may have lived had he been brought to medical
>attention.
>
>The most complete way to dismantle your argument would be to take it
>from a societal and utilitarian standpoint - we simple can't afford
>(literally) to allow self medication. While cutting a few office visits
>here and there, you will effectively create a frighteningly unhealthy
>nation - one where pre menopausal women who think they are post
>menopausal because their neighbor had symptoms just like theirs and of
>course it must be menopause are freely taking unopposed estrogen for
>replacement therapy, based on whichever pamphlet they read last week.
>When they die an early death from cancer because of this, you'll say,
>well, it was the person's "free will". To a degree, maybe. But to a
>much further degree, it would be a lack of society's stepping and
>realizing that to use medications to any useful end requires a great
>deal of education, which is why we have only those educated in such
>matters allowed to prescribe medications.
>
Well put, Brandon; Those individuals that advocate removal of
restrictions on medications simply are not aware of the problems that
might be caused by such actions. While I might agree that some items
could safely be dispensed OTC that number is fairly limited.
pixie
Gretch
wrote:
>So fix the educational system. health is not really that complicated.
Thank you for proving my point about lack of education in medicine.
pixie
Happy Dog
> >If
> >their child gets an ache or pain, and a neighbor says that you can fix
> >them by giving them some dandy oxycontin, what, exactly, have you
> >accomplished? Well, you've masked the pain of a Wilm's tumor and killed
> >a child who otherwise may have lived had he been brought to medical
> >attention.
The same could be said for any number of non-prescription solutions. What's
so special about narcotics in this instance?
> >
> >The most complete way to dismantle your argument would be to take it
> >from a societal and utilitarian standpoint - we simple can't afford
> >(literally) to allow self medication. While cutting a few office visits
> >here and there, you will effectively create a frighteningly unhealthy
> >nation - one where pre menopausal women who think they are post
> >menopausal because their neighbor had symptoms just like theirs and of
> >course it must be menopause are freely taking unopposed estrogen for
> >replacement therapy, based on whichever pamphlet they read last week.
> >When they die an early death from cancer because of this, you'll say,
> >well, it was the person's "free will". To a degree, maybe. But to a
> >much further degree, it would be a lack of society's stepping and
> >realizing that to use medications to any useful end requires a great
> >deal of education, which is why we have only those educated in such
> >matters allowed to prescribe medications.
Spoken like a true liberal. You truly believe that the government is
capable of acquiring and dispensing information on matters medical. Should
alcohol and tobacco be available by prescription only? At the same time,
you ignore the effects of prohibition. If a fraction of the money wasted on
the "War Against Drugs" (or do you think they're winning?) was spent on
better education and medical services, what would you see as the
consequences?
> >
>
> Well put, Brandon; Those individuals that advocate removal of
> restrictions on medications simply are not aware of the problems that
> might be caused by such actions. While I might agree that some items
> could safely be dispensed OTC that number is fairly limited.
Please detail these "problems".
arf
fred & michele
doc (CERTAINLY not me). And blaming the doc for that is extrememely unfair.
Did you bother to read anything beyond the first sentence?
Michele
"Brandon Stahl" <bst...@bu.edu> wrote in message
news:3CCC4F4C...@bu.edu...
Lou Minatti®
>
> I have more confidence in the peoples ability to sort out what is wrong. I
> do not want some bozo who went to med school and passed some tests to take
> my health care from me. It is MY life and I want it. You must be a yellow
> dog democrat.
Speaking of yellow, do you still consume a certain beverage?
--
Great green globs of greasy grimy gopher guts.
http://www.watchingyou.com
Brandon Stahl
Happy Dog wrote:
>
> "Gretch" <gle...@edge.net>
> > >If
> > >their child gets an ache or pain, and a neighbor says that you can fix
> > >them by giving them some dandy oxycontin, what, exactly, have you
> > >accomplished? Well, you've masked the pain of a Wilm's tumor and killed
> > >a child who otherwise may have lived had he been brought to medical
> > >attention.
>
> The same could be said for any number of non-prescription solutions. What's
> so special about narcotics in this instance?
Narcotics is just one class of drug I used as an example.
> > >The most complete way to dismantle your argument would be to take it
> > >from a societal and utilitarian standpoint - we simple can't afford
> > >(literally) to allow self medication. While cutting a few office visits
> > >here and there, you will effectively create a frighteningly unhealthy
> > >nation - one where pre menopausal women who think they are post
> > >menopausal because their neighbor had symptoms just like theirs and of
> > >course it must be menopause are freely taking unopposed estrogen for
> > >replacement therapy, based on whichever pamphlet they read last week.
> > >When they die an early death from cancer because of this, you'll say,
> > >well, it was the person's "free will". To a degree, maybe. But to a
> > >much further degree, it would be a lack of society's stepping and
> > >realizing that to use medications to any useful end requires a great
> > >deal of education, which is why we have only those educated in such
> > >matters allowed to prescribe medications.
>
> Spoken like a true liberal.
Obviously a newbie here.
> You truly believe that the government is
> capable of acquiring and dispensing information on matters medical.
The government prescribes medications? I thought it was healthcare
professionals.
> Should
> alcohol and tobacco be available by prescription only?
Alcohol should be, yes. Nicotine has no medical value.
> At the same time,
> you ignore the effects of prohibition.
No, newbie, I do not. I have addressed them, in full, numerous times.
You read selectively and assume too much.
> If a fraction of the money wasted on
> the "War Against Drugs" (or do you think they're winning?) was spent on
> better education and medical services, what would you see as the
> consequences?
relevance?
> > Well put, Brandon; Those individuals that advocate removal of
> > restrictions on medications simply are not aware of the problems that
> > might be caused by such actions. While I might agree that some items
> > could safely be dispensed OTC that number is fairly limited.
>
> Please detail these "problems".
> arf
The fact that you can't think of any of your own accord is one good
reason to not have all medications OTC.
Brandon Stahl
Happy Dog
> > > >accomplished? Well, you've masked the pain of a Wilm's tumor and
killed
> > > >a child who otherwise may have lived had he been brought to medical
> > > >attention.
> >
> > The same could be said for any number of non-prescription solutions.
What's
> > so special about narcotics in this instance?
>
> Narcotics is just one class of drug I used as an example.
Uh huh. For no particular reason?
>
> > > >The most complete way to dismantle your argument would be to take it
> > > >from a societal and utilitarian standpoint - we simple can't afford
> > > >(literally) to allow self medication. While cutting a few office
visits
> > > >here and there, you will effectively create a frighteningly unhealthy
> > > >nation - one where pre menopausal women who think they are post
> > > >menopausal because their neighbor had symptoms just like theirs and
of
> > > >course it must be menopause are freely taking unopposed estrogen for
> > > >replacement therapy, based on whichever pamphlet they read last week.
> > > >When they die an early death from cancer because of this, you'll say,
> > > >well, it was the person's "free will". To a degree, maybe. But to a
> > > >much further degree, it would be a lack of society's stepping and
> > > >realizing that to use medications to any useful end requires a great
> > > >deal of education, which is why we have only those educated in such
> > > >matters allowed to prescribe medications.
> >
> > Spoken like a true liberal.
>
> Obviously a newbie here.
I'm not sure where "here" is, to you. The claim that medicines should be
restricted because "to use medications to any useful end requires a great
deal of education" presupposes that *every* dangerous substance should be
kept from anyone who doesn't have a degree in handling it.
>
> > You truly believe that the government is
> > capable of acquiring and dispensing information on matters medical.
>
> The government prescribes medications? I thought it was healthcare
> professionals.
I said "information".
> > Should
> > alcohol and tobacco be available by prescription only?
>
> Alcohol should be, yes.
So my ability to enjoy a glass of wine should be controlled by doctors under
the authoroty of the government?
> Nicotine has no medical value.
Says you, right? And if a medical professional disagrees, or finds a use,
what then?
>
> > At the same time, you ignore the effects of prohibition.
>
> No, newbie, I do not. I have addressed them, in full, numerous times.
> You read selectively and assume too much.
I'm, likely, posting from another NG. So your ancient wisdom has yet to
reach me. I expect I've seen similar arguments before though.
>
> > If a fraction of the money wasted on
> > the "War Against Drugs" (or do you think they're winning?) was spent on
> > better education and medical services, what would you see as the
> > consequences?
>
> relevance?
It's directly relevant. Huge resources are squandered, otherwise good
people are corrupted. All in a laughably useless attempt to enforce some
rules you favour.
>
> > > Well put, Brandon; Those individuals that advocate removal of
> > > restrictions on medications simply are not aware of the problems that
> > > might be caused by such actions. While I might agree that some items
> > > could safely be dispensed OTC that number is fairly limited.
> >
> > Please detail these "problems".
>
> The fact that you can't think of any of your own accord is one good
> reason to not have all medications OTC.
The fact that you make a few lame attempts at insult instead of a meaningful
response is a good reason to doubt that you're capable of making a case for
your claims.
arf
Rich Andrews
>
>> Should
>> alcohol and tobacco be available by prescription only?
>
> Alcohol should be, yes. Nicotine has no medical value.
You are mistaken about nicotine. I met a doctor that said that he would
prescribe smoking for some of his patients. It has the effect of calming
oneself, providing a social setting for interactions and it relaxes. He
said he couldn't because of the associated health problems.
Alcohol has its place and should be available without a prescription. Man
has been drinking beer since before the pyramids were built. I think man
will continue to drink beer until the himan race ceases to exist. It too
is a relaxant and it effects are pleasurable. Social interaction is almost
always involved when drinking.
Brandon Stahl
Rich Andrews wrote:
>
> Brandon Stahl <bst...@bu.edu> wrote in news:3CCC9391...@bu.edu:
>
> >
> >> Should
> >> alcohol and tobacco be available by prescription only?
> >
> > Alcohol should be, yes. Nicotine has no medical value.
>
> You are mistaken about nicotine. I met a doctor that said that he would
> prescribe smoking for some of his patients. It has the effect of calming
> oneself, providing a social setting for interactions and it relaxes. He
> said he couldn't because of the associated health problems.
nicotine is a stimulant. Unless this patient had a terminal diagnosis,
even the thought is fully unethical. Maybe this doctor you met was
looking to shorten his patient list, because that's all nicotine will do
for you.
> Alcohol has its place and should be available without a prescription. Man
> has been drinking beer since before the pyramids were built. I think man
> will continue to drink beer until the himan race ceases to exist. It too
> is a relaxant and it effects are pleasurable. Social interaction is almost
> always involved when drinking.
Which is not an argument in favor of it. Nor is the "pleasurable
effect" notion. Lots of "medications" can give such feelings. They're
called narcotics.
Rich Andrews
Brandon,
I really do wish you knew what you are talking about. You have never
smoked and I wager have never had an alcoholic beveridge in your life.
dahmd
"z9listener" <z9lis...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f120bb86.02042...@posting.google.com...
Thanks to Ilena I have orange juice all over my keyboard from laughing.
Ilena, do you really think that a roast beef sandwich or a 30 cent pen is
going to change the way I prescribe? Once in a while a drug rep will pay
for a dinner or maybe a professional sports game, but the days of junkets
have been over for many years. In addition, most medical CME talks are
sponsored by a professional CME company, or an academic institution. Drug
reps sometimes set up tables at these conferences to offset the cost of
publishing syllabi or other materials, but few large CME courses are
directly sponsored by a pharmaceutical company. Clearly, pharmaceutical
companies must increase sales by advertising, or they would not do it.
However, at the few pharmaceutical sponsored CME conferences I have attended
the audience members were not forgiving towards any speaker who appeared
biased towards the company's product(s). Science is science. When reps
come to our office one of the first questions we ask is "what makes your
medication better than your competitor's?"
The above is yet another example of doctor bashing found on this newsgroup.
Get a grip, Ilena. The overwhelming majority of doctors started out as high
school kids who set a goal. Some become cynical and greedy, but most like
their patients, want to do the best job possible, and spend a lot of time an
effort to make the right diagnoses and formulate the best treatment plans.
To suggest that the majority of physicians can be influenced to potentially
harm their patients by prescribing medications because they got a free
dinner is insulting and irresponsible.
Ashley
D. Ashley Hill, MD
Rich Andrews
news:%T2z8.123951$nc.17...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com:
The point that I was try to make was two-fold.
1) The duck dinner occured almost 20 years ago.
2) It occured in Canada.
Then I raised the question, "This is applicable to current US medicine is
what way?".
I get vendor lunches from time to time, but that does not sway my decision
one way or the other. I am glad to see that MD's do the same...
amp_spamfree
Brandon - what you mean is that smoking has no medicinal value.
Nicotine replacement is a proved treatment in smoking cessation.
Alcohol only by prescription? Please, don't be silly.
amp
M Tools
health for over 30 years. I do not "catch" colds, flu, infections,etc. My BP
is low, my energy is high. It must be because I'm so ignorant. Tell us,
truthfully now, how many times in the last 30 years, have YOU been sick, or
used any drug or doctor to help you?news:3CCC284D...@bu.edu...
M Tools
publish all of the info after and see who is right. The scoring should be
based on 1- cures, 2- on what the patient has to say about their health
after. This needs to done with real live people, not paper.
"Rich Andrews" <r...@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns91FE821BBB2F8...@209.249.90.101...
M Tools
cannot do so, why do you make such a challenge? Are you all mouth?news:3CCC3829...@bu.edu...
M Tools
"fred & michele" <heal...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:aahgto$h...@dispatch.concentric.net...
M Tools
M Tools
things, and have for some years here. You show up and think that you are
bringing up new and brilliant things, but, no. By the way, Dog, I fear that
we may find some agreement re: you last post about drugs. Tnews:3CCC9391...@bu.edu...
M Tools
use for it. It has been used as a treatment for worms, a bit harsh, but none
the less.
"Brandon Stahl" <bst...@bu.edu> wrote in message
news:3CCCA83F...@bu.edu...
George Conklin
Actually he is a very young student who thinks that unless you
purchased medical care in the USA (only) and at full retail
prices, you will die.
--
# If HMOs ran the post office, 44.3 million Americans would get no mail. #
# Phono FAQ: http://www.pagesz.net/~henryj/phono.htm. #
# Support Medicare for All Ages. Urban Myth FAQ under development. #
# Support Cygnet Horns for Edison Firesides-george conklin, KB4NCI #
Gretch
You honestly feel that most people can self-medicate without creating
problems?
nuff said.
pixie
Gretch
I might suggest that since you advocate removal of all restrictions on
medications, despite the fact that it has been proven time after time
that erroneous usage is dangerous, is a good reason to believe that
you simply lack the cognitive ability to understand the situation.
pixie
Gretch
>Brandon Stahl <bst...@bu.edu> wrote in news:3CCC9391...@bu.edu:
>
>
>>
>>> Should
>>> alcohol and tobacco be available by prescription only?
>>
>> Alcohol should be, yes. Nicotine has no medical value.
>
>You are mistaken about nicotine. I met a doctor that said that he would
>prescribe smoking for some of his patients. It has the effect of calming
>oneself, providing a social setting for interactions and it relaxes. He
>said he couldn't because of the associated health problems.
>
>Alcohol has its place and should be available without a prescription. Man
>has been drinking beer since before the pyramids were built. I think man
>will continue to drink beer until the himan race ceases to exist. It too
>is a relaxant and it effects are pleasurable. Social interaction is almost
>always involved when drinking.
>
>
>r
Alcohol products are available everywhere in the US without a
physicians prescription; and yes, you MIGHT meet a single physician
who would prescribe smoking, there are nitwits in every profession.
However there's a vast difference between having a drink, or a glass
of beer, and taking medications.
pixie
Gretch
That hasn't bothered Ilena in the past, has it?
pixie
Gretch
wrote:
Think about it, amp. "Martini, Sapphire Gin, w/ Olive, 2 oz, before
evening meal". May repeat if desired.
Not too bad a way to end the day.
pixie
M Tools
advocate the use of it. Why do you think that your drug of choice should be
legal? Why do think that another persons self-medicating should not be
legal? Do you think that the public, including you, are not able to discern
what and how much to use? Do you honestly think that if given all the known
info about one treatment or another, people would choose the wrong thing? If
so, you think less of your fellow humans than I. You also think mighty
highly of yourself.
"Gretch" <gle...@edge.net> wrote in message
news:noaqcusbb8gfh3kk2...@4ax.com...
Happy Dog
> >> restrictions on medications simply are not aware of the problems that
> >> might be caused by such actions. While I might agree that some items
> >> could safely be dispensed OTC that number is fairly limited.
> >
> >Please detail these "problems".
> You honestly feel that most people can self-medicate without creating
> problems?
*sigh* This is a set-up for almost every argument in favour of government
control of one thing or another. I expect that your case will champion the
virtues of protecting adults from their own stupidity. *I* can
self-medicate without any more problems than I have now. Many people can.
Can you? The issue is whether the cost of restricting drugs is worth the
problems it creates. If you really believe that prohibition is effective,
then you're not apprehending reality in a useful way. There are some good
arguments in favour of prohibition. But, IMO, there are much better ones
against it. Please debate nicely.
arf
Happy Dog
> I might suggest that since you advocate removal of all restrictions on
> medications, despite the fact that it has been proven time after time
> that erroneous usage is dangerous, is a good reason to believe that
> you simply lack the cognitive ability to understand the situation.
I don't advocate removal of restrictions on all medications. Antibiotics
come to mind. It is also proven time after time that prohibition has a
disproportionate social cost. Care to debate that? Your use of the
fallacious argument "erroneous usage is dangerous" (no shit!) is good reason
that you lack the skills to debate the subject. But your resort to insult
to make your point is, increasingly, touching.
moo
Happy Dog
> However there's a vast difference between having a drink, or a glass
> of beer, and taking medications.
Oh good. Now you've said something really stupid. Explain how drinking
alcohol and taking medications are "vastly" different?
erf
Bubba
news:Zkfz8.2617$sh6.7...@news20.bellglobal.com:
HD,
Can you list the main arguments, as you see them, for and against
restricting access to PRESCRIPTION drugs? (Please correct me if I am
wrong, but I believe that this discussion is NOT about restricting access
to RECREATIONAL drugs.)
Alternatively, do you know of a Website that discusses the pros and cons
of this issue?
I am also somewhat puzzled as to why you think that the pro-restriction
position is a liberal one. As I see it, it is neither liberal nor
conservative, but I can view it as libertarian.
--
Bubba
"When you got nothin', you got nothin' to lose." - Bob Dylan
Bubba
news:Xns91FF6C69845...@207.217.77.24:
> I am also somewhat puzzled as to why you think that the pro-restriction
> position is a liberal one. As I see it, it is neither liberal nor
> conservative, but I can view it as libertarian.
This should have read:
I am also somewhat puzzled as to why you think that the pro-restriction
position is a liberal one. As I see it, it is neither liberal nor
conservative, but I can view it as ANTI-libertarian. In other words, the
position that advocates NO restrictions would, in my opinion, be a
libertarian position.
Rich Andrews
> "Gretch" <gle...@edge.net> wrote in message
HD,
What education do you have that sets you apart from the "unwashed masses"
so to speak? Would you care to test your diagnostic skills?
M Tools
start another one? Can we have an added event? How bout END RESULT
COMPETITIONS? I await you posting of time, place, and any other important
info on this.
"Rich Andrews" <nos...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Xns91FF865284A4B...@209.249.90.101...
M Tools
"M Tools" <medt...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:2agz8.90$9X3....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Steve Harris
> You honestly feel that most people can self-medicate without creating
> problems?
Golly, I don't think people can scuba dive without creating problems-- every
lay person should have an instructor present at all times, lest we have
drownings. Likewise how can be trust anyone to fly their own hang glider,
let alone their own airplanes. And tooth care-- if we trusted people to
brush their own teeth, do you know how many unnecessary caries we'd have?
(Some people would FORGET to brush sometimes, I'll bet. Yes they would).
And let's not even talk about sex. Without a certified expert in
contraception there to make sure things are done correctly, there are some
babies which would be created without ANYBODY INTENDING TO!! Do you have
any idea how much such a thing would COST?
SBH
--
I welcome email from any being clever enough to fix my address. It's open
book. A prize to the first spambot that passes my Turing test.
Rich Andrews
> Yes. How bout you set up a "test"? how bout 100-200 random cases. We can
> publish all of the info after and see who is right. The scoring should be
> based on 1- cures, 2- on what the patient has to say about their health
> after. This needs to done with real live people, not paper.
Part of this test that you propose is subjective. I propose one that is
more on the order of "Here are the symptoms and the labs results. What's
wrong."
Patient satisfaction is not part of the equation for this. You could dope
up the patient to where he feels no pain and is euphoric and he would reply
"I feel wonderful" and then keel over dead in a month. The results of the
test cannot be patient satisfaction. It must be laboratory measurable.
Having someone come to you and saying "I don't feel like myself" and giving
them {pick any vitamin} and asking them later if they feel better is no
test.
Real live people? Are you nuts? Are you willing to bet your knowledge of
disease against someones life? If that is the case, I am not going to
participate in a potential homocide. I have enough problems, thank you
very much. Now if you want to go against real case histories, now that is
something else.
Another point is not to see WHO is right, but to see if YOU are right.
This is not a battle of wits, but to measure yours. You are the one that
said "health is not that complicated" and that you "didn't want some bozo
that passed some tests to take my health care from me". I want you to
prove that you are competent enough to take care of yourself. Do you want
to start to lay down the rules of this test to prove your abilities to
diagnose diseases and medical problems? Maybe you might care to start with
something simpler like medical terminology and anatomy? (Why is this
starting to sound like Jeopardy?) (:>)
Rich "I'll take Pharmacology for 500" Andrews
Rich Andrews
news:noaqcusbb8gfh3kk2...@4ax.com:
Pixie,
I do agree that consumption of alcohol is a good way to end a hectic day.
Add to that a Martini before dinner and a good cigar with a snifter of
brandy or good bourbon ends the perfect meal.
The joys of modern society hasn't changed much the last 200 years or
so....maybe longer.
Rich "That? Oh, that was just a sot in the dark" Andrews
Rich Andrews
news:7daqcu4mhln4qh1vr...@4ax.com:
Pixie,
There is a difference between "would" and "could not". I think you missed
that point.
r
M Tools
of you side of this. Not acceptable.
What's wrong? I think that I might have a differing opinion on that. And
we arrive at the same place we are now.
Patient satisfaction not a part of this? Are you sure you thought this out?
Dope up? I do not use drugs, I think that would be an area that your side
should be watched for though, thanks.
Nice escape you create for yourself there near the end. I take it you are
not a Doctor or someone in a position to do research that has potential to
help people. Do you "DO" medicine, or do you simply post what you believe
based on reading, or being told by your doctor, or some variant of that? I'm
sorry to waste your and my time then.
Next
Happy Dog
> What education do you have that sets you apart from the "unwashed masses"
None relevant to this.
> so to speak? Would you care to test your diagnostic skills?
Why? Isn't that what doctors are for?
erf
Happy Dog
> > *sigh* This is a set-up for almost every argument in favour of
> > government control of one thing or another. I expect that your case
> > will champion the virtues of protecting adults from their own stupidity.
> > *I* can self-medicate without any more problems than I have now. Many
> > people can. Can you? The issue is whether the cost of restricting drugs
> > is worth the problems it creates. If you really believe that
> > prohibition is effective, then you're not apprehending reality in a
> > useful way. There are some good arguments in favour of prohibition.
> > But, IMO, there are much better ones against it. Please debate nicely.
> Can you list the main arguments, as you see them, for and against
> restricting access to PRESCRIPTION drugs? (Please correct me if I am
> wrong, but I believe that this discussion is NOT about restricting access
> to RECREATIONAL drugs.)
First, for restrictive purposes, drugs are catagorized according to the
abuse potential as determined by the government. That is exclusively a
recreational use of drugs. There is little need to have a huge and
expensive mechanism to prevent people from poisoning themselves by holding
parties where, say, powerful chemotherapy drugs are handed out like candy.
Sure, some idiots will try to treat themselves for real or imagined ailments
by taking drugs that don't work or are harmful. But to have a huge
infrastructure to prevent people from hurting themselves through ignorance
or stupidity leads us down the path a the government as mommy. Trying to
make life idiot proof only results in a tougher life for non-idiots. (And
(don't have an attribute for this) the emergence of better idiots.) You
have noted that the same people who restrict prescription drugs enforce the
rules against recreational drugs.
> Alternatively, do you know of a Website that discusses the pros and cons
> of this issue?
I'll have a look.
>
> I am also somewhat puzzled as to why you think that the pro-restriction
> position is a liberal one. As I see it, it is neither liberal nor
> conservative, but I can view it as (anti) libertarian.
Big "L" liberal or small "c" conservative. Both favour giving government as
much control as it can wrest. The main difference is that liberals want
control for everyone. Conservatives just want it for their neighbours. :)
erf
Rich Andrews
>> Using "lab" results would require at least some amount of belief and
>> trust
> of you side of this. Not acceptable.
> What's wrong? I think that I might have a differing opinion on that.
> And we arrive at the same place we are now.
> Patient satisfaction not a part of this? Are you sure you thought this
> out? Dope up? I do not use drugs, I think that would be an area that
> your side should be watched for though, thanks.
> Nice escape you create for yourself there near the end. I take it you
> are not a Doctor or someone in a position to do research that has
> potential to help people. Do you "DO" medicine, or do you simply post
> what you believe based on reading, or being told by your doctor, or
> some variant of that? I'm sorry to waste your and my time then.
> Next
>
>
>
Hey, you made the claims and I called you on it.
Obviously the term "health care" under your definition is one that I have
not heard before.
I hate to say it, but I was predicting that you would not take the
diagnostic challenge. The proof of the diagnosis is that the symptoms
disappear after treatment, which can also be confirmed by lab results. We
could forgo the lab results as an indicator of a "cure" if you wish. The
lab tests and their results were added to aid you in your diagnosis. If
you want to try it without, then that is fine by me.
What I "DO" is irrelavant and outside the scope of this discussion. What
is under scrutiny is what you "DO" and is the topic of this discussion.
Science based medicine is not a bunch of "bozo's" then is it? Are there
some "bozo's" out there? You bet! They exist on both sides of the fence.
If you are denying lab culture reports, blood workups, blood pressure
readings and the like to be unacceptable, then I feel sorry for you. You
really are denying factual evidence that has been time proven.
rich
M Tools
they get better is still to ask them. Might want to ask those folks who are
around them a lot also. But, the question is, are you able to set up a
"test" that is legal? If not, why are we discussing this?news:Xns91FF97C0A2635...@209.249.90.101...
fred & michele
For patients at long term care facilities who are permitted alcohol, a
doctor's order is required if the nurse is the one giving out the
drinky-poos. In such a case, I don't think it's unreasonable. After all,
if the patient then falls on their face, the nurse & the facility is
responsible for allowing the patient to consume a substance which may have
had a big part in that fall & any resulting injuries. If the doc okay'd the
beer, wine, martini then everyone's ass is covered. If not, the same people
who thought grandpa would enjoy a nip or two are often only too stinkin'
happy to shift the blame from the patient & themselves to the person who
poured the booze or even someone who "looked the other way" while they
played bartender & sue the pants off 'em.
I had a patient whose family insisted upon sneaking in liquor, knowing that
the guy became incontinent of feces, combative with staff who were forced to
clean him up, physically abusive to other patients, & who fell several times
(which the family then had the audacity to blame on staff who couldn't
personally babysit the man one-on-one!). The doctor refused to okay any
alcohol (for good reasons, among which was the man's history of
alcoholism!), so we were supposed to swing in the breeze? Naah..... I
finally insisted that his family visitors leave all packages at the desk &
had security search them on the grounds that they were sneaking in
contraband. I didn't enjoy *that* at all, but I'll be damned if some
irresponsible, inconsiderate morons were going to land me in a courtroom or
make me lose my license -- not to mention protecting helpless patients this
guy had slugged & staff members he had also assaulted.
Michele
fred & michele
news:aak3o6$5dk$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
> And let's not even talk about sex. Without a certified expert in
> contraception there to make sure things are done correctly, there are some
> babies which would be created without ANYBODY INTENDING TO!! Do you have
> any idea how much such a thing would COST?
Not the best example of ridiculous supervision, if we were to examine the
costs of welfare, food stamps, etc., etc. -- all connected to folks who have
babies they "didn't intend to"..........
Michele
Rich Andrews
Set up a test that is legal?
Here is what I had in mind.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PATIENT HISTORY:
The patient is a 30 year old female with a long history of end stage renal
disease due to polycystic kidneys. She is currently on her second cadaveric
graft, functioning mostly well with a creatinine stable in the mid 2 mg/dl
for many years (first transplant 1976 and the second 1988) She was
transplanted under cyclosporine immunosuppression. She presented this time
to the hospital with the complaints of swollen and painful left index
finger. On examination the finger showed a large ulcer of the skin
surrounded by severe inflammation. The ulcer was not healing despite
debridement and so it was decided to amputate the finger. Her current
medications include sandimmune, sodium bicorbanate, colchicine, coumudin,
zantac, lasix, hydralazin, Prednisone and atenolol.
GROSS DESCRIPTION:
The patients' left index finger was amputated and was sent to pathology for
evaluation. It consisted of a portion of a finger with a pink, hemorrhagic
distal phalanx and metacarpal bone, 13 x 2.5 x 2.5cm. A 3.5cm irregular
gray to hemorrhagic stitched previously debrided area was seen on the
dorsal skin surface. The underlying bone was gray to hemorrhagic with a
focal chalky white tissue within the cancellous bone. The articular
cartilage of the inter-phalangeal joint was distorted and hemorrhagic. The
metacarpal head was also covered with chalky white tissue. The bone
resection margin was grossly viable.
MICROSCOPIC DESCRIPTION:
Sections submitted form the skin, soft tissue and bone show clusters of
non-caseating granulomata (Figs 1, 2, 3 ) composed of large aggregates of
acellular eosinophilic to amphophilic material surrounded by an intense
inflammatory reaction (Tophi). The cellar infiltrate is composed of
macrophages, lymphocytes and large foreign body giant cells that completely
or partially engulfed masses of crystals. Such tophi are also seen in the
articular cartilage (Figs 4, 5) and in the periarticular soft tissue. In
the medullary cavity they are seen surrounded by the trabecular bone
fragments (Figs 6, 7 ). No organisms were seen with the special stains.
Sections of the skin adjacent to the lesion showed ulceration, acute
inflammation and ischemic changes (Fig 8).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you really spend the time to read this, there is at least one clue to
lead to a proper diagnosis.
It is not fair to go searching the web for this case and posting the
results. Feel free to use Tabor's at:
http://129.250.146.19/cgi/tabersearch.cgi.
Rich Andrews
news:aaka0d$o...@dispatch.concentric.net:
That was an excellent call Michelle. The guy was an full blown, full time
alky and he had his network of enablers willing and active. I would have
recommended that his Dr. have a long talk with the patient. Maybe even
suggest to the Dr. that an anti-depressant like Wellbutrin be prescribed to
ease the patients withdrawl.
r
George Conklin
Except for one thing: far too much postgraduate education of
busy doctors is provided by sales reps and detail men. All that
advertising, both to physicians and the public, does work or it
would not be done. And there are many, many physicians who get
mad if a patient always asks, "Is there a generic equivalent for
that?"
--
# If HMOs ran the post office, 44.3 million Americans would get no mail. #
# Phono FAQ: http://www.pagesz.net/~henryj/phono.htm. #
# Support Medicare for All Ages. Urban Myth FAQ under development. #
# Support Cygnet Horns for Edison Firesides-george conklin, KB4NCI #
George Conklin
Rich Andrews <nos...@charter.net> wrote:
>"M Tools" <medt...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>news:EFdz8.13073$iU4.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
>
>> Yes. How bout you set up a "test"? how bout 100-200 random cases. We can
>> publish all of the info after and see who is right. The scoring should be
>> based on 1- cures, 2- on what the patient has to say about their health
>> after. This needs to done with real live people, not paper.
>
>Part of this test that you propose is subjective. I propose one that is
>more on the order of "Here are the symptoms and the labs results. What's
>wrong."
>
>Patient satisfaction is not part of the equation for this. You could dope
>up the patient to where he feels no pain and is euphoric and he would reply
>"I feel wonderful" and then keel over dead in a month. The results of the
>test cannot be patient satisfaction. It must be laboratory measurable.
>Having someone come to you and saying "I don't feel like myself" and giving
>them {pick any vitamin} and asking them later if they feel better is no
>test.
>
>Real live people? Are you nuts? Are you willing to bet your knowledge of
>disease against someones life? If that is the case, I am not going to
>participate in a potential homocide.
Is this the killing of gay men? -:)
Of course patient satisfaction is a goal. People may very
well not find the side effects of some treatment to be
acceptable, and that is the point Herman keeps making on tpm.
Medical choices are up to the patient ONLY.
Kurt Ullman
<happ...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>I don't advocate removal of restrictions on all medications. Antibiotics
>come to mind. It is also proven time after time that prohibition has a
>disproportionate social cost. Care to debate that?
Depends on what is being prohibited. Usually the only things that have a big
social cost when prohibition is instituted are those things that are fun.
Can't remember the last time I heard about a drive by shooting because someone
was invading another's penicillin turf.
----------------------------------
This mail is a natural product. The slight variations in spelling and
grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to
be considered flaws or defects.
Kurt Ullman
<heal...@concentric.net> wrote:
>For patients at long term care facilities who are permitted alcohol, a
>doctor's order is required if the nurse is the one giving out the
>drinky-poos. In such a case, I don't think it's unreasonable.
At least in a hospital I worked at, the RX was to keep the local excise
cops off their backs and I wouldn't doubt that is the same reasoning here. If
it wasn't RXed by a doc, then the nursing home (at least in some states) would
need a liquor license and the RNs all need to be bartenders.
Brandon Stahl
Rich Andrews wrote:
> Brandon,
> I really do wish you knew what you are talking about. You have never
> smoked and I wager have never had an alcoholic beveridge in your life.
In deciding laws regarding armed felons, should the committee be
constituted by armed felons?
Only pimps are capable of knowing what they're talking about RE
prostitution, right?
Shall I go on?
Brandon Stahl
amp_spamfree wrote:
>
> Brandon Stahl <bst...@bu.edu> wrote in message news:<3CCC9391...@bu.edu>...
> > > Should
> > > alcohol and tobacco be available by prescription only?
> >
> > Alcohol should be, yes. Nicotine has no medical value.
>
> Brandon - what you mean is that smoking has no medicinal value.
> Nicotine replacement is a proved treatment in smoking cessation.
lol... technically, yes, you're correct. Nicotine has value in stopping
the use of nicotine. Good catch :)
> Alcohol only by prescription? Please, don't be silly.
Not saying it'll happen - but ethanol is a drug, just like cocaine,
amphetamines, heroin, etc... all of which are illegal. And for good
reason.
Brandon Stahl
M Tools wrote:
>
> Oh yea, you must be right. That explains why I have enjoyed excellent
> health for over 30 years. I do not "catch" colds, flu, infections,etc. My BP
> is low, my energy is high. It must be because I'm so ignorant. Tell us,
> truthfully now, how many times in the last 30 years, have YOU been sick, or
> used any drug or doctor to help you?
Thankfully I have remarkably good health. That has nothing to do with
my fund or lack of knowledge, however. Just the luck of the draw.
Seeing sick sick sick people every day... I am so very thankful I'm as
healthy as I am. You should be as well and not take it for granted.
I have a 29 year old friend. Healthy as can be. 2 months ago was
intubated for over a week for a pneumonia of unknown origin that nearly
took her life (bacteria with multi drug resistances). Today she is
completely healthy and happy, though the infectious disease folks are
still scratching their heads.
Brandon Stahl
Gretch wrote:
>
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 21:23:32 -0400, "Happy Dog"
> <happ...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >"Brandon Stahl" <bst...@bu.edu>
> >> > > >accomplished? Well, you've masked the pain of a Wilm's tumor and
> >killed
> >> > > >a child who otherwise may have lived had he been brought to medical
> >> > > >attention.
> >> >
> >> > The same could be said for any number of non-prescription solutions.
> >What's
> >> > so special about narcotics in this instance?
> >>
> >> Narcotics is just one class of drug I used as an example.
> >
> >Uh huh. For no particular reason?
> >>
> >> > > >The most complete way to dismantle your argument would be to take it
> >> > > >from a societal and utilitarian standpoint - we simple can't afford
> >> > > >(literally) to allow self medication. While cutting a few office
> >visits
> >> > > >here and there, you will effectively create a frighteningly unhealthy
> >> > > >nation - one where pre menopausal women who think they are post
> >> > > >menopausal because their neighbor had symptoms just like theirs and
> >of
> >> > > >course it must be menopause are freely taking unopposed estrogen for
> >> > > >replacement therapy, based on whichever pamphlet they read last week.
> >> > > >When they die an early death from cancer because of this, you'll say,
> >> > > >well, it was the person's "free will". To a degree, maybe. But to a
> >> > > >much further degree, it would be a lack of society's stepping and
> >> > > >realizing that to use medications to any useful end requires a great
> >> > > >deal of education, which is why we have only those educated in such
> >> > > >matters allowed to prescribe medications.
> >> >
> >> > Spoken like a true liberal.
> >>
> >> Obviously a newbie here.
> >
> >I'm not sure where "here" is, to you. The claim that medicines should be
> >restricted because "to use medications to any useful end requires a great
> >deal of education" presupposes that *every* dangerous substance should be
> >kept from anyone who doesn't have a degree in handling it.
> >>
> >> > You truly believe that the government is
> >> > capable of acquiring and dispensing information on matters medical.
> >>
> >> The government prescribes medications? I thought it was healthcare
> >> professionals.
> >
> >I said "information".
> >
> >> > Should
> >> > alcohol and tobacco be available by prescription only?
> >>
> >> Alcohol should be, yes.
> >
> >So my ability to enjoy a glass of wine should be controlled by doctors under
> >the authoroty of the government?
> >
> >> Nicotine has no medical value.
> >
> >Says you, right? And if a medical professional disagrees, or finds a use,
> >what then?
> >>
> >> > At the same time, you ignore the effects of prohibition.
> >>
> >> No, newbie, I do not. I have addressed them, in full, numerous times.
> >> You read selectively and assume too much.
> >
> >I'm, likely, posting from another NG. So your ancient wisdom has yet to
> >reach me. I expect I've seen similar arguments before though.
> >>
> >> > If a fraction of the money wasted on
> >> > the "War Against Drugs" (or do you think they're winning?) was spent on
> >> > better education and medical services, what would you see as the
> >> > consequences?
> >>
> >> relevance?
> >
> >It's directly relevant. Huge resources are squandered, otherwise good
> >people are corrupted. All in a laughably useless attempt to enforce some
> >rules you favour.
> >>
> >> > > Well put, Brandon; Those individuals that advocate removal of
> >> > > restrictions on medications simply are not aware of the problems that
> >> > > might be caused by such actions. While I might agree that some items
> >> > > could safely be dispensed OTC that number is fairly limited.
> >> >
> >> > Please detail these "problems".
> >>
> >> The fact that you can't think of any of your own accord is one good
> >> reason to not have all medications OTC.
> >
> >The fact that you make a few lame attempts at insult instead of a meaningful
> >response is a good reason to doubt that you're capable of making a case for
> >your claims.
> >arf
> >
> I might suggest that since you advocate removal of all restrictions on
> medications, despite the fact that it has been proven time after time
> that erroneous usage is dangerous, is a good reason to believe that
> you simply lack the cognitive ability to understand the situation.
Which is why I've ceased replying to his posts. Arguing with my cats is
more fun - and challenging.
Brandon Stahl
Ok George, here is your chance to shine. Prove your statement, "there
are many, many physicians who get made if a patient always asks, 'Is
there a generic equivalent for that'". Cite a study or some such hard
data.
Having worked with more doctors than you'll meet in a lifetime, I have
not once seen that occur. Prove me wrong.
Bubba
> Not saying it'll happen - but ethanol is a drug, just like cocaine,
> amphetamines, heroin, etc... all of which are illegal. And for good
> reason.
Amphetamines are NOT illegal. Psychostimulants, including amphetamines,
are used for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, narcolepsy, and for
several off-label applications (e.g., to augment antidepressants in
treatment-resistant depression).
--
Bubba
"When you got nothin', you got nothin' to lose." - Bob Dylan
Steve Harris
>HD,
>
>What education do you have that sets you apart from the "unwashed masses"
>so to speak? Would you care to test your diagnostic skills?
You don't need to be a weatherman to tell when it's raining. It seems a
little silly to require someone to be a fully licenced mechanic to change a
tire or change their own oil. Note that this is not quite the same as
changing somebody ELSE'S tires or oils, as a business.
It's a great myth that medicine is all one piece of knowledge, and that if
you only know some of it, you're dangerous. Alas, nobody (including doctors)
know all of it (meaning even all that is known-- or even a tiny fraction
thereof). Medine is subspecialized, and each doctor only knows a fraction of
what his/her colleagues know. There are lots of pieces of medicine where
it's quite possible to know enough about one little piece to know when you
can do it by yourself and when you need help, and that's it. And laymen can
be trained in many of these.
Example: diabetics are taught to give their own shots, adjust their own
insulin doses, and the like. That's fairly sophisticated, but doctors have
really had no choice. And diabetics no longer need prescriptions for needles
or insulin or any of their paraphernalia. That also wasn't always the case.
But we changed the laws, and it works fine (despite the horrid consequences
if some diabetic gets the dose wrong). Diabetics (at least the bright ones)
generally know themselves and their disease well enough to know when they
need to see the doctor. Well, now hear this: managing diabetis is more
complicated than managing 95% of the stuff that prescription drugs are used
for. There is no reason on God's Earth why every half-way intelligent person
with a *chronic* condition cannot be managing it just like diabetes. For
example, managing their own blood pressure in the same way that diabetics
manage their own glucoses. Ditto for depression. I cannot think of any
reason why somebody with a little training should need a continuing
prescription for their own enalopril or Prozac, any more than for insulin.
The only thing standing against it is *force of historical habit.*
Shocking, huh?
Brandon Stahl
Bubba wrote:
>
> Brandon Stahl <bst...@bu.edu> wrote in news:3CCDC76E...@bu.edu:
>
> > Not saying it'll happen - but ethanol is a drug, just like cocaine,
> > amphetamines, heroin, etc... all of which are illegal. And for good
> > reason.
>
> Amphetamines are NOT illegal. Psychostimulants, including amphetamines,
> are used for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, narcolepsy, and for
> several off-label applications (e.g., to augment antidepressants in
> treatment-resistant depression).
Available by prescription, yes. So are opiates. Illegal in the sense
you can not pick them up at your neighborhood pharmacy. I will be more
specific with my posts so I don't confuse you in the future.
Bubba
Don't be patronizing. I don't know what country you live in, but here in
the United States, I can purchase most psychostimulants (including
amphetamines such as Dexedrine and Adderall) at any of my neighborhood
pharmacies.
Illegal means "forbidden by law or statute." Filling a prescription for
one of the amphetamines is NOT illegal in ANY sense of the word. If you
don't want to "confuse" people who read your posts, perhaps you should
purchase a dictionary and use it!
By the way, you seem to have a "king of the hill" mentality. What
newsgroup are you posting from, anyway?
Rich Andrews
Steve,
That is off topic. We are discussing HD's ability to diagnose illness.
Rich Andrews
The laws are probably written by smoking, drinking politicians, some of
which you probably voted for.
Happy Dog
> Not saying it'll happen - but ethanol is a drug, just like cocaine,
> amphetamines, heroin, etc... all of which are illegal. And for good
> reason.
That "good reason" being? What makes you think that cocaine, for instance,
would be more of a problem if it were legal? And, do you think that a
prohibition against alcohol now would be more effective than it was seventy
years ago? What problems, if any, do you see that occurred during that
prohibition era? How do they differ from the current war on drugs?
erf
Happy Dog
> > I might suggest that since you advocate removal of all restrictions on
> > medications, despite the fact that it has been proven time after time
> > that erroneous usage is dangerous, is a good reason to believe that
> > you simply lack the cognitive ability to understand the situation.
>
> Which is why I've ceased replying to his posts. Arguing with my cats is
> more fun - and challenging.
I see. You've already been proved correct so why bother? That would
explain your failure to address my points. However, I note that I'm not
alone in my views. Perhaps it's easier for you to make irrelevant and
insulting remarks like this than actually debate your case. Nothing new
here.
erf
Happy Dog
> That is off topic. We are discussing HD's ability to diagnose illness.
Who is and why? I haven't made any claims to that effect. Although, I can
diagnose lots of medical problems with good reliability. Hangnail comes to
mind. How does my ability in this regard impact anyone else in a negative
fashion? Everyone should have *some* ability to make some diagnoses. Or do
you advocate the government providing doctors on a one to one basis 24/7?
There are *lots* of dangerous things that I am free to do without proving to
a government authority that I'm capable of responsibly doing them. As long
as I'm not endangering anyone else unreasonably, why should anyone care?
ldg
Bubba
news:uemz8.11325$5e6.9...@news20.bellglobal.com:
I believe this is a red herring. The issue is whether or not there should
be restrictions with respect to an individual's ability to purchase
prescription drugs, NOT whether that individual can accurately diagnose
some condition for which that drug might be indicated.
Rich Andrews
> "Rich Andrews" <nos...@charter.net>
Sorry, I was referring to tools, not HD. Sorry about that HD. My mistake.
rich
Happy Dog
> > "Rich Andrews" <nos...@charter.net>
> >> That is off topic. We are discussing HD's ability to diagnose illness.
> >
> > Who is and why? I haven't made any claims to that effect. Although, I
> > can diagnose lots of medical problems with good reliability. Hangnail
> > comes to mind. How does my ability in this regard impact anyone else in
> > a negative fashion? Everyone should have *some* ability to make some
> > diagnoses. Or do you advocate the government providing doctors on a one
> > to one basis 24/7? There are *lots* of dangerous things that I am free
> > to do without proving to a government authority that I'm capable of
> > responsibly doing them. As long as I'm not endangering anyone else
> > unreasonably, why should anyone care? ldg
>
>
> I believe this is a red herring. The issue is whether or not there should
> be restrictions with respect to an individual's ability to purchase
> prescription drugs, NOT whether that individual can accurately diagnose
> some condition for which that drug might be indicated.
I agree. My response was not a non-sequiter. I was trying to guess what
the objection to my answer might be.
arf
Bubba
>> I believe this is a red herring. The issue is whether or not there
>> should be restrictions with respect to an individual's ability to
>> purchase prescription drugs, NOT whether that individual can accurately
>> diagnose some condition for which that drug might be indicated.
>
> I agree. My response was not a non-sequiter. I was trying to guess
> what the objection to my answer might be.
LOL. I was referring to rich's comments as being the "red herring," NOT
yours.
Anyway, rich has cleared up the confusion with his last post.
fred & michele
"Kurt Ullman" <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:j5jz8.302$Uw4....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> At least in a hospital I worked at, the RX was to keep the local
excise
> cops off their backs and I wouldn't doubt that is the same reasoning here.
If
> it wasn't RXed by a doc, then the nursing home (at least in some states)
would
> need a liquor license and the RNs all need to be bartenders.
Actually, as long as the facility didn't purchase the liquor, just poured
it, it was okay. I've worked in 2 retirement facilities (independent
living, not nursing homes) where this was the case. BYOB, with the
Activities Director serving as bartender. What sucked was that these people
would often get behind the wheel after downing what I thought seemed like
too much sauce, but the nurses who mentioned this to the AD were told "They
are independent living residents, not patients, & as such the facility is
not liable for their actions." I thought it was a shitty way to send out
drunks to kill innocent people. Granted, these same folks could've easily
gotten the booze elsewhere or drank in their apartment units, but I thought
it was rather lame that the facility seemed to encourage overindulgence by
pouring it for them & actually having daily "happy hours".
Michele
Brandon Stahl
Bubba wrote:
>
> Brandon Stahl <bst...@bu.edu> wrote in news:3CCDDE5D...@bu.edu:
>
> > Bubba wrote:
> >>
> >> Brandon Stahl <bst...@bu.edu> wrote in news:3CCDC76E...@bu.edu:
> >>
> >> > Not saying it'll happen - but ethanol is a drug, just like cocaine,
> >> > amphetamines, heroin, etc... all of which are illegal. And for good
> >> > reason.
> >>
> >> Amphetamines are NOT illegal. Psychostimulants, including
> >> amphetamines, are used for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder,
> >> narcolepsy, and for several off-label applications (e.g., to augment
> >> antidepressants in treatment-resistant depression).
> >
> > Available by prescription, yes. So are opiates. Illegal in the sense
> > you can not pick them up at your neighborhood pharmacy. I will be more
> > specific with my posts so I don't confuse you in the future.
>
> Don't be patronizing. I don't know what country you live in, but here in
> the United States, I can purchase most psychostimulants (including
> amphetamines such as Dexedrine and Adderall) at any of my neighborhood
> pharmacies.
>
> Illegal means "forbidden by law or statute." Filling a prescription for
> one of the amphetamines is NOT illegal in ANY sense of the word. If you
> don't want to "confuse" people who read your posts, perhaps you should
> purchase a dictionary and use it!
>
> By the way, you seem to have a "king of the hill" mentality.
Hmm... and that really seems to bother you, doesn't it?
I did not realize that you need to have things spelled out for you in a
5th grade reading level. Usually folks just follow the conversation,
but no.... you need to clarify the exact meaning of "illegal". It is
quite obvious that by "illegal" I was speaking of street drugs (in
contrast to alcohol). Try to follow along next time.
> What
> newsgroup are you posting from, anyway?
to whichever one this goes to when I hit the "reply" button.
Brandon Stahl
Rich Andrews wrote:
>
> Brandon Stahl <bst...@bu.edu> wrote in news:3CCDC707...@bu.edu:
>
> >
> >
> > Rich Andrews wrote:
> >
> >> Brandon,
> >> I really do wish you knew what you are talking about. You have never
> >> smoked and I wager have never had an alcoholic beveridge in your life.
> >
> > In deciding laws regarding armed felons, should the committee be
> > constituted by armed felons?
> >
> > Only pimps are capable of knowing what they're talking about RE
> > prostitution, right?
> >
> > Shall I go on?
> >
>
> The laws are probably written by smoking, drinking politicians, some of
> which you probably voted for.
eek... ok, point taken.
Brandon Stahl
Happy Dog wrote:
>
> "Brandon Stahl" <bst...@bu.edu>
> > Not saying it'll happen - but ethanol is a drug, just like cocaine,
> > amphetamines, heroin, etc... all of which are illegal. And for good
> > reason.
>
> That "good reason" being?
The death and maiming of innocent lives.
> What makes you think that cocaine, for instance,
> would be more of a problem if it were legal? And, do you think that a
> prohibition against alcohol now would be more effective than it was seventy
> years ago? What problems, if any, do you see that occurred during that
> prohibition era? How do they differ from the current war on drugs?
> erf
Old topic, not up for it today. Archives are full of it if you're
really that interested.
Rich Andrews
news:aal111$o...@dispatch.concentric.net:
I am now looking forward to happy hour at the retirement home. Some wine
and cheese before dinner is fantastic! I have got to make sure it is
french wine.
We really do have to have a designated driver for those youngsters. They
are so irresponsible. (:>)
Thanks Michele!
fred & michele
news:Xns91FFE27D463B0...@209.249.90.101...
We actually had one incident where an inebriated resident toddled out to his
car, stumbling the whole way after downing 6 martinis at the "happy hour".
He then dropped his keys & was too soused to find 'em. When the nursing
assistant who saw this little scene out the window came to tell me what was
going on (the resident now crawling around on all fours searching for the
keys that were right under his intoxicated nose!), I went outside under the
guise of helping him look for the keys in the parking lot. I stood *on* the
keys until his attention was diverted by a car honking at him to get him out
of the way, then scooped them up. I then told him "We'll keep looking for
them & I'll be sure to return them ASAP". I escorted (half carried) the man
inside, where he *passed out* on the floor at the nurses' station of the
health care unit & had to be toted back to his apartment by security!
Needless to say, I didn't "find" the keys until much later that night &
asked security to return them to the resident in the morning.
There were other situations where residents were too damn drunk to drive &
we watched them pull out of the parking lot anyway. I have nothing against
drinking if those doing so are responsible or at least don't hurt anyone
else. When they overindulge (which for *some* elderly or debilitated people
may be even worse with less alcohol than someone with a healthy liver, good
eyes, youthful reflexes, etc. can handle) & get behind the wheel of a car
(or assault staff or other residents at the facility) I wonder what innocent
person they'll hurt or kill. Then it's no longer a case of chuckling at a
"loveable lush".........
Michele
Carey Gregory
>Happy Dog wrote:
>>
>> "Brandon Stahl" <bst...@bu.edu>
>> > Not saying it'll happen - but ethanol is a drug, just like cocaine,
>> > amphetamines, heroin, etc... all of which are illegal. And for good
>> > reason.
>>
>> That "good reason" being?
>
>The death and maiming of innocent lives.
Um, where you been the last 40 years? That's already happening, in
huge numbers, quite likely in far higher numbers than if these drugs
were legal. Innocent lives aren't taken by legal drugs. Those lives
are lost to the crime and violence an underground market creates.
Legal drugs harm only those who choose to use them, and those people
are not innocent. They made their choice.
So the question still stands: what's this "good reason" for making
them illegal?
Bubba
It does when someone is as stupid as you are. Arrogance and ignorance are
a poor mix. I also note that you have NOT been able to address any of the
other arguments in *any* of the posts of this thread.
> I did not realize that you need to have things spelled out for you in a
> 5th grade reading level. Usually folks just follow the conversation,
> but no.... you need to clarify the exact meaning of "illegal". It is
> quite obvious that by "illegal" I was speaking of street drugs (in
> contrast to alcohol). Try to follow along next time.
Right! If that's REALLY what you meant, then why did you originally write
"Available by prescription, yes. So are opiates. Illegal in the sense
you can not pick them up at your neighborhood pharmacy."? Now, in this
post, you have changed your definition of "illegal" to "It is quite
obvious that by "illegal" I was speaking of street drugs (in contrast to
alcohol)." I note your backpedaling (at a furious pace)!
Amphetamines are BOTH street drugs AND prescription drugs.
You wrote that amphetamines are "illegal ... And for good reason." There
are legitimate medical indications for the amphetamines and the other
psychostimulants. Therefore, they are NOT "illegal for good reason."
> Try to follow along next time.
Brandon, it's difficult to "follow along" when you keep changing YOUR
definition of "illegal" from post to post!
You just can't admit that you are wrong, can you, Brandon?
>> What
>> newsgroup are you posting from, anyway?
>
> to whichever one this goes to when I hit the "reply" button.
Why the evasive answer? (A quick search using Google reveals that your
"Home" newsgroup is talk.politics.medicine.)
It's obvious that the members of your TPM newsgroup must not be very
informed if you are the "King of the Hill" there.
Brandon Stahl
Your proposal is simple then - make alcohol illegal and you will see
*more* morbidity and mortality to bystanders. I disagree.
The obvious flipside for me is that if you make things heroin legal,
things get worse, not better.
Tougher laws and stricter enforcement would go a long way to resolving
some issues. Not removing the laws.
Brandon Stahl
Typical usenet selective snippings. It was used in the same sentence as
heroin and cocaine. Most reasonable people can connect the dots.
Happy Dog
> < story snipped >
I've owned nightclubs, really big ones, and your story isn't exclusive to
seniors. (Not that you said it was.)
> I have nothing against
> drinking if those doing so are responsible or at least don't hurt anyone
> else.
Almost nobody does. The issue is culpability. Liquor legislation makes it
near impossible for anyone connnected with the sale of alcohol to be free
from blame for the acts of stupid, or smart, but, usually, stupid people who
commit crimes whilst intoxicated. I know that you're talking about old
people. But, and I speak from authority that I can relate with boring
detail, the situation isn't much different for merchants who deal with young
people. Or counsellors, or whatever.
erf
Happy Dog
Bubba said:
> > By the way, you seem to have a "king of the hill" mentality.
>
> Hmm... and that really seems to bother you, doesn't it?
>
> I did not realize that you need to have things spelled out for you in a
> 5th grade reading level. Usually folks just follow the conversation,
> but no.... you need to clarify the exact meaning of "illegal". It is
> quite obvious that by "illegal" I was speaking of street drugs (in
> contrast to alcohol). Try to follow along next time.
Since you are, by your admission, a Usenet iconaclast, an opinion.
The poster was engaging in polite debate with you. Question begging is,
typically, used by posters who are unfamiliar with discussion with educated
(in the art of debate) people. It isn't, at all, obvious that "illegal"
means "street drugs", (Whatever THAT means.) You fucked up by calling
amphetamines and heroin "illegal". So, make it clear: Is oxycodone a
street drug? It's certainly widely abused. So, in what corner of the
"illegal" universe does it belong?
>
> > What newsgroup are you posting from, anyway?
>
> to whichever one this goes to when I hit the "reply" button.
Enlightened.
erf
Happy Dog
> > You wrote that amphetamines are "illegal ... And for good reason."
There
> > are legitimate medical indications for the amphetamines and the other
> > psychostimulants. Therefore, they are NOT "illegal for good reason."
>
> Typical usenet selective snippings. It was used in the same sentence as
> heroin and cocaine. Most reasonable people can connect the dots.
Show me the part that was snipped. I'm trying to follow your reasoning
here. But you're making it difficult.
arf
Happy Dog
> > > Not saying it'll happen - but ethanol is a drug, just like cocaine,
> > > amphetamines, heroin, etc... all of which are illegal. And for good
> > > reason.
> >
> > That "good reason" being?
>
> The death and maiming of innocent lives.
That isn't happening now? Your evidence that it wouldn't decrease, please?
>
> > What makes you think that cocaine, for instance,
> > would be more of a problem if it were legal? And, do you think that a
> > prohibition against alcohol now would be more effective than it was
seventy
> > years ago? What problems, if any, do you see that occurred during that
> > prohibition era? How do they differ from the current war on drugs?
>
> Old topic, not up for it today. Archives are full of it if you're
> really that interested.
You must be posting from some cult NG. I can't think of any other where
such a lame-ass argument would be taken seriously. But, since you've
proffered. does ANYONE from Brandon's home NG think that his position is so
established (and proved) that he doesn't have to defend it?
arf
Happy Dog
> Carey Gregory wrote:
> > So the question still stands: what's this "good reason" for making
> > them illegal?
>
> Your proposal is simple then - make alcohol illegal and you will see
> *more* morbidity and mortality to bystanders. I disagree.
So you have some evidence for us to consider that Prohibition was effective
in reducing death and disease?
> The obvious flipside for me is that if you make things heroin legal,
> things get worse, not better.
You do have evidence for this claim, right? You do know when to restrict
opiates and when to give them liberally, right? OK. Your doctor does (and
can) right? Be specific. Because you're about to make a judgement on how
free people can use creations of man without hurting anyone else.
>
> Tougher laws and stricter enforcement would go a long way to resolving
> some issues. Not removing the laws.
What he said! Now all you have to do is provide a rational argument that
supports this. But you won't
ldg