America's War on Pain Pills Is Killing Addicts and Leaving Patients in Agony

Reason ^ | 03/15/2018 | Jacob Sullum

[NobleFree]

The "War on Pain" is itself a dodge. It's an attempt to dehumanize the people who are opposed to legalizing drugs

AGAIN, there's not a word in the article about legalizing drugs - the "war" in question is that the "government has restricted access to it [pain medication] by monitoring prescriptions, investigating doctors, and imposing new limits on how much can be prescribed, for how long, and under what circumstances."

But keep on gibbering and cavorting for our amusement.

[DiogenesLamp]

You keep repeating your claim insistently. You sound like someone who is trying to convince themselves.

I'm familiar with "Reason", and I'm familiar with it's long running agenda. You aren't likely to convince me that this article is not just another iteration of their constant lament since I have been reading articles from "Reason."

They are "Libertarians". Duh.

[grumpygresh]

Legitimate pain pain patients will go untreated or under treated until a politician, powerful bureacrat or family member suffers from chronic pain not amenable to specific treatment.

Sick. I hate politicians and bureaucrats. They are scumbags and MFers.

[NobleFree]

AGAIN, there's not a word in the article about legalizing drugs - the "war" in question is that the "government has restricted access to it [pain medication] by monitoring prescriptions, investigating doctors, and imposing new limits on how much can be prescribed, for how long, and under what circumstances."

You aren't likely to convince me that this article is not just another iteration of their constant lament

The proof is in the article text - which I'm sure you won't read since your mind is made up and you don't want to be confused by any facts. I couldn't care less about convincing you ... I just don't want any FReepers fooled by your alternate reality.

[DiogenesLamp]

The proof is in the article text - which I'm sure you won't read since your mind is made up and you don't want to be confused by any facts. I couldn't care less about convincing you ... I just don't want any FReepers fooled by your alternate reality.

You are looking at the individual trees instead of the forest. Yes, this article is another iteration of their "legalize drugs" mantra. It's what they do. It's what they always do.

They are just presenting it in a more subtle, more tear inducing fashion in an effort to win sympathy for their larger argument.

But yes, it's about legalizing drugs.

[NobleFree]

You are looking at the individual trees instead of the forest. Yes, this article is another iteration of their "legalize drugs" mantra.

Your "logic" - SOME Reason articles about drugs conclude that drugs should be legalized, therefore ALL Reason articles about drugs conclude that drugs should be legalized - is p*ss-poor on its face, and is flatly contradicted by the article. So sad for you.

[DiogenesLamp]

All “Reason” articles on the topic of drugs are efforts to push their agenda of drug legalization, and this article is just another example of it, though you refuse to see it.

[papertyger]

All “Reason” articles on the topic of drugs are efforts to push their agenda of drug legalization, and this article is just another example of it, though you refuse to see it.

Actually, I think what we're all learning is that you see things that aren't there.

Nods to the Doobie Brothers...

[DiogenesLamp]

Actually, I think what we're all learning is that you see things that aren't there.

And how many "Reason" articles on the topic of drugs have you read?

[papertyger]

And how many "Reason" articles on the topic of drugs have you read?

Do you know why I gave nods to the Doobie Brothers?

[DiogenesLamp]

Do you know why I gave nods to the Doobie Brothers?

Not really. I didn't follow them closely, though i've heard a few of their songs.

I suspect the answer is likely some form of disparagement regarding me somehow or other. I'm pretty thick skinned, so have at me.

[NobleFree]

You say we should legalize drugs? Isn't this like the thousandth time you've said this? [emphasis added]

Had you claimed only that the article IMPLIED we should legalize drugs, your claim would have been not inconsistent with the facts. You claimed that the article SAID we should legalize drugs, which is flat wrong, as the article doesn't so much as mention the legalization of drugs.

[DiogenesLamp]

Is there any other nit you would like to pick?