Drug Makers Hope to Kill the Kick in Pain Relief

NY Times ^ | April 20, 2004 | SANDRA BLAKESLEE

[nopardons]

Which is precisely what I said.:-)

[AntiGuv]

You haven't a clue;not a single one.

Sure I do. I am quite well-aware that my position is a minority position. I have never doubted that the vast majority of people are ignorant. In fact, I am regularly shocked that the stupidity of the world manages to exceed even my expectations no matter how far I lower them.

If the majority agreed with me, then I would never bother advocating a change, because 'the system' (in the grander sense) would already be as I would have it (obviously). To state over and over that a majority disagrees with me is to state nothing but the obvious.

Most precepts which are commonly or even near-universally held today were at some point in time a minority viewpoint.

[AntiGuv]

You were referring to my comment which was referring to that, amongst other things.

[Monty22]

Excuse me, what exactly would you change? You've not made your position clear on this thread.

I want to limit addictive drugs and put them out of the market for medical use. To replace them with safer, healthier alternatives.

What's your scheme?

[Monty22]

I've had enough tonight. I slept after work, came on and saw this, thought it was a productive thread about future medication, and got attacked by the libertarians.

Goodnight.

[Ken H]

You had responded to a point about guns earlier in the thread--

I'm as pro gun as anyone, did LBJ and FDR support that somehow?

--so I thought a brief yes/no question on the Second Amendment would not be out of line.

Do you think the Second Amendment means that NO government may infringe on the RKBA?

[Monty22]

Before I go to bed..

Ok. semi-autos, little restriction

The form now isn't so bad. I'd have a time limit on felony and mental defective stuff, probably 5 years.

I like the class 3 setup for full auto/supressors.. Without the Reagan ban.. Should be able to get new stuff, with same fees as now and some extra background checks.

[nopardons]

I'm off too...good night.

[AntiGuv]

Excuse me, what exactly would you change?

That is a rather involved question and I'm uncertain I want to get into such an in-depth discussion, especially when it's almost certainly to no purpose (I'm fairly certain neither of us is going to persuade the other).

I can tell you right off the bat where our fundamental disagreement arises: I do not view 'getting high' as an inherent evil of its own accord; you clearly do. I certainly do not view it as inherently criminal, even when it is criminalized. To the extent that the thread has gotten off a productive track, as you characterize it, it is based on that essential divergence in our views.

I have no problem with limiting addictive drugs as much as possible to proper usages; I do not agree with putting them out of the market for medical use unless an equally effective alternative is found. I certainly do not object to the discovery of safer, healthier alternatives so long as they do not replace something of superior qualities.

From the most basic perspective, I would not conflate drug use with drug abuse as if they are one and the same. The rest of what I would change directly follows.

[jmc813]

I actually stood up and fought on this thread, and reduced them to shreds.

That's cute that you think so.

[Ken H]

I'm not clear on what you mean.

In your opinion, does the Second Amendment mean that adult citizens have a guaranteed right to own a firearm, even if a State or city says otherwise?

[nopardons]

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh...just a wee bit of a egomaniac,aren't you?You're "brilliant",anyone who doesn't agree with you is ignorant and stupid beyond your ken.Yeah,right,and I'm the Queen of England...BODECIA!

Hmmmmmmmmm..."most precepts which are commonly or near-universally held today were at some point in time the minority?Thus spake Zarasth...errrrrrrr,you.That's one of the funniest,silliest,most wrongheaded things I have EVER read on FR and I've been reading posts on FR for more than SIX years now.

Marriage is between one man and ones woman,or one man and some women (in some cultures),NOT between two men or two women has been a pretty UNIVERSALLY held precept,for many millennia and that's just for starters! And you,YOU have the gall to claim that the vast majority of people are ignorant? GO LOOK IN THE NEAREST MIRROR...THEREIN YOU'LL SEE THE VISAGE OF ANOTHER IGNORANT PERSON!

Good night,it's late,and you are far too delusional,arrogant,and egomanical to lose anymore sleep debating.

[AntiGuv]

Oh, and I will confess that part of the reason why my specific position is unclear is because it is indeed unclear. I have a set of principles that I would apply to drug policy that is starkly at odds with that currently prevailing. I am uncertain how that translates to specific policies because I would refine the details gradually as new policies were implemented and one could study what works and what does not.

I am not an extremist nor am I particularly fond of precipitous change, even when it is change in the right direction. I am generally the type to prefer methodical, well-considered, incremental steps toward an ultimately ideal policy arrangement. I realize that much of this is platitudinous, but that's in short why I do not have a crystal clear proposal of how I would rearrange things.

If I could change two things tomorrow generally related to Prohibition then I would legalize marijuana and I would implement a treatment-first approach to law enforcement. But that's digressing from the particular point at hand (medical use of narcotics). In general, I would approach drug abuse first and foremost as a medical problem and not as a law enforcement problem, but that's another cliche.

[AntiGuv]

You're getting hysterical. I am pleased that my post had precisely the intended effect. Heh. =)

[nopardons]

Actually, I am quite calm,so calm,that I am falling asleep.

The ONLY "hysteric",on this thread now,is you Nappy.:-)

[AntiGuv]

Have a g'night. Sleep well!

[Sally'sConcerns]

My bet is you are not on the usual opiate type pain killers such as vicodin, oxycodone etc. Otherwise the typical antidepressants would be very dangerous.

Generic version of vicodin also known as hydrocodone.

The fact is using opiates such as heroin and speed together are considered deadly.

The fact is speed has a completely different chemical composition than anti-depressants do. Vicodin is synthetic codeine and is nowhere near the strength of morphine. (heroin)

As I said, it's traditional protocol for chronic pain patients to be prescribed an anti-depressant as well as pain medication. In no way is this similar to speed and heroin.

You're right, all of this is temporary and will stop when medical science comes up with a restorative operation or I die (hopefully of old age).

[jmc813]

What does the 2nd have to do with drugs? Drugs aren't arms that I can tell.

Are you familiar with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation?

[jmc813]

I am quite well-aware that my position is a minority position. I have never doubted that the vast majority of people are ignorant.

Rest assured that your opinion is NOT in the minority here on FR where the ignorance rate is much les than society as a whole.

[jmc813]

And you,YOU have the gall to claim that the vast majority of people are ignorant?

We elected Bill Clinton twice for crying out loud. Yes, most people are ignorant, sadly enough.