Drugs

[barton2]

I might agree on less government control, but not necessarily less physician control.  It really depends on what specific drug we are talking about.  There are drugs like antihistamines where the main side effect is drowsiness (that's because the brain stem stimulates normal wakefulness by secreting histamine as a neurotransmitter; when you suppress that, the brain thinks it's sleepytime) and that's pretty well understood.  Ditto NSAIDs.  But there are drugs that interact dangerously with those innocuous NSAIDs, increasing the risk of liver damage, stroke, etc.  Even aspirin can be dangerous if you have intestinal bleeding or are at risk for stroke.  Certain antibiotics don't work well with dairy products.  I have some medical training and can barely keep up with all of it....how well can Joe the plumber stay on top of complex drug interactions?  Some prostate medications are undermined by eating chocolate -- will Joe realize why he's still peeing funny when his meds were supposed to fix that?   



Ironically, pot's side effect are better known than those of many legal pharmies -- and I agree it should have the legal status of tobacco.   

[jm]

I don't think physicians deserve control partly because the system is so fucked up, basically you do not have a physician overseeing the process.  It's about health insurance and pharmaceutical profits, not health.  So in addition to erring on the side of less government control, I would also err on the side of less corporate control.

The drugs I'm thinking about all-time American populars like ambien and valium.  There are a lot of other drugs they jack people around about.  Hauling them in for unnecessary appointments.  The physician oversight exists under one policy, but not another.  Showing how unnecessary the physicians themselves, overall, think it.

Bottom line, though, it's that person's body, no one else's.  I'm pretty libertarian as far as that goes. 

[weezo]

I don't think physicians deserve control partly because the system is so fucked up, basically you do not have a physician overseeing the process.  It's about health insurance and pharmaceutical profits, not health.  So in addition to erring on the side of less government control, I would also err on the side of less corporate control.

The drugs I'm thinking about all-time American populars like ambien and valium.  There are a lot of other drugs they jack people around about.  Hauling them in for unnecessary appointments.  The physician oversight exists under one policy, but not another.  Showing how unnecessary the physicians themselves, overall, think it.

Bottom line, though, it's that person's body, no one else's.  I'm pretty libertarian as far as that goes. 

Bottom line is that when a person abuses drugs to the point that he/she can no longer be a productive member of society, the support requirement falls on society ... and at that point society has a right to prevent others that fate ...

[jm]

I don't think physicians deserve control partly because the system is so fucked up, basically you do not have a physician overseeing the process.  It's about health insurance and pharmaceutical profits, not health.  So in addition to erring on the side of less government control, I would also err on the side of less corporate control.

The drugs I'm thinking about all-time American populars like ambien and valium.  There are a lot of other drugs they jack people around about.  Hauling them in for unnecessary appointments.  The physician oversight exists under one policy, but not another.  Showing how unnecessary the physicians themselves, overall, think it.

Bottom line, though, it's that person's body, no one else's.  I'm pretty libertarian as far as that goes. 

Bottom line is that when a person abuses drugs to the point that he/she can no longer be a productive member of society, the support requirement falls on society ... and at that point society has a right to prevent others that fate ...

Flimsy attempt at idealism, weezo.  Things beings as they are, the system just doesn't work like that.

Take alcohol, for example.  Your words are the same as those who supported prohibition.  There are many drugs on the market far less harmful.  And even the more obviously harmful ones .. well .. I think we would see less use, not more. 

[weezo]

I don't think physicians deserve control partly because the system is so fucked up, basically you do not have a physician overseeing the process.  It's about health insurance and pharmaceutical profits, not health.  So in addition to erring on the side of less government control, I would also err on the side of less corporate control.

The drugs I'm thinking about all-time American populars like ambien and valium.  There are a lot of other drugs they jack people around about.  Hauling them in for unnecessary appointments.  The physician oversight exists under one policy, but not another.  Showing how unnecessary the physicians themselves, overall, think it.

Bottom line, though, it's that person's body, no one else's.  I'm pretty libertarian as far as that goes. 

Bottom line is that when a person abuses drugs to the point that he/she can no longer be a productive member of society, the support requirement falls on society ... and at that point society has a right to prevent others that fate ...

Flimsy attempt at idealism, weezo.  Things beings as they are, the system just doesn't work like that.

Take alcohol, for example.  Your words are the same as those who supported prohibition.  There are many drugs on the market far less harmful.  And even the more obviously harmful ones .. well .. I think we would see less use, not more. 

And, what are your "thoughts" on a spike in suicide??? As for prohibition --- I am within driving distances of "dry counties" --- those communities which chose to continue prohibition after the constitution was amended ...

But, before you tell us specifics on pharmaceuticals, would you share the name of the institution who certifies your knowledge ?

[jm]

I don't think physicians deserve control partly because the system is so fucked up, basically you do not have a physician overseeing the process.  It's about health insurance and pharmaceutical profits, not health.  So in addition to erring on the side of less government control, I would also err on the side of less corporate control.

The drugs I'm thinking about all-time American populars like ambien and valium.  There are a lot of other drugs they jack people around about.  Hauling them in for unnecessary appointments.  The physician oversight exists under one policy, but not another.  Showing how unnecessary the physicians themselves, overall, think it.

Bottom line, though, it's that person's body, no one else's.  I'm pretty libertarian as far as that goes. 

Bottom line is that when a person abuses drugs to the point that he/she can no longer be a productive member of society, the support requirement falls on society ... and at that point society has a right to prevent others that fate ...

Flimsy attempt at idealism, weezo.  Things beings as they are, the system just doesn't work like that.

Take alcohol, for example.  Your words are the same as those who supported prohibition.  There are many drugs on the market far less harmful.  And even the more obviously harmful ones .. well .. I think we would see less use, not more. 

And, what are your "thoughts" on a spike in suicide???

Make drugs more easily available. 

Didn't you hear the complaints of the man who broke into the Clinton campaign headquarters ready to shoot people up?  He could not get the medications he needed.

You are in outer space, fella.

[weezo]

I don't think physicians deserve control partly because the system is so fucked up, basically you do not have a physician overseeing the process. Hauling them in for unnecessary appointments.

Bottom line, though, it's that person's body, no one else's.  I'm pretty libertarian as far as that goes. 

Bottom line is that when a person abuses drugs to the point that he/she can no longer be a productive member of society, the support requirement falls on society ... and at that point society has a right to prevent others that fate ...

Flimsy attempt at idealism, weezo. 

Things beings as they are, the system just doesn't work like that.

There are many drugs on the market far less harmful.  And even the more obviously harmful ones .. well .. I think we would see less use, not more. 

And, what are your "thoughts" on a spike in suicide???

Make drugs more easily available. 

Didn't you hear the complaints of the man who broke into the Clinton campaign headquarters ready to shoot people up?  He could not get the medications he needed.

You are in outer space, fella.

So, a lot of suicides that would have been prevented had there been physician oversight, is OK, as long as you get your freedom to do the same ...

Oh .... yeah !!!

[jm]

I don't think physicians deserve control partly because the system is so fucked up, basically you do not have a physician overseeing the process. Hauling them in for unnecessary appointments.

Bottom line, though, it's that person's body, no one else's.  I'm pretty libertarian as far as that goes. 

Bottom line is that when a person abuses drugs to the point that he/she can no longer be a productive member of society, the support requirement falls on society ... and at that point society has a right to prevent others that fate ...

Flimsy attempt at idealism, weezo. 

Things beings as they are, the system just doesn't work like that.

There are many drugs on the market far less harmful.  And even the more obviously harmful ones .. well .. I think we would see less use, not more. 

And, what are your "thoughts" on a spike in suicide???

Make drugs more easily available. 

Didn't you hear the complaints of the man who broke into the Clinton campaign headquarters ready to shoot people up?  He could not get the medications he needed.

You are in outer space, fella.

So, a lot of suicides that would have been prevented had there been physician oversight, is OK, as long as you get your freedom to do the same ...

Oh .... yeah !!!

You have just taken my statement and completely mischaracterized it.  I see that you do that a lot.

What point is there in a discussion with an individual who's just grandstanding for the sake of politics and not interested in the shared search for answers.

You are an idiot like your John, who you raised to go off to Afghan Land to pee on people and slobber on himself, like you do, laughing at your own moronic jokes.

For all your physician supervision, I see it hasn't done you any good!  You seem tipped right over the edge on all your supervised Medicare prescriptions.

[kam]

I don't think physicians deserve control partly because the system is so fucked up, basically you do not have a physician overseeing the process.  It's about health insurance and pharmaceutical profits, not health.  So in addition to erring on the side of less government control, I would also err on the side of less corporate control.

The drugs I'm thinking about all-time American populars like ambien and valium.  There are a lot of other drugs they jack people around about.  Hauling them in for unnecessary appointments.  The physician oversight exists under one policy, but not another.  Showing how unnecessary the physicians themselves, overall, think it.

Bottom line, though, it's that person's body, no one else's.  I'm pretty libertarian as far as that goes.  

Bottom line is that when a person abuses drugs to the point that he/she can no longer be a productive member of society, the support requirement falls on society ... and at that point society has a right to prevent others that fate ...

1. Define abuse.

2. Should society step in if you go to the doctor and are overweight?  have high cholesterol?

Food is the most readily abused product and eating certain foods in excess will cause you to become a drain on society as my health insurance goes up because people are less healthy.  Suffer heart issues. 

And yeah, Tobacco should be outlawed yesterday if we care about society, second hand non-snmokers, etc.

3. Why should my tax dollars go to a program to stop drug abusers when they don't want to stop?  Why waste my money?  

4. Most drug users are non-violent healthy productive members of society.  A few drug users are dangerous criminals robbing people for money.  How do you propose helping those who want help while not wasting money on those who don't want help?  Why not just arrest the criminals when the crime is committed?  We don't stop people walking out of bars getting into their cars.  We only give a spit if they hit someone with their car.  Why the double standard being proposed?

[bambu]

Most marijuana users who use it regularly have gone funny in the head....got most of the listed resulting symptoms.
Look, here they are on 'RBT' tv program ['Random Breath Testing']...failing the drug-driving test in the police roadside caravan.

NO legalising any now-illicit drugs!




Decriminalise is it essence, so a person can grow a few plants in their backyard/apartment for their personal use on their own property...stone themselves stupid 24/7 if that's what they want to do [but don't expect the govt/taxpayers to give them preferential treatment in the health system].

Giving or selling it to anyone off the said property of theirs still being a serious crime.


That's not the whole house full of plants and a watering and heating system! [with or without stolen electricity/power].


I mean, would you want a nation full of people with "druggie faces"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=af3RjDntlhs

Face of addiction - The effects of crystal meth

[bambu]

http://www.smh.com.au/world/methamphetaminesmoking-mother-admits-killing-son-with-toxic-breastmilk-20120208-1ra7a.html

Methamphetamine-smoking mother admits killing son with toxic breastmilk


A US woman accused of killing her infant son by breastfeeding him after she used methamphetamine has pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter.

The Times-Standard of Eureka reports that Maggie Jean Wortman, 27, entered her plea on Monday as part of a deal with Californian prosecutors.

An autopsy on six-week-old Michael Acosta III found that the infant died of ‘‘methamphetamine toxicity’’ on November 21, 2010. He had been found not breathing earlier that day and had been taken to hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

#####

Well there you go!

'Drugs' claim another victim.

[kam]

Crystal Meth is a far cry from Marijuana

For one thing, Marijuana just grows naturally.  Nature wants it here.

Crystal Meth is made by man.  

'Drugs' is a lazy term since it includes everything from Crystal Meth to Caffeine.

[bambu]

Marijuana might grow naturally, but it destroys people's lives if they use enough of it.

All the warning symptoms listed...yes, they're what happen to users.

[weezo]

Marijuana might grow naturally, but it destroys people's lives if they use enough of it.

All the warning symptoms listed...yes, they're what happen to users.

Yes, just look at how marijuana destroyed the lives of the Aussies languishing in Indonesian jails ...!

When will they ever learn ....

[bambu]

Marijuana might grow naturally, but it destroys people's lives if they use enough of it.

All the warning symptoms listed...yes, they're what happen to users.

Yes, just look at how marijuana destroyed the lives of the Aussies languishing in Indonesian jails ...!

When will they ever learn ....

One arrested with marijuana in her boogie board bag...Schapelle Corby, most of the others ...'the Bali9' for example, were caught smuggling heroin or in possession of other drugs.

'The Bali9' were dobbed in to Indonesia by the AFP [Aust Federal Police], who will forever stand condemned for doing so.
Two of the 'Bali9' are on death row waiting for the day that 'Muslim' Indonesia [Obama's very best friend in the whole world] will take them from their cells and execution-shred them.

Oh the white-hot hatred that will be fired at Indonesia on that day and forevermore.
It's a big waste of time trying to explain anything to 'Muslim' Indonesia, so that's how it will be.


Poor Schapelle...and it wasn't even really her fault.

Schapelle the Christian martyr, still hanging on the racist and religionist sentence cross of injustice;


http://www.freeschapelle.net/


http://womansday.ninemsn.com.au/lifestyle/truelifestories/8425163/schapelle-corbys-terror-i-thought-i-would-die

Schapelle Corby's terror: I thought I would die

Monday, February 27, 2012


With inmates running riot and Kerobokan’s buildings up in flames, Schapelle Corby’s hell-hole home just got more frightening.

H uddled in her overcrowded cell, smoke and flames lapping all around her, with live bullets ricocheting in the darkness, Schapelle Corby screamed out for help – but no-one was listening. Over three days, described by those inside the notorious Kerobokan prison in Bali as “living hell”, anarchy ruled as prisoners rioted over the shockingly overcrowded conditions, leaving inmates in fear for their lives, without electricity, water, food or protection.

Schapelle, already in a dangerously fragile emotional state, and the 130 other inmates in the female wing were helpless as they huddled in their cells, unable to get out or be reached, while chaos ruled. Terrified, they could only call to each other through the bars of their locked doors, not knowing if the flames would leap the low wall that separates them from the main prison. Schapelle’s brother-in-law (her sister Mercedes’ husband), Wayan, was seen pacing frantically outside the prison, desperate for a sign she was safe.

_________________________
+++++++++++++++++++++++

http://www.theage.com.au/world/bali-nine-find-safety-behind-prison-walls-20120303-1u9os.html


THE riot's most destructive phase had passed, and most of the combatants inside Bali's Kerobokan prison were calming down when 25 inmates hatched a new and dangerous plan.

They decided to break into the armoury, where pistols, shotguns and ammunition were kept so the normally unarmed guards could defend the prison against just such an uprising.

But there were no guards left. It was 4am on February 22, and hours earlier, confronted by hundreds of prisoners throwing stones and setting fires, they had fled, ceding control to the inmates.

Myuran Sukumaran - convicted drug smuggler, member of the Bali nine, death row inmate - saw the group heading for the armoury and decided to stop them. He concealed a crowbar and stood guard near the door.

#####

Give the Aussie boy a medal, not a bullet execution-shredding!


He had earlier been part of a larger group (including the one guard brave enough to stay in the prison) preventing any incursions by the rioters into Block W, where the women prisoners live.

#####

Hero!