🚀 go-pugleaf

> > > BTW, I heard the other day that legal prescription drugs kill 10 times
> > more
> > > people every year than illegal street drugs. 10 frickin' times. Ain't
> that
> > > charming?
> > >
> > Hmmm, where did you get that stat...
>
> Paul Kennedy's program, "Ideas" on CBC radio. Unfortunately this episode
is
> not yet detailed on their web site, so I can't even swear to the item
title.
> It aired this week.
>
I should definitely listen to CBC more... missing out on a lot

> > I would be curious as to how people use
> > prescription drugs vs. illegal drugs, and how much of each, I would
hazard
> a
> > guess that at least 10 times more prescription drugs are used that
illegal
> > street drugs.
>
> Indeed I would expect it would be much higher yet.
>
I agree, which is why I think that the stat you mentioned sounds more
shocking than it actually is...

> > Also I would be curious how they defined death by
> > prescription drugs. E.g.,  If a patient w/ cardiac disease is given a
> blood
> > thinner that isn't strong enough, and the patient dies did s/he die
> because
> > of the prescption drug?
>
> Can't swear to this. However, the points being made at the time revolved
> around issues such as (a) drugs that killed thousands of people outright
> because testing was in some way inadequate, e.g. it hadn't revealed side
> effects in certain segments of the population, or interactions with other
> drugs, (b) misdiagnosis, (c) mistakes made in prescribing (e.g. a decimal
> point in the wrong place, illegible prescriptions) and such. The theme
that
> emerged from the program was that people need to be a lot more
> discriminating when accepting prescriptions, and ask a lot of questions to
> get at information that often isn't volunteered or perhaps even known by
the
> prescribing physician. Caveat emptor, basically.
>
I have to agree to all this... I happen to be a medical student, and one of
the things that are constantly emphasized to us is the proper taking of a
history, but unfortunately there is no magic formula, and it comes down a
lot to the patient.  A patient who can describe his or her situation better
will receive more accurate treatment.  Though asking the right questions, is
an important minimum.


<snip>.
> > >
> > > Anyone besides me suspect that Aspirin would be illegal if it grew on
a
> > > house plant? (I guess I'd better not mention anything about wolf
> willow.)
> >
> > No, it wouldn't be illegal in that case, though Aspirin would be illegal
> if
> > it grew in a houseplant AND gave you a high, but anything that gives you
a
> > high would be illegal (the exception being alcohol and cigarettes of
> course
> > which have the luxury of what is basically a grandfather clause). I'm
not
> > saying its a good way to determine the illegality of a substance, but it
> is
> > the one we presently use in our country.
>
> Why do you suppose that is? (That isn't a challenge; I'm genuinely
curious.)
> Is it solely Christian morality, or, as some suggest, protection of
> commercial interests, or neither or both? (Didn't really mean to turn that
> into a multiple choice question...)
>
> And why is it that the lessons of prohibition seem never to have been
> learned?
>
I personally suspect a little bit of both with the addition of trying to
justify the past bad decisions by continuing and expanding them.
Interesting side note.... one of my profs informed my class that marijuana
was legal during prohibition, and thus was becoming very popular.  Around
the time that prohibition was about to end the alcohol makers feared that no
one would be willing to buy their products once they came back to market so
they created a huge publicity campaign on the evils of weed (The most famous
of which constantly shows up in reperatory theatres... but I'm presently
forgetting its name).  The campaign was successfull, marijuana was made
illegal with the public consenting, and we've been stuck with that ever
since then.
> > >
> > > OK, I'm gettin' carried away. This Fair Trade coffee really packs a
> > > wallop...
> > >
> >
> > Speaking of which, by the unnatural high standard, coffee also would
> > probably be illegal because of the caffeine.
>
> No doubt. And soft drinks, chocolate bars, etc. etc. ad nauseum.  If you
> choose to "protect" people from something through legislation, where do
you
> draw the line? I'd wager that fast food and inactivity causes many more
> physical and emotional health problems, lost productivity etc. than do
> illegal substances. Do we outlaw fast food and legislate exercise
programs?
>
> This brings us back to the original thrust of this thread, with which I
> strongly agree: I don't think the government should be in the business of
> trying to protect us from ourselves. That's something we need to take
> personal responsibility for.
>
100% agree with you here, people have should have the freedom to make such
choices about their own life w/o intereference from the state, and with it
they should take the potential consequences.  Though, I must be clear that
it should be a responsibility of the state to inform the citizens of the
potential dangers of anything they do.

cheers, Daniel