Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Other Topics > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 11-25-2007, 05:49 PM
yukoncpa yukoncpa is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: kinky sex dude in the inferno
Posts: 1,449
Default Re: The folly of prescriptions

[ QUOTE ]
I've said before that I'm in favor of legalizing all drugs. Regarding medicinal drugs, I would keep the FDA, but make its role advisory. Unapproved drugs would be use at your own risk. Those with a significant abuse potential would be handled like liquor, sold by licensed stores similar to liquor stores. Over-the-counter drugs would be handled pretty much as they are now. Prescription drugs would be labeled as such, but you would be able to buy them, with the proviso that you assume the risk of doing so. If you die or get ill through use of a prescription drug (or an unapproved drug) that you use without prescription, you (or your spouse or relatives if you die) don't have any right to sue the manufacturer or the pharmacy that sold you the drugs. Same if you mis-diagnose yourself and take the wrong medication. Insurance companies could choose not to pay for the use of unprescribed prescription drugs or unapproved drugs -- their choice.

We already have an unregulated medicinal market -- herbals and supplements. Most of these are crap, but some work (I find zinc lozenges very helpful in reducing the severity of colds).



[/ QUOTE ]
CoRed

Under your plan, there would be absolutely no need for an FDA, even if only in an advisory role. If the FDA were dissolved tomorrow, dozens of for-profit drug testing organizations would pop up, simply because there would be a huge demand, not only among end consumers, but among insurers. Some of these organizations would be better then others, so insurers could provide their customers with a list of respected drug testing organizations making it clear that if you buy X medication, that has been approved by Y testing company and that has been prescribed by a doctor, then we will insure it. Even if this confused customers, Doctors would be well aware of the new rules, and would steer customers in the right direction.

In order for a new drug to gain approval status by the FDA, a drug company must pay on average a billion dollars to go through all the testing hoops. Insurers could put pressure on private drug testing companies to provide good information as to which drugs are relatively safe and at the same time, keep ridiculous costs down.

Also, the herbal market isn’t completely unregulated, ask anyone who swore by androstenedione.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 11-25-2007, 06:12 PM
adios adios is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,132
Default Re: this is your war on drugs

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Their expertise is there to guide you, to point you in the way of the information that you need. Personally, I can't imagine a scenario that I'd NOT listen to the doctor, but I shouldn't be prosecuted for it if I do.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you'd be ok with decisions to totally ignore the advice of the doctor and requisition any drug that someone felt like getting?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to speak for anyone but myself, but yes.

If you think otherwise, please explain what you think makes doctors and lawyers different. I mean, more than "I don't see that being the same as writing prescriptions." WHY is that not the same?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't understand your question. If the question is as follows:

How is ignoring a doctors advice and being able to requisition any drug you want different from not having a prescriptions?

The answer is they're really not different.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right.

[ QUOTE ]
If the question is:

How is ignoring a doctors advice different from ignoring a lawyer's advice?

That's easy, you can't take any medicine you feel like while you do have the right to represent yourself in court.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh. We know what the legal status quo is, the question is to find the JUSTIFICATION for that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I merely commented on the story that:

a) I haven't heard both sides of the story yet.

b) That undertaking illegal activities is risky and undertaking risks has a downside.

c) a) and b) make this an unremarkable story.


I think we're getting to the real point of natedogg's post i.e. the argument as to whether or not medicine and medical care should be regulated in the U.S. the way it is. Of course this includes the idea of doctors issuing prescriptions for drugs.

Not sure why I've been appointed by the posters in this thread as the one to defend the government's position and the U.S. laws regarding drugs and medicine. I suppose it's due to the fact that I don't feel particularly outraged by a one-sided account but that seems ridiculous on it's face.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is, there is no difference between what you now claim this thread is about and the "war on drugs." The thread has ALWAYS been about this, because this is what the war on drugs is all about.

[/ QUOTE ]

The guy wrote prescriptions illegally. When I think about the war on drugs I'm thinking about the time period when Nixon first made this declaration. Subsequently court rulings and laws followed that were/are used to fight this "war." Many of these rulings and laws people have viewed as an infringement on individual rights. As far as I know forging a doctors signature on prescriptions has been ilegal a lot longer than when Nixon made this declaration.

[ QUOTE ]


And you havent been appointed anything. You've made some arguments, some people have responded.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've made some arguments that this is an unremarkable case and the responses have been to basically defend my position regarding government laws and regulations on medicine. I'm actually ambivilant on the laws regarding medicine. Can't understand why people want me to defend government policy when I find a case unremarkable. Actually I think I do understand but I'll leave it at that.

[ QUOTE ]
Of COURSE this thread is about how medicines and drugs should be handled in the US....the thread is titled the War on Drugs, thats what the war is about, and presumably we all understood it was referring to the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, at least for me, when people refer to the "war on drugs" people are referring to Nixon's declaration in 1971, the establishment of the DEA in 1973, laws and court rulings such the forfeiture of assets established by law in 1978, the rise of the Columbian drug cartel in the 80's, the interdiction efforts of the US government during this time period, etc. Don't think this really has that much to do with US government regulations on medicine, how medicine is practiced, and the designation of which drugs should be issued by prescription. The "war on drugs" to me anyway is more about government efforts to stop illegal drug use and how they've encroached on individual rights.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 11-25-2007, 06:14 PM
vhawk01 vhawk01 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: GHoFFANMWYD
Posts: 9,098
Default Re: this is your war on drugs

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Their expertise is there to guide you, to point you in the way of the information that you need. Personally, I can't imagine a scenario that I'd NOT listen to the doctor, but I shouldn't be prosecuted for it if I do.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you'd be ok with decisions to totally ignore the advice of the doctor and requisition any drug that someone felt like getting?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to speak for anyone but myself, but yes.

If you think otherwise, please explain what you think makes doctors and lawyers different. I mean, more than "I don't see that being the same as writing prescriptions." WHY is that not the same?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't understand your question. If the question is as follows:

How is ignoring a doctors advice and being able to requisition any drug you want different from not having a prescriptions?

The answer is they're really not different.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right.

[ QUOTE ]
If the question is:

How is ignoring a doctors advice different from ignoring a lawyer's advice?

That's easy, you can't take any medicine you feel like while you do have the right to represent yourself in court.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh. We know what the legal status quo is, the question is to find the JUSTIFICATION for that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I merely commented on the story that:

a) I haven't heard both sides of the story yet.

b) That undertaking illegal activities is risky and undertaking risks has a downside.

c) a) and b) make this an unremarkable story.


I think we're getting to the real point of natedogg's post i.e. the argument as to whether or not medicine and medical care should be regulated in the U.S. the way it is. Of course this includes the idea of doctors issuing prescriptions for drugs.

Not sure why I've been appointed by the posters in this thread as the one to defend the government's position and the U.S. laws regarding drugs and medicine. I suppose it's due to the fact that I don't feel particularly outraged by a one-sided account but that seems ridiculous on it's face.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is, there is no difference between what you now claim this thread is about and the "war on drugs." The thread has ALWAYS been about this, because this is what the war on drugs is all about.

[/ QUOTE ]

The guy wrote prescriptions illegally. When I think about the war on drugs I'm thinking about the time period when Nixon first made this declaration. Subsequently court rulings and laws followed that were/are used to fight this "war." Many of these rulings and laws people have viewed as an infringement on individual rights. As far as I know forging a doctors signature on prescriptions has been ilegal a lot longer than when Nixon made this declaration.

[ QUOTE ]


And you havent been appointed anything. You've made some arguments, some people have responded.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've made some arguments that this is an unremarkable case and the responses have been to basically defend my position regarding government laws and regulations on medicine. I'm actually ambivilant on the laws regarding medicine. Can't understand why people want me to defend government policy when I find a case unremarkable. Actually I think I do understand but I'll leave it at that.

[ QUOTE ]
Of COURSE this thread is about how medicines and drugs should be handled in the US....the thread is titled the War on Drugs, thats what the war is about, and presumably we all understood it was referring to the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, at least for me, when people refer to the "war on drugs" people are referring to Nixon's declaration in 1971, the establishment of the DEA in 1973, laws and court rulings such the forfeiture of assets established by law in 1978, the rise of the Columbian drug cartel in the 80's, the interdiction efforts of the US government during this time period, etc. Don't think this really has that much to do with US government regulations on medicine, how medicine is practiced, and the designation of which drugs should be issued by prescription. The "war on drugs" to me anyway is more about government efforts to stop illegal drug use and how they've encroached on individual rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it does. Heroin, cocaine, speed, all of these are drugs that are commonly prescribed and regulated by the FDA. All of the things you are talking about are directly related to the topics in this thread.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 11-25-2007, 06:15 PM
adios adios is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,132
Default Re: this is your war on drugs

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Their expertise is there to guide you, to point you in the way of the information that you need. Personally, I can't imagine a scenario that I'd NOT listen to the doctor, but I shouldn't be prosecuted for it if I do.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you'd be ok with decisions to totally ignore the advice of the doctor and requisition any drug that someone felt like getting? Could be something else I don't know. But if you have the freedom to administer any drug to yourself that you want you certainly aren't required to consult with a physician.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, you're not required to consult with a physician. But why wouldn't you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Responding with a question to my qeustion. The only person that gets away with that with me is my wife.

[ QUOTE ]
I mean, just because I no longer REQUIRE a "doctor's note" to get medicines doesn't mean that I won't consult with them to find out what I should be taking. I'm not going to suddenly turn stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right but you don't have to if you don't want to. Neither does anyone else if we do away with prescriptions.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 11-25-2007, 06:18 PM
vhawk01 vhawk01 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: GHoFFANMWYD
Posts: 9,098
Default Re: this is your war on drugs

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Their expertise is there to guide you, to point you in the way of the information that you need. Personally, I can't imagine a scenario that I'd NOT listen to the doctor, but I shouldn't be prosecuted for it if I do.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you'd be ok with decisions to totally ignore the advice of the doctor and requisition any drug that someone felt like getting? Could be something else I don't know. But if you have the freedom to administer any drug to yourself that you want you certainly aren't required to consult with a physician.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, you're not required to consult with a physician. But why wouldn't you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Responding with a question to my qeustion. The only person that gets away with that with me is my wife.

[ QUOTE ]
I mean, just because I no longer REQUIRE a "doctor's note" to get medicines doesn't mean that I won't consult with them to find out what I should be taking. I'm not going to suddenly turn stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right but you don't have to if you don't want to. Neither does anyone else if we do away with prescriptions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, now explain why thats a problem. And especially, try to answer in a way that acknowledges the fact that I can defend myself in a murder trial, something far more hazardous to my health than taking some pills.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 11-25-2007, 06:22 PM
adios adios is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,132
Default Re: this is your war on drugs

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Their expertise is there to guide you, to point you in the way of the information that you need. Personally, I can't imagine a scenario that I'd NOT listen to the doctor, but I shouldn't be prosecuted for it if I do.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you'd be ok with decisions to totally ignore the advice of the doctor and requisition any drug that someone felt like getting?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to speak for anyone but myself, but yes.

If you think otherwise, please explain what you think makes doctors and lawyers different. I mean, more than "I don't see that being the same as writing prescriptions." WHY is that not the same?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't understand your question. If the question is as follows:

How is ignoring a doctors advice and being able to requisition any drug you want different from not having a prescriptions?

The answer is they're really not different.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right.

[ QUOTE ]
If the question is:

How is ignoring a doctors advice different from ignoring a lawyer's advice?

That's easy, you can't take any medicine you feel like while you do have the right to represent yourself in court.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh. We know what the legal status quo is, the question is to find the JUSTIFICATION for that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I merely commented on the story that:

a) I haven't heard both sides of the story yet.

b) That undertaking illegal activities is risky and undertaking risks has a downside.

c) a) and b) make this an unremarkable story.


I think we're getting to the real point of natedogg's post i.e. the argument as to whether or not medicine and medical care should be regulated in the U.S. the way it is. Of course this includes the idea of doctors issuing prescriptions for drugs.

Not sure why I've been appointed by the posters in this thread as the one to defend the government's position and the U.S. laws regarding drugs and medicine. I suppose it's due to the fact that I don't feel particularly outraged by a one-sided account but that seems ridiculous on it's face.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is, there is no difference between what you now claim this thread is about and the "war on drugs." The thread has ALWAYS been about this, because this is what the war on drugs is all about.

[/ QUOTE ]

The guy wrote prescriptions illegally. When I think about the war on drugs I'm thinking about the time period when Nixon first made this declaration. Subsequently court rulings and laws followed that were/are used to fight this "war." Many of these rulings and laws people have viewed as an infringement on individual rights. As far as I know forging a doctors signature on prescriptions has been ilegal a lot longer than when Nixon made this declaration.

[ QUOTE ]


And you havent been appointed anything. You've made some arguments, some people have responded.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've made some arguments that this is an unremarkable case and the responses have been to basically defend my position regarding government laws and regulations on medicine. I'm actually ambivilant on the laws regarding medicine. Can't understand why people want me to defend government policy when I find a case unremarkable. Actually I think I do understand but I'll leave it at that.

[ QUOTE ]
Of COURSE this thread is about how medicines and drugs should be handled in the US....the thread is titled the War on Drugs, thats what the war is about, and presumably we all understood it was referring to the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, at least for me, when people refer to the "war on drugs" people are referring to Nixon's declaration in 1971, the establishment of the DEA in 1973, laws and court rulings such the forfeiture of assets established by law in 1978, the rise of the Columbian drug cartel in the 80's, the interdiction efforts of the US government during this time period, etc. Don't think this really has that much to do with US government regulations on medicine, how medicine is practiced, and the designation of which drugs should be issued by prescription. The "war on drugs" to me anyway is more about government efforts to stop illegal drug use and how they've encroached on individual rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it does. Heroin, cocaine, speed, all of these are drugs that are commonly prescribed and regulated by the FDA. All of the things you are talking about are directly related to the topics in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

The laws have changed significantly since Nixon's declarations and the punishment for breaking the laws have changed significantly. I'm not saying that this thread has nothing to do with Nixon's declaration, the establishment of the DEA, the forfeiture of assets, etc. but writing prescriptions illegally has been against the law a lot longer than that. Also prescription drugs have been around a lot longer than Nixon's declaration. If people want to do away with prescriptions altogether I see the "war on drugs" as basically a peripheral issue. We'll just have to agree to disagree I guess.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 11-25-2007, 06:23 PM
TomVeil TomVeil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 314
Default Re: this is your war on drugs

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Their expertise is there to guide you, to point you in the way of the information that you need. Personally, I can't imagine a scenario that I'd NOT listen to the doctor, but I shouldn't be prosecuted for it if I do.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you'd be ok with decisions to totally ignore the advice of the doctor and requisition any drug that someone felt like getting? Could be something else I don't know. But if you have the freedom to administer any drug to yourself that you want you certainly aren't required to consult with a physician.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, you're not required to consult with a physician. But why wouldn't you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Responding with a question to my qeustion. The only person that gets away with that with me is my wife.

[ QUOTE ]
I mean, just because I no longer REQUIRE a "doctor's note" to get medicines doesn't mean that I won't consult with them to find out what I should be taking. I'm not going to suddenly turn stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right but you don't have to if you don't want to. Neither does anyone else if we do away with prescriptions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand what the problem is?
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 11-25-2007, 06:24 PM
adios adios is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,132
Default Re: this is your war on drugs

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Their expertise is there to guide you, to point you in the way of the information that you need. Personally, I can't imagine a scenario that I'd NOT listen to the doctor, but I shouldn't be prosecuted for it if I do.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you'd be ok with decisions to totally ignore the advice of the doctor and requisition any drug that someone felt like getting? Could be something else I don't know. But if you have the freedom to administer any drug to yourself that you want you certainly aren't required to consult with a physician.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, you're not required to consult with a physician. But why wouldn't you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Responding with a question to my qeustion. The only person that gets away with that with me is my wife.

[ QUOTE ]
I mean, just because I no longer REQUIRE a "doctor's note" to get medicines doesn't mean that I won't consult with them to find out what I should be taking. I'm not going to suddenly turn stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right but you don't have to if you don't want to. Neither does anyone else if we do away with prescriptions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, now explain why thats a problem. And especially, try to answer in a way that acknowledges the fact that I can defend myself in a murder trial, something far more hazardous to my health than taking some pills.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a problem if you want to do away with prescriptions altogether, where I did I say it was?
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 11-25-2007, 06:26 PM
adios adios is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,132
Default Re: this is your war on drugs

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Their expertise is there to guide you, to point you in the way of the information that you need. Personally, I can't imagine a scenario that I'd NOT listen to the doctor, but I shouldn't be prosecuted for it if I do.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you'd be ok with decisions to totally ignore the advice of the doctor and requisition any drug that someone felt like getting? Could be something else I don't know. But if you have the freedom to administer any drug to yourself that you want you certainly aren't required to consult with a physician.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, you're not required to consult with a physician. But why wouldn't you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Responding with a question to my qeustion. The only person that gets away with that with me is my wife.

[ QUOTE ]
I mean, just because I no longer REQUIRE a "doctor's note" to get medicines doesn't mean that I won't consult with them to find out what I should be taking. I'm not going to suddenly turn stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right but you don't have to if you don't want to. Neither does anyone else if we do away with prescriptions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand what the problem is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I say there was a problem? I made an observation.

What I note about this article whose link was posted by natedogg in his OP:

1) This is a one sided story.

2) The guy wrote prescriptions illegally and got caught.

1) and 2) make it an unremarkable story. Apparently my interest in wanting to know both sides of the story i.e. the prosecutions side and the defendents side is not valid because there can only be one side to this story that I should be interested in.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 11-25-2007, 06:29 PM
TomVeil TomVeil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 314
Default Re: this is your war on drugs

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Their expertise is there to guide you, to point you in the way of the information that you need. Personally, I can't imagine a scenario that I'd NOT listen to the doctor, but I shouldn't be prosecuted for it if I do.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you'd be ok with decisions to totally ignore the advice of the doctor and requisition any drug that someone felt like getting? Could be something else I don't know. But if you have the freedom to administer any drug to yourself that you want you certainly aren't required to consult with a physician.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, you're not required to consult with a physician. But why wouldn't you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Responding with a question to my qeustion. The only person that gets away with that with me is my wife.

[ QUOTE ]
I mean, just because I no longer REQUIRE a "doctor's note" to get medicines doesn't mean that I won't consult with them to find out what I should be taking. I'm not going to suddenly turn stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right but you don't have to if you don't want to. Neither does anyone else if we do away with prescriptions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand what the problem is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I say there was a problem? I made an observation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, OK. Myself, I don't see a whole lot of people as suddenly going against the advice of their doctor who would still suggest drugs. But people who have some crazy reasons to do this shouldn't be punished for it.

Example: Drug A is your "perscribed" drug. Doing research, you find a generic version at 1/5 the price. Should you be prosecuted for purchasing the generic drug?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.