Michael Phelps suspended three months

[Howell]

Yup, sounds about right to me too.

Do you two consider yourselves to be in the 90% or in the 10%?

 

[Handruin]

For me, the 90% side.

 

[e_dawg]

If you count the legal drugs, yes. And many legal drugs have long-term side-effects as bad or worse than illegal ones. Lipitor was responsible in large part for my father's death. IMO it's the legal drug problem we should go after first. I see far too many people stoned or otherwise out of it these days. It can't be that they're all hooked on pot or meth or crack. Medicine long ago stopped stressing lifestyle changes in favor of drugs to treat common ailments. Easier for the doctor, easier for the patient, but of course the downside is potential addiction plus both short and long term side effects.

[...]

But as I said in my response to LM, I really think decreasing legal drug use should take precedence. Basically we need to end prescription drugs for any condition which is amenable to treatment with lifestyle changes only. And we need to stop inventing "imaginary" illnesses like "social anxiety disorder" just so we can sell a magic pill.

These are some pretty strong opinions on prescription drugs and Western medicine. I have an open mind and would love to see that your opinions are well-reasoned and well-informed. Would you be willing to share the basis for your opinions?

I know you know your stuff when it comes to all things electrical, lighting, biking, meters, taxis, transit systems, etc... but without further explanation to expand on what I've read from your above posts, I'm not sure said expertise extends to pharmacology and medicine.

(The reason I called you out on this, so to speak, is because medicine is something near and dear to my heart. I have seen it save and help many lives -- including my own and my loved ones. My father is a doctor and I have seen him personally save a couple lives in action and he has told me of countless others that he has literally saved with his own two hands. Forgetting about the dramatic examples, he has also helped countless others with medications where lifestyle changes either had failed or were inadequate for optimal health. There are countless other ways in which I have seen the benefit of medicines, but you get the point...)

What say you, my good man?

 

[LunarMist]

Exactly. Lifestyle changes can have an effect (often not as beneficial as medications), but are useless for acute conditions. All drugs produce AE's. Some are more severe and have higher prevalence than others. It is up to the patient to make the choice (informed consent) with physician advice in most cases. Life is not without risks.

BTW, I don't think Merc would say that "social anxiety disorder" is an "imaginary" illness. If you recall it was not so long ago that drugs and alcohol addiction were not recognized as disease.

 

[jtr1962]

I know you know your stuff when it comes to all things electrical, lighting, biking, meters, taxis, transit systems, etc... but without further explanation to expand on what I've read from your above posts, I'm not sure said expertise extends to pharmacology and medicine.

I'm obviously not an expert in those areas but I've done lots of research on the subject before reaching my conclusions. I've also seen the side effects of medication on my parents. My father never questioned what the doctors told him to take. I really wish he would have. He might well be alive today if he did. My mom does question everything, has me research the side effects, and then makes informed decisions. So far the only medications the doctors have recommended for her was one for blood pressure and another for very mild osteoporosis. The blood pressure medication caused enough problems that she doesn't take it regularly, and it doesn't seem to make much difference in her BP when she does. She has yet to find something for osteoporosis where the benefits outweigh the problems. She tried Fosamax briefly with horrible side effects. Recently her doctor prescribed Evista instead. After reading the side effects on that, she said forget it. IMO weight bearing exercise would help as much as pills, and would have other benefits. Besides that, it's not like her bones are so brittle that a fall would cause problems. It's a very mild case of osteoporosis, something which may well not be anything to be concerned with.

A continuing source of frustration for her (and me) is that doctors are no longer trained in holistic medicine. I'll grant that there are some conditions for which drugs are the only relief, but the problem is today's doctors prescribe them as a matter of course when other routes may work better, and without side effects. Remember that the pharmaceutical industry is huge. They send salepeople to hospitals which is something I think should be illegal. So should prescription drug commercials as there is zero reason laypeople not in a position to determine which drugs are suitable should "ask their doctor". I've read that the unstated goal of the pharceutical industry is to get as many people as possible hooked on some drug from an early age. This starts the downward spiral where you need yet more drugs to counteract the side effects of the initial drugs, and so on. As a result, we invent conditions where if somebody is outside some norm, even if the variation doesn't cause extensive problems, we magically have some drug to treat it.

I mentioned social anxiety disorder as an example. There have always been outgoing people and shy people. Funny how no drug exists for very outgoing people because society doesn't consider that bad, yet we think those who are not overly gregarious by nature or preference have a disease which should be treated. And what about ritalin for kids whom by most accounts are simply normal children instead of the miniature adults their teachers and parents want them to be? Funny how we're now determining that the sugary diets these kids eat can affect their behavoir, and can cause the relatively few real cases of extreme hyperactivity.

Besides the overuse of prescription drugs for conditions better treated by other means, another danger is the use of these drugs to mask poor lifestyle choices. The Lipitor did this for my father. Had he not been taking it, his cholesterol would have been much worse due to his diet. His doctor would have had to tell him to basically eat better or die. And before you say but the Lipitor probably saved him from himself, the answer is it didn't. It may have kept his cholesterol down, but his poor diet still did its damage. And the Lipitor and other drugs eventually screw up your liver and kidneys. This isn't even getting into the side effects (he had virtually all of them). In the end, this drug cost him his life, not saved it. His mother, who was similar obese and with a equally poor if not worse diet, never went to doctors or took any drugs. She made it to 87. Granted, she died of weight/diet related causes also, but it took her 16 years longer than my father. Both would probably have lived into their 90s or past 100 had they developed proper eating and exercise habits.

I'm not arguing that medicines don't have their place. They do, and they're great for treating conditions which the body can't handle like maybe a very bad infection, or some other temporary condition where the medication is stopped once the condition is cured. Or perhaps for treating a chronic condition where the body is unable to make some important chemical due to disease or accident. And that's how it should be. I've always thought of pills as something most people take temporarily until whatever you're taking them for goes away. I'm always suspicious when a doctor tries to get an otherwise healthy person to take a pill continuously because a reading might be slightly outside the norm. Take my mom for instance. Her BP might vary between 130/80 and 160/100. It's not ridiculously high, and in fact I heard 140/80 is normal for someone 70 years old. The problem is doctors think it's better if she has the BP of a normal 20 year old (110/70 or thereabouts) even though there's little proof that lowering her BP to that will extend her life. In fact, age is not taken into consideration for many of the norms doctors give pills to correct. In my mom's case, I've been telling her that drinking more water and walking more should fix the problem. In fact, I think it was not walking as much the last few years due to foot problems which she's trying to get fixed which caused the high BP in the first place. That and just getting excitable about small things. A combination of exercise, diet, and perhaps some stress management would work far better and with no side effects compared to a pill. But no, it seems doctors prefer pills in all cases because it's easier for them. Even in my case, I'm sure a doctor might start prescribing pills but for the opposite reason. My BP is usually about 90/60 when I cycle regularly, along with a resting pulse in the high 40s. All normal for me, but all outside human norms. So is my body temp for that matter which is usually around 97°F. I'm sure they would give me a pill for that too.

In the end, medicine has gone from something where a doctor knew their patient, and based their treatment on that, to one where statistics are all important. Fall outside of some statistic by too much, and all of a sudden you need some pill. And lifestyle change has become a dirty word. In short, I have no problems with a relatively few chronically ill needing pills continously when all alternatives fail. I do have a problem when a large percentage of the population is popping pills every day for one thing or another. This large of a percentage of the population isn't chronically ill like their pill usage might indicate. Simple lifestyle changes would serve most well. Just look at how many problems are related to obesity or sedentary lifestyles, for example.

 

[jtr1962]

Some articles (and there's plenty more if google "overuse of prescription drugs"):

Dangers of overuse of prescription medication

Prescription Drug Use in America: The Startling Numbers And Their Implications

Too Much Medication

Prescription Drug Marketing Promotes Overuse

 

[ddrueding]

Do you two consider yourselves to be in the 90% or in the 10%?

uhhh...what was the question?

 

[The Giver]

Try reading this thread stoned - it's a hoot!

 

[udaman]

Try reading this thread stoned - it's a hoot!

I wonder how many athletes will test positive for MJ when the next winter Olympics arrive in the heart of the Canadian MJ trade, beautiful 'supernatural' British Columbia? I thought in the Nagano games, that Canadian snowboarder who tested positive for MJ and was stripped of a Gold medal, should have been given a double Gold! By all accounts MJ is a performance degrading drug, you're at a disadvantage to the other athletes who weren't stoned . Guy said he was at a party in BC, month before the Olympics, and just got lots of 2nd hand smoke , that's why he tested positive for that banned substance .

On another note, headlines in the papers...can't stop thinking of hemorrhoids when I read the lead print "A-riod". Phelps seems like an Eagle Scout in comparison to some other as Handy would put it, "responsibility of status" pro athletes who do cheat with performance enhancing drugs, not just get caught at some friggin party.

A-riod is making 20x+ the amount of money just on his yearly salary, nevermind endorsement contracts; in comparison to Phelps...what a role model, eh? A cheater and bald-faced liar! What a disgrace, and yet a baseball 'professional'. Should he be stripped of his endorsement contracts now, every last dime? Suspended from major league baseball?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090209/ap_on_sp_ba_ne/bba_rodriguez_steroids

AP – In this May 22, 2003 file photo at left, Texas Ranges Alex Rodriguez rounds the bases after hitting a …

• Slideshow: Alex Rodriguez
• Play Video Video: A-Rod reportedly tested positive for steroids AP

NEW YORK – Alex Rodriguez admitted Monday that he used performance-enhancing drugs from 2001-03, saying he did so because of the pressures of being baseball's highest-paid player.
"When I arrived in Texas in 2001, I felt an enormous amount of pressure. I felt like I had all the weight of the world on top of me and I needed to perform, and perform at a high level every day," the New York Yankees star said in an interview with ESPN that was broadcast Monday shortly after it was recorded.


Rodriguez, who for years has denied using steroids, was given a $252 million, 10-year contract by the Texas Rangers in December 2000.
His admission came two days after Sports Illustrated reported he tested positive for steroids in 2003, one of 104 players who tested positive during baseball's survey testing, which wasn't subject to discipline and was supposed to remain anonymous.


"Back then it was a different culture. It was very loose. I was young. I was stupid," he said. "I was naive, and I wanted to prove to everyone that, you know, I was worth, you know — and being one of the greatest players of all time."


Rodriguez hit 52, 57 and 47 homers in his three seasons with the Rangers, winning the first of three AL MVP awards during his final season with Texas. Because the Rangers were uncompetitive, he pushed for a trade to the Yankees in February 2004. Although he's won two more MVP awards in pinstripes, he's been a postseason failure and has never been to the World Series.


"It was such a loosey-goosey era. I'm guilty for a lot of things. I'm guilty for being negligent, naive, not asking all the right questions," Rodriguez said. "And to be quite honest, I don't know exactly what substance I was guilty of using."


SI.com reported he tested positive for Primobolan and testosterone.
"And I did take a banned substance and, you know, for that I'm very sorry and deeply regretful. And although it was the culture back then and Major League Baseball overall was very — I just feel that — You know, I'm just sorry. I'm sorry for that time. I'm sorry to fans. I'm sorry for my fans in Texas. It wasn't until then that I ever thought about substance of any kind, and since then I've proved to myself and to everyone that I don't need any of that."


Rodriguez directly contradicted a December 2007 interview with CBS's "60 Minutes," when he said, "No" when asked whether he's ever used steroids, human growth hormone or any other performance-enhancing substance.
"I've never felt overmatched on the baseball field," he said then. "I felt that if I did my, my work as I've done since I was, you know, a rookie back in Seattle, I didn't have a problem competing at any level."

That interview came after he opted out of his $252 million contract and agreed to a $275 million, 10-year contract with the Yankees.

 

[The Giver]

Good points all Udaman. They should publish the names of the other 103 who tested positive along with A-Roid. Until they do there will be doubt regarding all the players. All this roid biz is making baseball look silly for keeping Pete Rose out of the Hall of Fame. At he least he never cheated. As for those who have cheated, their stats should be stricken from the official records.

 

[Santilli]

Facts are steroids have been legal for a real long time, and, now, they change their minds... It's been industry standard for a LONG time, football in the 70-80's in particular. I'm getting to be a bit of a libertarian on all this stuff.
Marijuana legal? Should be, as should pretty much everything else. Checks and balance are it's going to REALLY cut into the gangs income, a major problem in our country.

Obama has admitted to using cocaine, so legalize that.

Everybody should watch Carlos Mencia for awhile, get a grip on the power of true freedom, and, how all these laws making stuff illegal impacts our freedoms in other areas...

 

[Handruin]

Facts are steroids have been legal for a real long time, and, now, they change their minds... It's been industry standard for a LONG time, football in the 70-80's in particular. I'm getting to be a bit of a libertarian on all this stuff.
Marijuana legal? Should be, as should pretty much everything else. Checks and balance are it's going to REALLY cut into the gangs income, a major problem in our country.

Obama has admitted to using cocaine, so legalize that.

Everybody should watch Carlos Mencia for awhile, get a grip on the power of true freedom, and, how all these laws making stuff illegal impacts our freedoms in other areas...

Why do you believe weed should be legal? Obama admitted to making a mistake with using cocaine, why should we legalize that? Why have any laws, they inhibit my freedom in all areas.

 

[LunarMist]

Argue away that the laws should be changed in the future, but the point is that Phelps was using the drug illegally at that time. Considering that he was using the bonging device in the apparent setting, I doubt it was a first-time offense.

 

[Santilli]

Why do I think drugs in general should be legal? I believe that the harm done to liberty and freedom, in the name of 'protecting' us from such evils outweighs the damage done by the drugs. In other words, if all drugs were legal, you would undermine and destroy most of the gangs we are now plagued with. Also, you would force Columbia, etc, to take their evil powder and sell it some place they could make a lot of money doing, other then here.

I feel the same way about prostitution. Last time I checked, Nevada and Northern Europe haven't self-destructed.

Some of us would rather have freedom then government 'protection'.

I guess those who don't live in the PRK should move here, for awhile.
Find out what it's like when a state legislature micromanages your life.

For example, I'm not trusted by the state with water over 120 degrees in my tap faucet. They actually put heat limiters in the faucets, at huge cost, that keep the water temperature under 120.

I'm told what kind of gas cap I have to have on my car. I have to spend 1200 dollars to get my car 'smog legal', since my 21 year old Toyota, with a 1.5 liter engine, is a 'threat' to the air quality of Kali, while other folks have been driving and polluting with limos, etc. that eat 6 times the gas my car does.

Lately, we've watched a high school girl suspended for having WOOD and duck tape rifles in her car.

Another teacher was suspended for a picture of her shooting a rifle...

Mike Phelps is a major national hero. His accomplishments are unprecedented.

 

[Santilli]

Oh, I forgot. We also are not capable of taking a shower. We can't allocate our own shower water amount. Therefore, the Kali legislature is in your shower, as well as your bathtub. They have a limiter, that limits the amount of water per minute that you can use for your shower.

 

[e_dawg]

Wow, jtr. I hate to say this, but from your reply, I don't think you have a very good understanding of human physiology or medicine. Clearly, this is an emotional issue for you (and for good reason), but I feel that science is being thrown out the window here.

I don't know the specifics of your father's case, but in reality, in many cases, what you eat matters relatively little to your serum cholesterol level. If your father had familial hyperlipidemia, statins and fibrates are the only options. Sorry, but whether you want to believe it or not, eating healthier does nothing in this case.

As for SAD and ADD, these are real psychiatric conditions, diagnosed according to well-defined criteria in the DSM-IV. There is much clinical research available to support the existence of said diseases. Countless fMRI and PET scans and characterization of monoaminergic receptors and release/reuptake systems show that people with SAD and ADD have functionally different biochemistry.

As LM said before, every drug has side effects. It's the way the body works. There is no such thing as a magic bullet that magically targets the problem without inducing other effects in the body. If you know human physiology, you would understand why this is the case. The patient-doctor team must evaluate the treatment options available and determine what side effects they are willing to live with in exchange for the treatment benefits they receive.

But then again, maybe you've never come across any of this stuff before in your research, because it isn't freely available on the internet via a Google search. This is the kind of stuff you need over a decade to learn in school. If you know the science first, you will be able to make an informed decision. But until then, it's a lot of opinion and conjecture based on biased "research" on the internet.

 

[jtr1962]

I don't know the specifics of your father's case, but in reality, in many cases, what you eat matters relatively little to your serum cholesterol level. If your father had familial hyperlipidemia, statins and fibrates are the only options. Sorry, but whether you want to believe it or not, eating healthier does nothing in this case.

The problem with my father was eating both the wrong foods, and more importantly eating too much food (he was close to 300 pounds in the end). There is no familial hyperlipidemia. He was fat, plain and simple. In fact, from what I've read most of the cases of high cholesterol are from being overweight, a condition which is better corrected by diet and exercise than drugs. Why the doctors didn't try this course first is beyond me. I'm not debating that drugs are effective and even necessary in certain cases, and it's great they exist for that. What I'm annoyed about is prescribing drugs before trying other methods. Drugs should be a treatment of last resort, when all else fails.

As for SAD and ADD, these are real psychiatric conditions, diagnosed according to well-defined criteria in the DSM-IV. There is much clinical research available to support the existence of said diseases. Countless fMRI and PET scans and characterization of monoaminergic receptors and release/reuptake systems show that people with SAD and ADD have functionally different biochemistry.

Real cases of ADD are indeed a different biochemistry. The problem here is doctors have gotten so used to treating symptoms rather than causes that they never thought to check what these kids were eating. It turns out most cases of ADD are misdiagnosed. They are corrected by avoided diets laden with sugar. The few that don't respond to this treatment might need drugs. As for SAD, that's usually corrected with light therapy which makes the body manufacture the missing chemicals.

Another thing to add here is that certain conditions which may be medically characterized as diseases or disorders don't necessarily impact functionality to the point that treatment is necessary, especially if there exist side effects to that treatment. But we're so obsessed with trying to get everyone to match some "norm" that the option of doing nothing rarely enters the picture. Take "social anxiety disorder" for example. In most cases "shyness", as it used to be called, does not merit treatment. Most people who tend to be shy need a lot more time for introspection than their peers. Yes, need it. Without it they don't function well. They feel stifled if constantly interrupted by peers craving "socialization". Hence, their shyness is simply a biological adaptation to give them more time alone. It's NOT a fucking disease or disorder which needs to be treated. It's part and parcel of who they are. And I more than once gave any teachers who thought my shyness to be a problem a good piece of my mind. I wasn't shy at all about letting them know how wrong they were. Maybe as Western culture matures we'll learn to embrace our differences rather than trying to think everyone should be the same.

As LM said before, every drug has side effects. It's the way the body works. There is no such thing as a magic bullet that magically targets the problem without inducing other effects in the body. If you know human physiology, you would understand why this is the case. The patient-doctor team must evaluate the treatment options available and determine what side effects they are willing to live with in exchange for the treatment benefits they receive.

In theory you're correct. In practice it doesn't work that way. From what I've seen with my parents, doctors are so overloaded with patients they just don't have the time to get to know them. End result is they "treat" them the quickest way, which is usually by writing prescriptions. Note the use of parentheses around the word "treat". In some cases the drug is indeed the best or only real option, but more often than not other treatment options aren't even explored. To give you a good example, suppose your car started leaking oil and gave you a low oil warning. How would you treat it? Would you try to find the source of the leak and fix it (i.e. fix the root cause of the problem)? Or would you just keep periodically adding enough oil to make the warning light go out (fix the symptom but not the root cause)? You might be forced to do the latter if you were in a hurry, or maybe lacked the funds to fix things properly. But of course the best course of action is the former. Well, today's hurried doctors tend more often to just try to cure the symptoms without getting at the root cause.

A few years ago for a while I had a lot of trouble walking. I wrote about it on CPF. Here's a cut and paste of that post:

I'm bumping this thread because I've had some recent success in alleviating what was most likely the main cause of the problem, with CTS being the major symptom. A chain of events starting in late February which I'll outline shortly brought me to this point. The "cure", while so far not 100%, is nevertheless a huge improvement.

Anyway, one day in late February I was alternating between doing some experiments in my workroom in the basement and using my computer. I probably went up and down the stairs a good 100 times that day, if not more. The day afterwards my feet hurt like crazy. No big deal I figured-just a few days rest and they'll be fine. Well, they felt somewhat better after a few days, but they still hurt when I walked while running my daily errands. The pain persisted, sometimes getting better, sometimes getting so bad I was walking like I was 100 years old. It never got completely better, and I suspected that maybe I had a fallen arch or some other foot problem. I eventually tried arch supports with a little success. New shoes combined with the arch supports helped yet more. One day in March I managed to walk about 10 miles at 13 minutes a mile for the first few miles, and 14 or so minutes a mile for the balance. The pace was a little slow for me, and my feet hurt quite a bit when I was done (not unusual for walks this long even prior to the foot problems), but it was a huge step up from where I was a few weeks earlier. Cured I thought.

Turned out I was wrong. In April the pain started coming back. I noticed my some of my toes were slightly swollen, more so on the left foot which gave me more problems than the other one. I forced myself to walk a few miles a day, but it wasn't pleasant or easy. Even during times when I didn't walk at all for a few days the pain persisted. At around this time I also started having gradually worsening problems with my hands, the right in particular. By late June my right index finger was swollen quite a bit, and I couldn't move most of the fingers on my right hand more than a few degrees. Cycling made both the foot and hand problems worse. I felt like an complete invalid at this point, and was thinking of ways to end my life if I couldn't do anything about this pain and lack of mobility.

Around this time I read something in a medical periodical (Health Alert) which mentioned that CTS is basically a symptom of inflammation of the median nerve, and the carpal tunnel release operation, while providing relief, doesn't eliminate the root cause of the condition, namely the inflammation. It was also mentioned that the pain sometimes recurs even with the operation. Anyway, I put two and two together, and realized that my foot problems and my CTS were manifestations of the same thing-generalized inflammation. The cure mentioned couldn't be simpler-vitamin B12!

Don't get me wrong. I was skeptical of course. Nevertheless vitamin B12 certainly couldn't hurt me, at least taking it for a short duration. I tried 500 mcg once daily. After a few days the swelling in my right index finger went away. A few days after that most of the pain was gone. I also noticed that the pain in my feet was gradually declining. Unfortunately, I didn't have a chance to test my joints since I came down with a flu-like illness which kept me bedridden for a good week shortly thereafter. After I finally felt better, I went for my walks with little pain. The swelling in my feet seems to be gone. I'm back to walking sub-12 minute miles. While my hands still have some problems (I still can't make a closed fist with my right hand without moderate pain), they are better than they've been in a long time. I was actually able to dig along the foundation for about 5 hours straight this Friday (step one to correcting a flooding basement) without undue hand pain, although my back was sore from lifting and dumping 75 pound pails of dirt. Needless to say, I don't contemplate going the surgical route. Truth is I was cool to the idea all along, but kept it in mind only as a last resort.

What brought on my apparent B12 deficiency? Probably the same diet of processed crap which causes most of the health problems in this country. I'm making a greater effort to eat better, basically avoiding things in a package as much as possible. I recommend to anyone else who has any health problem except a trauma of some sort to try to find and correct dietary deficiencies before resorting to surgery and especially before resorting to prescription drugs. Although I pretty much thought so beforehand, this medical periodical merely confirmed my worst suspicions about prescription drugs with many examples. There is no such thing as a drug without side effects, and they all eventually cause more problems than they cure. For example, I suspect Lipitor was largely responsible for my father's declining health, and his eventual death. A friend of mine experienced severe side effects from this drug, but was smart enough to put two and two together, and stop taking it.

If it turns out that vitamin B12 isn't the miracle cure it seems to be I'll keep everyone posted but so far, so good. And no side effects that I'm aware of, either, although I do plan to gradually decrease my dosage since the present dosage is 8333% of the RDA.

Bottom line is that had I gone to a doctor for this, they likely would have simply prescribed a pain killer. Based on my mom's experience with pain killers, I would have gotten little or no relief and lots of side effects (my mom gets rectal bleeding from a lot of pain killers for example).

But then again, maybe you've never come across any of this stuff before in your research, because it isn't freely available on the internet via a Google search. This is the kind of stuff you need over a decade to learn in school. If you know the science first, you will be able to make an informed decision. But until then, it's a lot of opinion and conjecture based on biased "research" on the internet.

Well, maybe the state of medicine is better in Canada than in the US. I don't know. I don't live there. At least Canada doesn't allow direct to patient drug advertising like we do in the US. That's a good thing. Here in the US we've mostly ended up treating symptoms rather than root causes. And that's if medicine is accessible to you at all (it isn't for me personally). If you can't afford insurance or can't pay out of pocket and make too much to qualify for Medicaid it isn't. IMHO, medicine won't improve here until we get rid of the influence of big pharma, and also start training doctors to treat causes rather than symptoms. To quote from one of the links I gave earlier: "Eastern medicine on the other hand deals primarily with disease prevention. In historic China a doctor was considered incompetent if one of his patients fell ill. We as Americans need to begin to take a more active prevention stance when it comes to our health."

 

[Fushigi]

Why do I think drugs in general should be legal? I believe that the harm done to liberty and freedom, in the name of 'protecting' us from such evils outweighs the damage done by the drugs. In other words, if all drugs were legal, you would undermine and destroy most of the gangs we are now plagued with. Also, you would force Columbia, etc, to take their evil powder and sell it some place they could make a lot of money doing, other then here.

If you could keep the use restricted to private spaces I would in general agree that 'recreational' drugs should be legal. However, we all know that just doesn't happen. People show up to work while still under the influence. They drive vehicles while under the influence. They make life altering decisions while under the influence.

My college roommate was killed by someone under the influence of a legal drug - alcohol. This person was sufficiently under the influence that they crossed a median at highway speeds and hit my friend's car, killing him instantly. Luckily his wife of just six months wasn't in the car with him. Unluckily, his death obviously devastated her and as he was the only son, ended his family lineage.

You fix that problem and I'll agree that drug use should be legal. Good luck with that.

 

[Handruin]

One more aspect to consider Fushigi is that if those hard/illegal drugs are to become legal in the conditions you specified, it still doesn't cover the health care issues associated with causing increased damage to their body. Sure, they can do what they want since it's their body, but everyone else shouldn't have to pay for it. A nice way to discourage it is if caught with illegal drugs in your system, you're no longer eligible for any type of health care...ever.

 

[jtr1962]

A nice way to discourage it is if caught with illegal drugs in your system, you're no longer eligible for any type of health care...ever.

I couldn't agree more. Also, to add to what Fushigi said, I agree that illegal drugs present a huge problem if they're made legal and people drive or operate machinery under their influence. However, we already have this problem with legal prescription drugs, many of which similarly impair judgement. To me it's always seemed a little hypocritical to harp on a problem which affects perhaps 1% of the population (i.e. illegal substances like marijuana, cocaine, heroine, opium, etc.) while ignoring the double digit numbers who are similarly incapacitated on legal drugs. It's a double standard if you ask me. Yet we do nothing about it due to the lobbying of big pharma. Illegal drugs kill perhaps 10,000 to 20,000 annually while legal drugs kill 10 times that amount. And these statistics don't include motor vehicle deaths caused by people under the influence of legal drugs. Which is the bigger problem?

 

[Santilli]

Freedom isn't cheap. It comes with a cost, and, sometimes that is a human life. I think that having the drugs be legal would solve a LOT of problems. Don't want to pay for health care for folks using drugs? Put a tax on the stuff that pays for the health care.

Want to stop drunk drivers? We could put a breathalyzer on all cars, forcing you to blow into it everytime you start your car. They already have that in Kali for people on probation, etc.

I also think that it would decrease the 'cool' factor of illegal drugs. Kids somehow think that doing drugs is being rebellious, etc. Take that away, and make the people aware of what they are doing, and it should reduce the market for such stuff.

 

[DrunkenBastard]

The problem that I see is this:

Kids are told that weed is bad, evil, causes reefer madness etc. They end up trying it anyway, given it is far easier to access than say alcohol. Turns out they didn't go insane with the madness. So now they have learned that the information given about weed was wrong.

The next step in this logic is that hey, what if the info they gave regarding other drugs was a pack of crap as well? Let me just try a little coke or meth. Oops, I'm hooked

That's why weed is a gateway drug.

 

[Fushigi]

Want to stop drunk drivers?

Actually, what I want is for people to make sensible decisions about their health & safety and the health & safety of those around them. For them to take responsibility for their lives & actions and to not try and run away or take the easy way out. Yeah, I know, good luck on that. But that is what I would like to see. Drug and alcohol abuse are just symptoms of the larger issues of ditching responsibility and not accepting (and/or working to change) one's status in society.


BTW, there is a side of me that says make the drugs legal and cheap. Heck, give away the needles if you want. A few hundred thousand overdoses later and the gene pool is a little better off. But the use/abuse never actually goes away and society is left footing the bill in terms of costs (medical, lost productivity, and lives both 'innocent' and 'guilty').

The simple reality is that behaving like pharmaceutical anarchists does both the person and society no real good.

The problem that I see is this: ..

Good point. We really need to be honest with children. Don't disguise the reality of drugs. Or sex, the tooth fairy, or Santa Claus FTM. An open and honest discussion will show the adult to be a trustworthy person. If you have a trusting relationship, the chances of an anti-drug (or anti-teen pregnancy etc.) message sticking is far greater. The trust relationship needs to start early and be consistent in it's honesty.

 

[Handruin]

Want to stop drunk drivers? We could put a breathalyzer on all cars, forcing you to blow into it everytime you start your car. They already have that in Kali for people on probation, etc.

Rather than severely inconvenience those who are responsible with a ridiculous breathalyzer in all cars (which also adds costs to those who don't drink and are responsible), why don't we make the law such if you're caught DUI/DWI you are no longer allowed to operate a motor vehicle ever again?

 

[Santilli]

Rather than severely inconvenience those who are responsible with a ridiculous breathalyzer in all cars (which also adds costs to those who don't drink and are responsible), why don't we make the law such if you're caught DUI/DWI you are no longer allowed to operate a motor vehicle ever again?

If you want a cost benefit analyisis: balance the cost of the 1000 dollar breathalyzer, a cost that would go down considerably if they needed to be mass produced, against the cost in life, and property from drunk drivers.

That said, I'm not after a perfectly safe society. The cost for that in freedom is way to high.

So, what do we do if you get a DUI? You mean no longer LEGALLY drive a car. We already have plenty of illegal drivers, let's add to it. Then they would be uninsured, etc. What do we do, put them in prison if we catch them? Our governator is already opening the doors of our prisons, since it's too costly for the state to keep so many folks in jail. Likewise, our mental health system was gutted, letting a number of dangerous folk out, that should not be on the streets.

There are no easy answers...

AS DBastard pointed out, legal drugs would come with a consultation with a pharmicist, not a drug dealer that's trying to get you hooked on stuff that he can make a lot of money on.

I know a couple chapters in my life would be WAY different if that had been the case.

"Actually, what I want is for people to make sensible decisions about their health & safety and the health & safety of those around them. For them to take responsibility for their lives & actions and to not try and run away or take the easy way out"...

Our society is becoming a cast system, in the United States.
With the influx of illegals from Mexico, and Asia, we are building the lower class, and, with insane business practices making a smaller middle class.
Do bank execs deserve 28-30 million dollars a year for destroying companies, then to be bailed out by the government? Same with our car companies. Heck, how in the world can anyone pay a school superintendent 450 thousand a year? That's a school board, contracting with someone, and, they seem to forget their purpose is to serve their constituents, read students and parents.

By the way, I have taken morphine once, while I was in a hospital, orally. It took me from severe pain, to nirvana in about 4 minutes. I SWORE that I would never inject, or take it again. It was real clear how addictive it was, and, my hospital mate was hooked on the stuff. Bad back. Sometimes legal experimentation is an effective deterent.
I really can't imagine the rush you get from injecting morphine, and, I don't want to.