Drugs

[Kestra15]

We have a hard enough time dealing with those who have hurt themselves or others on the readily-available legal drugs as it is - our saving grace is that since the illegal drugs are not so widely/commercially available, we don't have to deal with it as much as we do for alcohol misuse or smoking-related issues. If drugs were legalised *and* commercialised, the healthcare system would become even further strained dealing with issues it shouldn't have to.

 

Sorry, but having seen what happens when alcohol is on tap at the bar on a nightly basis, and then working in ICU dealing with dying people from alcohol abuse, I cannot in any way support the legalisation and commercialisation of any other recreational drugs that can be further abused. It is already bad enough when the ED is full of drunks sleeping off their stupidity while those who genuinely need help are left on stretchers in the ambulance bay suffering. I'd rather ICU and NCCU didn't then get full of more drug-abuse victims who, frankly, deserve everything coming their way for getting into that state.

 

People don't "accidentally" become users for illegal substances. I have all the sympathy in the world for people who end up being addicted to medications, because a large proportion of the time it really is an accident. Those who have been on prescribed medications for genuine conditions for so long their body ends up with a dependency to that drug are indeed blameless victims. But you don't "accidentally" end up being addicted to marijuana or Ectasy - you chose to smoke/eat/inject your way into a dependency, don't expect much sympathy off me.

Edited January 21, 2012 by Kestra15

[amerylis]

The thing is there really is no "safe" drug legal or otherwise and I definitely think abolishing the illegal drugs act would be a really bad idea.

 

For example weed is really strongly linked to schizophrenia and mental health difficulties, people claim that it is a safe drug with no side effects but studies have shown that recreational Cannabis use can lead to lung cancers etc even if the person never smoked tobacco and only smoked weed for a year or so at the weekend.

 

The class A and B drugs should stay precisely as they are for example diamorphine (heroin) kills patients legally using it in palliative care and in serious pain conditions, to allow free access to this to everyone could easily result in higher death rates. Especially as it is only absorbed by injection that brings a whole new set of risks with it.

 

As an aside Philpot it isn't possible to be addicted to ibuprofen

 

 

[canobiecrazy]

studies have shown that recreational Cannabis use can lead to lung cancers etc even if the person never smoked tobacco and only smoked weed for a year or so at the weekend.

Source? Nearly every study I have seen has said the exact opposite of this: Cannabis is NOT linked with cancer, and the evidence for lung damaged caused by cannabis seems to be fading away by the day.

 

As for all of the "drugs kill/cause disease" thing, why not let people decide what to put into their own bodies? Why should the government decide for people? Isn't it your choice to decide whether or not you will put a certain chemical into your body?

 

I hate how government seems to be the moral police. You should be able to decide what to put into yourself by yourself, and then face the consequences, by your self. Not by some law.

[Kestra15]

Source? Nearly every study I have seen has said the exact opposite of this: Cannabis is NOT linked with cancer, and the evidence for lung damaged caused by cannabis seems to be fading away by the day.

 

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/infofacts/marijuana

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_cannabis

 

While five years ago it was believed there is no link, more recent studies show there are higher incidents of lung cancer:

 

http://www.medpagetoday.com/Psychiatry/Addictions/8096

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/...90615095940.htm

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16054989 - Very specifically: An eightfold increase in risk among marijuana users was observed in a lung cancer study in Tunisia

 

Oh, and since Amerylis is a pharmacist who has just finished her degree at a well-respected university - the best university for pharmacy in the country, and consistently so - and has a particular interest in oncology I'd say she's probably knows a thing or two. Aside from that her partner is a nurse, and both of them work in night-clubs as medics.

 

As for all of the "drugs kill/cause disease" thing, why not let people decide what to put into their own bodies? Why should the government decide for people? Isn't it your choice to decide whether or not you will put a certain chemical into your body?

 

I hate how government seems to be the moral police. You should be able to decide what to put into yourself by yourself, and then face the consequences, by your self. Not by some law.

So your mistakes should then put myself, Amerylis and everyone else in the hospital out on a limb to look after you?

 

The plain fact is this; it is very rare that someone takes an illicit substance and it causes no inconvenience to another person. So yes, if you can take E/ganga/heroin and no-one else suffers then go ahead and do it. But most don't. And the end result is I clean up your crap - literally - five times a shift, and you die after four weeks of it.

 

So that's why the Government get involved. You've just wasted four weeks of hospital time - and given an ICU bed costs well over £1,200 a day, that's how much you've wasted. Imagine all that time - 56 shifts, which will be some 70 nurses, 20 doctors, 5 cleaners, 2 pharmacists, 4 porters, 6 radiologists, 3 physios...

 

I would rather spend those four weeks looking after the poor guy who suffered a cardiac arrest, or the cancer patient, or the AAA, or liver transplant patient - the people who deserve care, who are the victim of bad luck - then look after you for your stupidity and selfishness.

Edited January 22, 2012 by Kestra15

[Alpha1]

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/infofacts/marijuana

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_cannabis

 

While five years ago it was believed there is no link, more recent studies show there are higher incidents of lung cancer:

 

http://www.medpagetoday.com/Psychiatry/Addictions/8096

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/...90615095940.htm

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16054989 - Very specifically: An eightfold increase in risk among marijuana users was observed in a lung cancer study in Tunisia

 

Oh, and Amerylis is a pharmacist who has just finished her degree at a well-respected university - the best university for pharmacy in the country, and consistently so - and has a particular interest in oncology I'd say she's probably knows a thing or two. Aside from of course that her partner is a nurse, and both of them work in night-clubs as medics.

 

It's their choice not to use a vaporizer.

 

http://yourlife.usatoday.com/health/story/...says/52483604/1

 

1/10/2012

 

"CHICAGO – Smoking a joint once a week or a bit more apparently doesn't harm the lungs, suggests a 20-year study that bolsters evidence that marijuana doesn't do the kind of damage tobacco does."

 

This was one of the largest and longest studies done.

 

From past policies, there is an indication that legalizing marijuana would have minimal affect on usage, and it's not necessarily better if lower (i.e. see the Prohibition). There is virtually no resources to be found that say the Prohibition was a success.

 

http://www.albany.edu/~wm731882/future1_final.html

 

 

So your mistakes should then put myself, Amerylis and everyone else in the hospital out on a limb to look after you?

 

The plain fact is this; it is very rare that someone takes an illicit substance and it causes no inconvenience to another person. So yes, if you can take E/ganga/heroin and no-one else suffers then go ahead and do it. But most don't. And the end result is I clean up your crap - literally - five times a shift, and you die after four weeks of it.[snip]

 

Disregarding that it'll have a minimal impact on usage, one argument made is that people who develop lung cancer will die sooner. Do you want them to live longer, so you'll clean up even more carp?

 

Your anecdotal example leaves out a lot of the issues.

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...oryId=129379700

 

"Almost 10 percent of young African American men are behind bars."

 

"That means a lot, and that is happening far more frequently. For instance, in New York state - no, New York City, in 2008, 40,000 young, mostly young men, they were 90 percent of them men people were arrested for marijuana possession.

 

[i believe what he meant was that 90 percent were black or Latinos.]

 

So that person doesn't necessarily stay incarcerated, but they are now deemed a criminal, and that has a - you know, far-reaching implications for that person and their future."

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archiv...rijuana/239852/

 

"A major report released Thursday by the Global Commission on Drug Policy affirms what we've long known: the war on drugs is an abject failure, it empowers criminal organizations that undermine democracy, and it makes drug users and non-drug users alike worse off than they'd otherwise be.

 

"The conclusions are notable mostly because of the people who produced them: former presidents of Brazil, Mexico and Colombia, former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, the prime minister of Greece, and former high ranking federal officials George P. Schultz and Paul Volcker. "

 

[Nine]

However, I'd like to see ALL of them legalised and for sale ONLY in carefully supervised government outlets (like the liquor stores in Ontario !) - with a whacking tax on them. And with safe injection sites right there; needles for injectables would come with the drug !

As attractive as taking advantage of someone's physical and psychological addiction to make money is, drug abuse would not end there. Person wants to smoke meth 4, 8 times a day, don't expect them to go pay a price double of that they could get off their neighborhood supplier. So they get the "carefully monitored" amount given by the drug clinic and are refused more (for health/money reasons), they'll just go buy illegally once more to abuse. And what about after they get home from their daily 'monitored' heroin injection? Would the drug clinic be held liable when the guy beats his wife and child to death? They supplied the drugs to him which provided the necessary push to do those crimes, how could they not be held liable? What if a guy finally went into cardiac arrest from drug use, would the clinic pay his bills, reassure the family, pay for the funeral?

 

No, *bartenders and cigarette clerks are not fined for administering that 'final push'. But as I've said before, hypocrisy regarding alcohol compared to drugs does not benefit anyone. There's stupid decisions made about alcohol, so let's make stupid decisions about drugs too?

*some exceptions

 

Sorry, but feeding dangerous addictions is NOT the way to make the "war on drugs" better. We need people to be clean, not given more easy opportunities to abuse, use, and start.

 

The idea of individual states making decisions on drugs is interesting, and probably a lot less radical than unscrupulous legalizing. I'd still be pessimistic about the results, especially because I don't trust people to make the best of a situation given to them (regarding drugs at least).

 

So your mistakes should then put myself, Amerylis and everyone else in the hospital out on a limb to look after you?

I completely agree. Like I mentioned before, people make stupid decisions and impact the lives of people they shouldn't. I'm not going to let some guy drink alcohol and beat up his dog and set fire to cats because it's his moral decision and gives him an adrenaline rush. I'm not going to let a guy abuse dangerous, mind altering drugs and beat up his family and destroy property because it's his moral decision and gave him a high. Drugs can affect your mind, they turn off your rationalization, sympathy, self-control-- they turn you into a person you're not. They can take away the fear of repercussions, of self-harm, of reality. They can let you become your own little sociopath for an amount of time. They can make you steal, lie, manipulate, do anything and everything as long as you get your next high, shut up the agony of your body screaming for more. Never underestimate the danger of drugs. (not speaking to anyone specifically here, don't worry)

 

I want to see drug abuse, addiction, and crimes be eradicated and alleviated as much as possible-- I don't want to encourage it/tolerate it through controlled chaos. Complete eradication of abuse will never happen, but I'll take whatever improvements I can get if it means less people have to experience the horrors first hand.

 

Edit: Just to restate an example, I'm for things like more support for detox clinics, more opportunity for rehabilitation for jailed addicts (ones that have the possibility to change), more restriction on overly diagnosed problems and meds (ADD, Bipolar), more advertised warnings on both prescription and non-prescription drugs, more research into addiction, drug effects, less addictive substitutes... stuff like that.

Edited January 22, 2012 by Nine

[Princess Artemis]

As an aside Philpot it isn't possible to be addicted to ibuprofen

Ibuprofen has been around long enough that this can probably be stated with confidence. Twelve years ago or so, however, the medical establishment was equally confident, at least, they certainly sounded it, regarding the possibility of becoming dependent on SSRIs. Swore up and down it didn't happen, so there was very little information about what did happen to people dependent on them.

 

They know better now, after it's too late.

 

Lesson learned: Don't believe everything a doctor / pharmacist / nurse says about how safe a medication is. They probably know what they are talking about, but the time they don't is the time I pay for it for the rest of my life. It's a good lesson for everyone to take to heart, though hopefully they don't learn it the hard way.

[Kestra15]

Lesson learned: Don't believe everything a doctor / pharmacist / nurse says about how safe a medication is.  They probably know what they are talking about, but the time they don't is the time I pay for it for the rest of my life.  It's a good lesson for everyone to take to heart, though hopefully they don't learn it the hard way.

So if the pharmacist can't be trusted, what's the alternative?

 

And just to clarify, as Amerylis often forgets that technical and lay expressions mean different things:

 

In medical terms an addiction has two components to it; physical, and psychological. Ibuprofen doesn't create a physical dependency but it can create a psychological one and thus not fit the technical category of 'addiction.' You do, however, get rebound which if coupled with a psychological dependency doesn't help matters, or can classify it as a behavioral addiction

Edited January 22, 2012 by Kestra15

[DarkLadyNyara]

I dunno... a good portion of store robberies are for cigarettes and beer, if you can believe it. =P

Well, yes. But that's consumers, not distributors. It's not remotely the same as, say, liquor store owners gunning down the competition.

 

I don't think comparing Marijuana to alcohol is the best way to make a point for legalization, however. Alcohol abuse is really awful, a cornerstone for many domestic abuse cases, child endangerment, assault, all that. Comparing something you want legalized to something of that nature doesn't support anything other than the fact that alcohol is stupidly dangerous too.

 

Of course, I'm not referring to responsible drinkers, alcohol in cooking, those who enjoy wine, etc. Just as I support those who use drugs responsibly, such as those for medication.

 

That's the thing, though- despite how horrible alcoholism can be, most people who do use alcohol do so responsibly. Those who don't generally have other massive issues. Sure, alcohol doesn't help, exactly, but that still doesn't mean it's at fault.

 

My main reason for making the alcohol comparison, though, is because I think it's a really good examination of what the lesser of two evils here is. Booze isn't legal because society decided it was safe and wonderful. It's legal because Prohibition was an unmitigated disaster. With all of the problems that alcohol can cause or exacerbate, attempting to ban it created far worse ones- without solving the problems that prohibition was supposed to fix.

 

I'm getting a bit off the main topic here-- I guess a point I'm trying to make is that drug addiction is really, really serious. I'm so happy that strides have been made in drug research, such as identifying what parts of the brain are affected, how it affects the synapses, but there's still mountains of things we don't really know, like why some people are more prone to addiction than others, nature v.s nurture. The severity and difficulty in the topic of addiction is what gives me reason to pause and disagree with widespread legalization (med to hard stuff). I think we need to know a lot more about what they do, prevention, vulnerabilities, and ways to help relieve addiction before we open the gates to something we're not sure about.

 

Criminalization does nothing for addicts. It's not like most people can get treatment in prison. Yes- addiction is a major issue to be addressed, but the criminal justice system is quite possibly the worst possible way to do that.

 

Also, ways to shut down the stupid doctors who over prescribe and provide meds against better judgement and more advertised warnings.

 

Yet another case where many of the current solutions are even worse than the problems. Overly strict limits on pain meds? Makes life miserable, and sometimes outright intolerable for chronic pain patients. Literally intolerable- people have killed themselves because the drug hysteria meant that they couldn't get effective treatment for pain. (Or they've resorted to illegal drugs- with all the problems that come with that.)

 

My basic stance is "if the current way of dealing with things hurts more people than it helps, then we need to stop doing it."

[Princess Artemis]

So if the pharmacist can't be trusted, what's the alternative?

 

And just to clarify, as Amerylis often forgets that technical and lay expressions mean different things:

 

In medical terms an addiction has two components to it; physical, and psychological. Ibuprofen doesn't create a physical dependency but it can create a psychological one and thus not fit the technical category of 'addiction.' You do, however, get rebound which if coupled with a psychological dependency doesn't help matters, or can classify it as a behavioral addiction

I didn't say distrust. More like, trust, but verify, and realize that there isn't really anyone who knows everything about any given medication. Know oneself, know the risks, know they are real, weigh them, make sure the doctors etc., one has will listen, etc., etc.. A lot of people trust medical personnel blindly without doing their own homework, without establishing that the person is someone more than the certificate on their wall, and worse, they trust medical personnel over the reactions of their own bodies. No one knows a body better than the one inhabiting it, and if it is reacting as if badly to a medication, chances are the reaction is real no matter how loudly anyone else says it's not possible.

 

I did learn that in medicine addiction was a term of art, so that what I would call an addiction was not technically one. I now call my own experience dependence, as I understand that is the correct technical term for it.

[Nine]

Well, yes. But that's consumers, not distributors. It's not remotely the same as, say, liquor store owners gunning down the competition.

Was mostly meant as a joke.. =p

Alcohol isn't legal because it was deemed safe and wonderful, you're right. And that's a positive? You're comparing negative attributes to negative attributes again. Because there are responsible drinkers out there, that somehow makes the DUI accidents and domestic violence cases okay? They're a huge problem, it doesn't really matter how many are responsible drinkers when there are so many killed, murdered, injured, and affected by it.

There are responsible drug users, but I don't focus on them. I focus on the huge problems abusers create, and how that would most likely rise as a result of legalization of hard drugs. Using reverse logic-- If alcohol were illegal, I am sure there would be a noticeable drop in related accidents. That isn't an option, however, and most likely never will be.

 

I don't pick between two evils, I try to find a progressive solution.

 

Maybe I'm just close enough to feel the impact of drug abusers as is, and am not particularly looking forward to an increase of potential risk. Maybe I don't feel widespread legalization is fair to law enforcement, medical staff, families, and others who have to deal with mopping up the mess. Maybe I believe there is a better solution than just giving in because "wellp, we did it for alcohol." Giving in to an addiction that is not necessary or productive-- you don't have to do E to enjoy a productive life.

Criminalization does nothing for addicts. It's not like most people can get treatment in prison. Yes- addiction is a major issue to be addressed, but the criminal justice system is quite possibly the worst possible way to do that.

I'm not sure what exactly you're responding to, honestly. I'm not advocating that drug addicts be thrown into prison, in fact, I've been suggesting the opposite. With exceptions, I feel that psych/physical addiction should be given the option of rehabilitation, save the space for people who do crimes without the backing of drugs. I truly feel that doing nothing is the worst possible way to address drug abuse.

Yet another case where many of the current solutions are even worse than the problems. Overly strict limits on pain meds? Makes life miserable, and sometimes outright intolerable for chronic pain patients. Literally intolerable- people have killed themselves because the drug hysteria meant that they couldn't get effective treatment for pain. (Or they've resorted to illegal drugs- with all the problems that come with that.)

 

My basic stance is "if the current way of dealing with things hurts more people than it helps, then we need to stop doing it."

Nowhere did I suggest 'overly strict limits' on medication. As I said in the sentence, I support more/better methods of stopping doctors who over-prescribe, more labeled warnings, more non-addictive options. I don't see how that is in any way a bad solution.

[Maiden]

Oh, yay: drugs!

 

I love drugs, I'm a junkie: for caffeine, nicotine, and Ibuprofen. ;D

 

That was a joke, and admittedly not very funny, because there's really nothing funny about substance abuse. It destroys people, families, and lives. I know both alcoholics and narcotics addicts. I wish I could tell you guys a little about my personal experiences but the rules clarification has made me aware that it's strictly a no-no, so I'll do my best to speak in the third person and leave myself out of it.

 

On Legal Drugs:

 

Things like nicotine and alcohol are legal for one reason and one reason only. Both things can be made by an individual. Tobacco can be grown outdoors in a lot of the U.S., and indoors everywhere. Gin was popular during prohibition because it's easy to make at home. You can home brew beer, you can roll your own cigarettes. The government made a smart move recognizing that things like this are impossible to eliminate because people can sustain their habits inside their own homes if need be. Prohibition has been brought up a number of times, so obviously we all know that sometimes making things illegal doesn't work. Any kind of smoke probably isn't good for you: cigarette smoke, tobacco smoke, wood smoke, your body really isn't meant to breathe that stuff. With cigarette smoke, you get the added benefit of chemicals put in during processing.

 

A cigarette, however, only impairs your ability to drive a vehicle in the sense that it is a distraction. Alcohol effects your motor skills and your rational thought processes, and some of your actual physiology. In my humble opinion, alcohol's effects and consequences make it one of the top five most dangerous drugs - right up there with Crystal Meth and PCP. As I said previously, the government has realized that they won't stop people from making and drinking alcohol. (Someone mentioned prison - they make alcohol in there, too!) So their best option was to strictly regulate it and hope that people would be smart about its consumption.

 

Also, over the counter pharmaceuticals are not without their own risks. Tylenol, taken for long periods of time, can damage your liver. But it can also reduce a fever. Ibuprofen can damage your stomach lining. It can also reduce swelling in your knee. For OTC's like this, the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks.

 

On Semi-Legal Drugs

 

Mainly, I'm referring here to opiate narcotics. Pain medicines that you can only get from a doctor. My Dad's best friend is a doctor and a very cool guy. The thing a lot of us forget about doctors is that they're people too. They're not infallible. It's fine to double check them, to get a second opinion. Most of the time they're going to be knowledgeable and helpful - that's their job. They are also sworn to first do no harm, so if there's a rash of cases where patients who aren't in pain come in wanting narcotics to get high on, they want to protect those patients by not prescribing drugs to be abused. Its not the doctors' fault they have to be careful, but many of them are way too careful. I hate the term pill-seeker, but that's what it's called. The thing of it is, everyone goes to a doctor wanting pills. For allergies, asthma, incontinence, tremors, bumps, and yes... for pain. This is where having a doctor you see regularly becomes important. If your doctor knows you and your medical history, they're going to realize that it really hurts and you need help. If you go to a walk-in clinic or an ER where they've never seen you before and won't again, they're going to be more cautious.

 

On Illegal Drugs

 

There's only one illegal drug that shouldn't be illegal. You knew which one it was as soon as I said that, didn't you? Yeah, I think marijuana should be legal. It also fits into the category of things that can be maintained in a home. It's a plant, see. You plant a seed. Care for it right, and the end result is marijuana. Law enforcement is fighting a losing battle against it, and if it were legalized American farmers would stand to make huge profits. Law enforcement could concentrate on drugs that really should be illegal, like cocaine, heroin, etc. The state and federal governments could also regulate and tax it the same way they regulate alcohol.

 

I'm not saying that we should legalize marijuana just because alcohol is legal and because it is a plant that grows in the ground. I believe that if a thorough and complete analysis of the drug and the economic ramifications were to be done, it would be found that the benefits of legal marijuana simply outweigh the drawbacks. It would free up a lot of our legal system, get non-violent offenders out of jail, allow law enforcement to concentrate on more dangerous drugs, and I don't think it would have a lot of negative impact in society. We'd probably see a small increase in intoxicated driving arrests, but I'd be willing to bet it would slack off after a few years and would still be far behind alcohol as a cause of car accidents.

 

The pros outweighing the cons. LOL.

 

The same can not be said for the other illicit drugs. Cocaine, crack, crystal meth, PCP, ecstasy, LSD, and whatever other awful thing the kids are doing these days. These drugs are all based on highly processed chemicals. Some, like cocaine, are derived from a plant, but it isn't possible for someone to grow and make this stuff at home. There are chemicals required for processing, etc. The same is found twice over with crystal meth - maybe you haven't heard that crystal meth labs can explode, but it's all over the news here. People who try making the substance blow themselves up.

 

More than being physically dangerous to make, these drugs change your mind and body in extreme ways. Ecstasy literally destroys your brain, and the damage can takes years to heal. Ever heard of Meth Mouth? It's a pretty graphic dental condition suffered by crystal meth users. Their teeth rot out. I can not stress enough that by and large, drugs are bad. There's no high worth your freedom, your family, and your self-respect. I'm sounding like a bit of a drug counselor here, I'm sorry, but people should inform themselves. Drugs can and will ruin your life.

 

I think that the best way to bolster the war on drugs is to talk with kids. If parents can stand to sit down and answer their kids' questions honestly, kids can feel good about not wanting those things in their bodies. A lot of the things anti-drug campaigns say are not true or are greatly exaggerated. There's no need to try to make drugs scary. The real, gritty truth should be enough to frighten anyone.

 

Now, let me get down off this podium. Sorry for text walling.

[DarkLadyNyara]

Was mostly meant as a joke.. =p

Alcohol isn't legal because it was deemed safe and wonderful, you're right. And that's a positive?

No, but it is a point. You don't need to believe that drugs are wonderful in order to support removing the drug laws. You just need to think the drug laws are worse.

 

Because there are responsible drinkers out there, that somehow makes the DUI accidents and domestic violence cases okay? They're a huge problem, it doesn't really matter how many are responsible drinkers when there are so many killed, murdered, injured, and affected by it.

 

I...never said that was okay. I'm saying "deal specifically with the core problems rather than blame alcohol/drugs or anything else." The fact that most people who drink manage to do so responsibly indicates to me that drinking isn't the main problem. And unless you figure out what is the main problem, nothing will change. Violent people will still be violent (and I'm not even going to touch blaming alcohol for domestic violence. Just...no.) Selfish people will still be selfish. People with screwed up lives will continue to have screwed up lives. Treat the disease, not the symptoms.

 

There are responsible drug users, but I don't focus on them. I focus on the huge problems abusers create, and how that would most likely rise as a result of legalization of hard drugs. Using reverse logic-- If alcohol were illegal, I am sure there would be a noticeable drop in related accidents. That isn't an option, however, and most likely never will be.

 

I don't pick between two evils, I try to find a progressive solution.

 

Maybe I'm just close enough to feel the impact of drug abusers as is, and am not particularly looking forward to an increase of potential risk. Maybe I don't feel widespread legalization is fair to law enforcement, medical staff, families, and others who have to deal with mopping up the mess. Maybe I believe there is a better solution than just giving in because "wellp, we did it for alcohol." Giving in to an addiction that is not necessary or productive-- you don't have to do E to enjoy a productive life.

 

When alcohol was banned, more people suffered. Banning alcohol doesn't make alcoholism go away. (Saudi Arabia, for instance, has some major problems with that.) It didn't make violence go away. It did create a huge market for organized crime, though. Prohibition led to more crime and more violence. It also led to people consuming stronger alcohol, since that was easier to smuggle. It led to thousands of people being poisoned by denatured alcohol.

 

Ending prohibition wasn't giving in. It was "Holy , we created a monster, without fixing the problems we were trying to fix." I don't support continuing harmful programs in the name of not giving in. And Prohibition was harmful. The Drug War is harmful.

 

I'm not sure what exactly you're responding to, honestly. I'm not advocating that drug addicts be thrown into prison, in fact, I've been suggesting the opposite. With exceptions, I feel that psych/physical addiction should be given the option of rehabilitation, save the space for people who do crimes without the backing of drugs. I truly feel that doing nothing is the worst possible way to address drug abuse.

 

If you're arguing in favor of the current drug laws, that's what it amounts to.

 

I agree with rehabilitation. I agree with providing treatment for addicts. I think that's a great idea. I just don't support drug use, in and of itself, being something you go to prison for.

 

Nowhere did I suggest 'overly strict limits' on medication. As I said in the sentence, I support more/better methods of stopping doctors who over-prescribe, more labeled warnings, more non-addictive options. I don't see how that is in any way a bad solution.

 

In this case, I was more using you bringing up the subject as a jumping-off point. The current "solutions" to a lot of problems are really bad- sometimes worse than the original problems. And that seems especially true around the subject of drugs and addiction. People start demanding a solution, without fully looking at the consequences.

 

[Fuzzbucket]

A cigarette, however, only impairs your ability to drive a vehicle in the sense that it is a distraction.

Actually - and just for the record - my brother in law no longer smokes while driving (and in many countries that - and eating while driving and drinking - as in bottles of WATER - while driving are illegal. As they should be...)

 

He was driving on a freeway in France, nice clear road, good weather, easy traffic, puff puff - when a truck cut right in front of him. He's an excellent driver and did all the necessary - and dropped his cigarette into his lap. He said afterwards - that was the greatest distraction he had ever felt while driving; the pain was excruciating and his trousers were so badly burned that they had to be junked.

 

It's not only what happens in the brain that can affect your driving !

 

One thing to chew on - when things get legalised, we don't always know everything we need to know. I am reliable informed that neither ASA nor potatoes (arsenic levels) would have made it past the FDA if they were discovered today.

 

And alcohol is well up there with them. Much more dangerous than many illegal substances.

[Kestra15]

Criminalization does nothing for addicts. It's not like most people can get treatment in prison. Yes- addiction is a major issue to be addressed, but the criminal justice system is quite possibly the worst possible way to do that.

Maybe not in the US, but in the UK a lot of time and money is spent on dealing with these addictions - a prison pharmacist will spend a lot of their time administering weaning doses. Amerylis can happily tell you much more about that though.

 

I didn't say distrust. More like, trust, but verify, and realize that there isn't really anyone who knows everything about any given medication. Know oneself, know the risks, know they are real, weigh them, make sure the doctors etc., one has will listen, etc., etc.. A lot of people trust medical personnel blindly without doing their own homework, without establishing that the person is someone more than the certificate on their wall, and worse, they trust medical personnel over the reactions of their own bodies. No one knows a body better than the one inhabiting it, and if it is reacting as if badly to a medication, chances are the reaction is real no matter how loudly anyone else says it's not possible.

That's actually the last thing you should do. Yes, discuss medication with your doctor and pharmacist, and if anything strange happens when you're on the medication you should stop and go see the doctor/pharmacist straight away - but don't start researching the drug yourself. That's when you get people come in who have ODed on the drug because they thought it was safe to take double the dose daily, or are in critical care because they stopped taking the drugs as some website or quack doctor or inaccurate story from a friend of a friend of a friend made them think it was dangerous and they stopped taking it.

 

Sorry, but I have very little time for people who think they know better than the doctor (who has spent five years in university, two years as Foundation Officers, and three years in further training, plus every other experience) or the pharmacist (who has spent four years in university, one year pre-reg training, and every other further experience), and the company who has spent the last ten/twenty/fifty years developing the drug, all due to a half-hour of typing the drug name into Google. Yes, if you have been on the drug for years then you may know how a drug will interact with your personal body, and you can offer that insight during your next session with said professional - and that is what they ask you to do. It's what they'll listen to. But the ones who take the drug home and then do what they want with it because Yahoo answers tell them to? Sorry, your fault there.

 

On Legal Drugs:

 

Things like nicotine and alcohol are legal for one reason and one reason only. Both things can be made by an individual.

Actually, they're legal mainly due to it being so ingrained into our culture that we couldn't remove it even if we tried.

 

There are many things you can make yourself that are illegal - many drugs, explosives, projectile weapons, etc. The thing with alcohol and nicotine is that they're so ingrained into our culture that it would be impossible to remove either of them in any way. They've been around for thousands of years after all.

 

The same goes for paracetemol; if it was brought out today as a brand-new drug, it would be banned from being a medicinal drug due to how addictive and toxic it is. But because it has been around for so long and so wide-spread, it could not be withdrawn no matter how hard we tried.

 

Actually - and just for the record - my brother in law no longer smokes while driving

 

That story actually proves the point - cigarettes are a distraction. Your brother's near-accident was because the cigarette distracted him when it fell into his lap - not because smoking a cigarette elicits a pain response.

Edited January 22, 2012 by Kestra15

[philpot123]

As an aside Philpot it isn't possible to be addicted to ibuprofen

I'm well aware ibuprofen is said to be non-addictive in the physical sense. My point was that I stay away from medication as a general rule unless pain becomes excruciating, at which point I'll pop an advil or an ibuprofen. One of my little personal things, like playing ukulele, and not trusting statistics

 

 

Wow a lot happened while I was gone. I'm gonna have to read back through some of this stuff...

[DarkLadyNyara]

One thing to chew on - when things get legalised, we don't always know everything we need to know. I am reliable informed that neither ASA nor potatoes (arsenic levels) would have made it past the FDA if they were discovered today.

 

And alcohol is well up there with them. Much more dangerous than many illegal substances.

It's not arsenic that's the problem (it doesn't occur in potatoes naturally), it's actually certain glycoalkanoids, which are found in most members of the (rather ridiculously massive) nightshade family. And the poisons aren't actually present in dangerous levels except in very rare cases. And cooking at high temperatures breaks them down anyway. There are a lot of food plants that are potentially toxic if you eat the wrong parts or if they aren't properly prepared. And...I'm in danger of going of on a huge tangent here.

 

Maybe not in the US, but in the UK a lot of time and money is spent on dealing with these addictions - a prison pharmacist will spend a lot of their time administering weaning doses. Amerylis can happily tell you much more about that though.

 

That's good to know. I wish we had that on a large scale over here. (Though I would still say addiction should be considered a public health issue and not a criminal one.) Unfortunately, in the US, public opinion tends to be "lock them up and forget about them".

 

They've been around for thousands of years after all.

 

Alcohol, yes. Tobacco, in its present form and usage, not so much. But it's a major cash crop, and besides- people tend to react badly to paternalism when it affects things that they're familiar with.

 

The same goes for paracetemol; if it was brought out today as a brand-new drug, it would be banned from being a medicinal drug due to how addictive and toxic it is. But because it has been around for so long and so wide-spread, it could not be withdrawn no matter how hard we tried

 

It actually probably would still be used. There might have been more attention paid to potential dangers, and there might have been more restrictions from the start. But the drug has valid uses that, for many, outweigh the risks. Especially since it's mostly long-term use that causes problems.

[Kestra15]

Alcohol, yes. Tobacco, in its present form and usage, not so much. But it's a major cash crop, and besides- people tend to react badly to paternalism when it affects things that they're familiar with.

Either way, you get my point :~)

 

And I will leave it to Amerylis to debate about paracetamol in more depth.

[Princess Artemis]

That's actually the last thing you should do. Yes, discuss medication with your doctor and pharmacist, and if anything strange happens when you're on the medication you should stop and go see the doctor/pharmacist straight away - but don't start researching the drug yourself. That's when you get people come in who have ODed on the drug because they thought it was safe to take double the dose daily, or are in critical care because they stopped taking the drugs as some website or quack doctor or inaccurate story from a friend of a friend of a friend made them think it was dangerous and they stopped taking it.

 

Sorry, but I have very little time for people who think they know better than the doctor (who has spent five years in university, two years as Foundation Officers, and three years in further training, plus every other experience) or the pharmacist (who has spent four years in university, one year pre-reg training, and every other further experience), and the company who has spent the last ten/twenty/fifty years developing the drug, all due to a half-hour of typing the drug name into Google. Yes, if you have been on the drug for years then you may know how a drug will interact with your personal body, and you can offer that insight during your next session with said professional - and that is what they ask you to do. It's what they'll listen to. But the ones who take the drug home and then do what they want with it because Yahoo answers tell them to? Sorry, your fault there.

Reading the inserts? That's the last thing one should do? Look up desk references for oneself? Get second opinions? Look up the medical information? Read studies? Trust the reaction your body is having when the doctor says the reaction isn't possible is the last thing one should do? Where in that did I say, "Trust the Internet as your first, last, and only line of defense"? That's right, I didn't.

 

You can think all you like that your years of study make you an authority in how my body reacts to a medication, but it doesn't. It makes you well informed of what is likely, but not an authority. Your patients, by and large, have spent far more years in their bodies than you have in a university. How many years have you been a woman? If it is less than your patient, then have some humility and realize that she knows more about it than you do, even if you may be more educated on the subject than she is. How many years have you been in a wheelchair? If it is less than your patient, than they know more about it than you do. How long have you taken a medication that you prescribe to your patient? If it is less than they have, you know less than them about how they react to it. You are informed and educated, this is a fact and it would be foolish to deny it, but it would be equally foolish to take your word for it if it conflicted with my body's experience.

 

So, sorry, I have little time for medical personnel who think their years in a school mean so much more than another person's experience. Seriously, years taking a medication and then the patient may have insight as to how their body reacts to it? Do you believe it when patients say they are allergic to medication, or it causes them pain, or it makes them suicidal, or it causes bizarre thoughts in them, or it just makes them feel bad and they'd rather take something else? Since they likely haven't taken it for the years necessary to maybe gain that insight? I sure hope you just phrased that badly.

[Kestra15]

*sigh* No, you just missed the point.

 

You are making it sound like everyone should go around the websites reading up drugs over taking the advice of those who do know better. I am pointing out you listen to what you're told, and not just look it up on Google.

 

And yes, I do think the medical staff will know far, far more than any Wikipedia article. And oddly enough, one of the things the staff ask you is what side effects you have noticed in yourself, so yes, I am saying you should mention those things to the doctor. Not to the herbalist down at the market.

Edited January 22, 2012 by Kestra15

[amerylis]

The UK has pretty good addiction treatment program, there are now schemes to supply users with clean needles and certain supplies to try and avoid infection and death rates, plus we have a very good replacement scheme and with methadone some patients can be weaned others can be maintained on it for years if they need to be. Patients have held down good jobs got married etc while being free from illegal drugs.

 

While there is a risk with every medication or substance we put in our bodies there is nothing that can be classed as 100% benign however, we can try and minimise the harm or the benefits out weigh the risks. Apologies for the confusion with the addiction thing I forget that terms differ in common usage to the definitions learnt during lectures. I meant in addiction as in Physical craving for the substance, developing a tolerance for the substance and needing more and then having withdrawal symptoms on stopping the substance.

 

as for paracetamol, along with aspirin if these drugs were "invented" today they would not pass the ssafety checks, paracetamol has an overdose level that is too close to the normal dosage level. A yound woman recently died by taking "a couple extra paracetamol" http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/16198157 over the maximum dose. We use them because they are old enough that we know how they will react. This sort of experience is why when a new cancer drug or new alzhiemer's treatment comes out the UK system doesn't always allow a patient to have the treatment because we don't always know if the new shiny drug will work as well as the older worn in drugs but at least we know the side effects.

 

As for who to talk to there are a number of reputed sites around the internet which can be used as a reference source but most of it has to be taken with a pinch of salt especially as every patient is very different just because person A has x effect it does not mean that person B will have the same effect. After that you doctor or pharmacist is the best person to ask especially for those in America who have to pay for doctors visits.

[Princess Artemis]

You are making it sound like everyone should go around the websites reading up drugs over taking the advice of those who do know better.

 

 

Perhaps to your ears what I am saying sounds like that, but given that I never said "Google", "websites", or "Wikipedia", I am uncertain as to how you got that impression.

 

I am pointing out you listen to what you're told, and not just look it up on Google.

 

And I am pointing out that "listen to what you are told" isn't good enough when it's your body and life on the line. Do more than just "what you are told", and certainly more than just google it. That's what 'trust, but verify' means!

 

And yes, I do think the medical staff will know far, far more than any Wikipedia article. And oddly enough, one of the things the staff ask you is what side effects you have noticed in yourself, so yes, I am saying you should mention those things to the doctor. Not to the herbalist down at the market.

 

And where did I say they know less than Wikipedia? Right, nowhere. Good point to make indeed, but hardly relevant to what I was saying.

 

Please do understand that you are talking to someone for whom medicine has failed badly. I don't exactly blame doctors (except for that one)--I still go to Western doctors--but I don't just "listen to what I'm told" anymore either. I don't give you, the medical person, my absolute trust any longer. You have to earn it, as you should when it's my life in the balance. If you (medicine) make a mistake, you have to live with the fact that you made a mistake, but I have to live with the consequences, and I am, and it's not fun. You better believe I'm going to do everything I can not to let it happen again, and I'm going to do my best to get other people to do what they can to remain informed participants rather than consumers of health care.

 

ETA:

While there is a risk with every medication or substance we put in our bodies there is nothing that can be classed as 100% benign however, we can try and minimise the harm or the benefits out weigh the risks. Apologies for the confusion with the addiction thing I forget that terms differ in common usage to the definitions learnt during lectures. I meant in addiction as in Physical craving for the substance, developing a tolerance for the substance and needing more and then having withdrawal symptoms on stopping the substance.

 

Thank you for the clarification. I knew that about the term of art, but probably a lot of other people didn't. Regarding SSRIs, I had two of the three there clear as day, so didn't fit the definition, which caused me no end of confusion when all the doctors were telling me I wasn't addicted to it. I changed how I was saying it and started using 'dependent', and they still said it wasn't that...that's when I really started getting mad.

 

As for who to talk to there are a number of reputed sites around the internet which can be used as a reference source but most of it has to be taken with a pinch of salt especially as every patient is very different just because person A has x effect it does not mean that person B will have the same effect. After that you doctor or pharmacist is the best person to ask especially for those in America who have to pay for doctors visits.

 

Everything including doctors, in my opinion, ought to be taken with a pinch of salt. That's why it's important to know oneself when evaluating the sources. I know I have dystonia, so I pay attention when a medication says it has an absurdly low chance of causing dystonia as a side effect. Most people don't have to worry, but I do! Not all doctors / nurse / etc. are aware of medications that have dystonia as a side effect (yes I have had people prescribe medications that had that side effect without knowing it), so I look too to make sure.

Edited January 22, 2012 by Princess Artemis

[Kestra15]

Patients should be informed from square one - hence why you should be talking through your medical problems and medications with the doctor, talking with the pharmacist and getting their advice and support, relating any problems to the nurse (if you're in hospital) as soon as they develop. At all points patients should remain informed by the appropriate personnel, otherwise that person is being failed by their care team.

 

It sounds like you had a bad experience and that support system failed - sadly, that happens. The problem comes when people start preaching that they know better and that they should look for advice elsewhere - which is what it sounds like you're saying, even if that isn't your intention. But that's how even more people end up getting hurt, being told not to take our advice, not to talk to us but instead post it on forums and blogs etc, and when it all goes wrong they still insist that the blame is on their doctors/pharmacists/etc.

 

Perhaps that is not your aim. Perhaps all you are saying is that patients should take the time to talk to the medical staff, report their concerns and discuss their treatment plans with them, speak with staff when something changes...and if that is what you mean, then I agree with you. But right now it sounds more like you're telling people to ignore all that knowledge and do their own thing.

 

And yes, when people start going down that route then I do think that medical staff know far, far more than anyone 'knows their own body.' Because people don't know their bodies as well as they think they do - as it's precisely that excuse, the whole "Oh, I know my body better than you think you do," that ends up with that person being in far worse straits at the end of the day.

 

You're right, we don't know precisely how you feel - and that's why we ask you to tell us. That's why we ask you to come back if something changes. That's why we warn you in advance what you should and shouldn't feel, and what to do should it happen. It's those who ignore all that and do their own thing that I lose respect for.

Edited January 22, 2012 by Kestra15

[Fuzzbucket]

Please do understand that you are talking to someone for whom medicine has failed badly.  I don't exactly blame doctors (except for that one)--I still go to Western doctors--but I don't just "listen to what I'm told" anymore either.  I don't give you, the medical person, my absolute trust any longer.  You have to earn it, as you should when it's my life in the balance.  If you (medicine) make a mistake, you have to live with the fact that you made a mistake, but I have to live with the consequences, and I am, and it's not fun.  You better believe I'm going to do everything I can not to let it happen again, and I'm going to do my best to get other people to do what they can to remain informed participants rather than consumers of health care.

I have to agree with Princess Artemis that doctors don't always listen or do the right thing. I well remember the day (I happen to be allergic to aspirin) when I saw a doctor in A&E far from my home. I was in GREAT pain from a wrenched something in my neck. He took my history, asked about allergies and was told; wrote it all down - and prescribed. I collected the scrip and took my first pill.

 

A few hours later I had an absolutely terrifying hallucinatory experience in a vast department store., What I would have done if I had been alone I dread to think. We went to a drugstore to ask a pharmacist if this was a known side effect.

 

His response ?

 

"Only if you are allergic to aspirin. It is totally contraindicated in those cases...."

 

Doctors are no more perfect than the rest of us, and some of them ARE lazy, plain sloppy and don't care-ish. And to all those (especially in the UK, as I see many posting) who say me nay - I worked in the NHS for 20 years - and I'm afraid I met several. I was in a department (Public Health) where many complaints were fielded at times - and easily half were entirely justified. I will never forget the one who killed a secretary in that very department, telling her that her pain was just because she was getting older. Her cancer would have been operable when she first went to him. He admitted that himself when he apologised.

 

Don't deify doctors - it makes the bad ones worse - and the good ones won't even thank you for it.

 

Typefail - which I could swear I corrected before I posted, but...

Edited January 22, 2012 by fuzzbucket

[Sadako]

It's possible that this 'never do your own research' versus 'doctors don't always pay attention or tell you everything you need to know' issue might be another US vs. UK thing. I always read the inserts on new prescriptions and ask the nurses questions about it, and I almost always learn things from that that the doctor never mentioned before, because in the US doctors are pressed for time and overpaid, and that combination seems to lead them to think of us as cattle who don't need to know about possible side effects or complications. We are required to read about the effects of the medication ourselves because our doctors are 'too important' and 'too educated' to bother having actual conversations with us.

 

No, I don't think typing the name of a medication into google and panicking about the first thing you read is a great idea, but honestly our healthcare system is so messed up that we have to inform ourselves of what we're getting into.