US - Prescription for effectiveness

A state owned database for people's prescription history?

What's to prevent that data from being mined and given to the companies who make the drugs? That data would be amazing for economic and marketing purposes. You would know exactly which demographic uses your drug the most and where to focus your advertising budget.

Also, do you want the government knowing you're an oxycontin addict? All government databases cross-connect in today's world because of homeland security.

Maybe I'm paranoid but I'd rather only my doctor have this info about me.

 

Suggestion : put the source on the homepage with the articles! it looks like bluelight supports prohibition sort of the way this herald worded the article...

You'd be surprised how many posters on this site support prohibition! It's beyond bizarre to me. It's like pro-life feminist groups.

But the source is listed with the article. Scroll down to the end of that first post.

edit: I see what you mean now. Let me put the link at the beginning of the story. Thanks!

edit2: lol apparently I have no control over that page

 

^ Thanks, I didn't even realise it was on the front page. Do they just add certain DITM articles there or something? I've never really checked that page much at all, I just go straight to the several forums I frequent and have bookmarked.

The article on the front page says it has 1 comment, but when you click into it all these comments show, I guess that's a bug?

It's a promotional thing. I've noticed that the stories that get put up there garner a more heterogenous group of responders, so apparently it has a good bit of traffic.

I have no idea why the post numbers are screwy.

 

^who chooses / what criteria determine frontpage worthiness?

 

^ I have no idea, but I've also wondered who does the updates on twitter, they are very random and rare as far as I've noticed, altho I don't use it too much, but the articles on twitter posted by BL seem to mainly be from this forum as well. And some are older ones which puzzled me a bit.

 

^fully agree. moar laws, we cannot take care of ourselves and must be protected

Dude I am a rebel just like you and hate laws in general BUT there must be some - there are law3s of physics and laws of nature to name but a few systems - there must be some ways to make sure people are not killing themselves using pain medication recreationally - they have no place doing it.

Thanks for the insight though, but really it all boils down to information - there would already be better controls if the US government didn't actually want people ODing (population control) or getting hook on pharms (cash-cows).

Information and education from an early age to stop children needing to turn to drugs in first place when they get older.

Also what the hell dude - whilst shooting speedballs is your decision, it is a bad one, and very very wrong. There shouldn't be laws against doing so, as I am not a prohibitionist, BUT whoever is actually doing speedballs needs a good talking to.

PA - hahah kinda funny.

 

http://www.change.org/petitions/florida-pharmacies-stop-florida-pharmacies-from-denying-pain-patients-vital-medicines?utm_source=supporter_message&utm_medium=email

Yeah, and now people suffering with chronic pain can't get scripts filled here in Florida. Read the posts from people that signed the petition.

Leaping Gnome

 

Dude I am a rebel just like you and hate laws in general BUT there must be some

I think you have an inaccurate perception of me bro. This isn't "rebellion", it's acknowledgement that prohibition is unethical, immoral, unconstitutional and, if none of those matter to you, well, it's also completely impractical, ineffective, and in many instances, *counterproductive*.

- there are law3s of physics and laws of nature to name but a few systems - there must be some ways to make sure people are not killing themselves using pain medication recreationally - they have no place doing it.

Okay first, there are NOT ways to make sure ppl don't kill themselves in such a manner, only ways to reduce that # (hint: we're not doing that right now).
"they have no place doing it"...says you. Again, i completely disagree with you (and think you must be pretty damn confident in your beliefs/views to think it's appropriate to force them onto others). Let me ask you something, let's say someone decides they want to drink to their liver rots out. Do they have a place doing so?(i dislike your phrasing, so "do they have the right to do so?")

Thanks for the insight though, but really it all boils down to information - there would already be better controls if the US government didn't actually want people ODing (population control) or getting hook on pharms (cash-cows).

You're very very off-base here. Believe it or not, the primary focus of the drug warriors in my area is oxycodone and dilaudid, reductions of consumption in those would slow OD's and reduce big pharma sales (again: they're doing it wrong, but those are their goals and they are actually pretty aggressive)

Information and education from an early age to stop children needing to turn to drugs in first place when they get older.

Well in the 1st i disagree that it's in the gov's purview to try and take that role, but truth is that^ isn't what stops ppl from destructive drug behaviors. Knowing how dangerous dope is doesn't dissuade ppl. What tends to be the overwhelming factor in destructive drug behaviors is someone's life, the entirety of it, ie their outlook / what they have to live for / their future /etc. This isn't a problem of information/education.
If you're unsure about what i just said, consider the addicts that you know. Consider those who got and stayed clean. Hell, wiki the "rat park" study(highly reco'd reading). Then tell me this is an issue of information/education. It is not.

Also what the hell dude - whilst shooting speedballs is your decision, it is a bad one, and very very wrong. There shouldn't be laws against doing so, as I am not a prohibitionist, BUT whoever is actually doing speedballs needs a good talking to.

yeah they probably do need a good talking to. but that comes from their family, their friends, or it comes from nobody. It should not come from guys with guns/cuffs, looking to cage the person.
(edit: i should note that i would say most anyone doing *speedballs* needs a talking to, because i have yet to ever come across an example of intravenous cocaine, or smoked freebase, where it was something that was in the user's control. If you had said almost anything besides speedballs, i would argue that there's usually a proper time/place. But crack, and IV coke, are things i've just never ever seen nor could understand how they could be used in any manner that's acceptable, and this is due to their ridiculous "fien" potential, ie ppl use til they run out. They just bring on FAR too obsessive a compulsion for more use, wayyyy too strong/fast, to be used in any proper manner. This does NOT hold true for opiates/meth/powder coke IMO, despite all of those having much more pronounced 'fien' potential than most other drugs)

 

when people are going to multiple pain management docs and then proceeding to iv the pills instead of taking them as prescribed what do they expect will happen?

 

^that's a very common path / slippery-slope of addiction, but to say that the ppl are truly ignorant (instead of just avoiding acknowledgement) of what's going on as they progress is silly.

 

I think prohibition is wrong. Prohibition of pretty much anything EXCEPT crack - honestly I think this is the only drug which should be illegal. It has no legitimate uses.

So there I totally agree with you - it's still a bit rebellious.

You say the primary focus of these drug warriors is to reduce big pharma consumption, and you disagree with this? I think it's a good thing - there shouldn't be any criminal consequences for the people taaking advantage of the system, just for the people who prescribe them NEGLIGENTLY.

I think you have an inaccurate perception of me bro. This isn't "rebellion", it's acknowledgement that prohibition is unethical, immoral, unconstitutional and, if none of those matter to you, well, it's also completely impractical, ineffective, and in many instances, *counterproductive*.



Okay first, there are NOT ways to make sure ppl don't kill themselves in such a manner, only ways to reduce that # (hint: we're not doing that right now).
"they have no place doing it"...says you. Again, i completely disagree with you (and think you must be pretty damn confident in your beliefs/views to think it's appropriate to force them onto others). Let me ask you something, let's say someone decides they want to drink to their liver rots out. Do they have a place doing so?(i dislike your phrasing, so "do they have the right to do so?")



You're very very off-base here. Believe it or not, the primary focus of the drug warriors in my area is oxycodone and dilaudid, reductions of consumption in those would slow OD's and reduce big pharma sales (again: they're doing it wrong, but those are their goals and they are actually pretty aggressive)



Well in the 1st i disagree that it's in the gov's purview to try and take that role, but truth is that^ isn't what stops ppl from destructive drug behaviors. Knowing how dangerous dope is doesn't dissuade ppl. What tends to be the overwhelming factor in destructive drug behaviors is someone's life, the entirety of it, ie their outlook / what they have to live for / their future /etc. This isn't a problem of information/education.
If you're unsure about what i just said, consider the addicts that you know. Consider those who got and stayed clean. Hell, wiki the "rat park" study(highly reco'd reading). Then tell me this is an issue of information/education. It is not.



yeah they probably do need a good talking to. but that comes from their family, their friends, or it comes from nobody. It should not come from guys with guns/cuffs, looking to cage the person.
(edit: i should note that i would say most anyone doing *speedballs* needs a talking to, because i have yet to ever come across an example of intravenous cocaine, or smoked freebase, where it was something that was in the user's control. If you had said almost anything besides speedballs, i would argue that there's usually a proper time/place. But crack, and IV coke, are things i've just never ever seen nor could understand how they could be used in any manner that's acceptable, and this is due to their ridiculous "fien" potential, ie ppl use til they run out. They just bring on FAR too obsessive a compulsion for more use, wayyyy too strong/fast, to be used in any proper manner. This does NOT hold true for opiates/meth/powder coke IMO, despite all of those having much more pronounced 'fien' potential than most other drugs)

We seem to totally agree on th crack thing and that is because we see the truth, not subjective opinions.

Whilst there is a national government I believe it is their place to delegate to people who actually know what they are talking about and are completely impartial to run programmes about educating re drugs.


That's not what I meant though - I mean a much more holistic education, because the causes that make people turn to drugs are generally shitty "nurturing" growing up, and poor education in a sado-masochistic society of power dynamics - no wonder so many people wanna get high to escape - the establishment have got us fucked, and this is only because they too hate themselves, as they are relying purely on their reptilian brain.

Moving on - yeah I meant someone (like family or friends or just a straanger really, anyone - it is our responsibility as fellow human beings to point out if someone is destroying themselves, and potentially others, and to offer our help) should talk to them, slapping them in cuffs is just part of the power & domination game in play, turning people into dependents, slaves, and "no hopers".

Leading me to my point again that they have no place doing these drugs if they don't have a problem. Nature didn't put these things here for us to get fucked up - yes we have a choice, but to be true to ourselves the right choice is to only use them for pain...emotional pain included, but to strive to take away our own pain in natural forms - these things are medicine and dpeople abuse them, which is why we have controls by cunts on them in the first place...because of our mammalian tendency to wanna get loaded - but we are humans, we have higher consciousnesses and don't live purely on instinct - so we should be able to stop fucking about, and help each other do it, and leave these gifts to people who truly need them.

Therefore I state for the final time, recreational users of drugs have no place doing them after curious experimentation and the following - entheogenic, psychotherapeutic, analgesic, etc I go on - these are the only excuses, and yes I am very confident in my views - I speak a universal truth here.

Yes, occasionally I will have a drug to get high, I won't lie, but I strive to be just me, and that person I can be doesn't ever need drugs.

 

I think prohibition is wrong. Prohibition of pretty much anything EXCEPT crack - honestly I think this is the only drug which should be illegal. It has no legitimate uses.

So cracks bad, but meth is ok? I don't get it? How do you differentiate? Both highly addictive, both very strong drugs. ghb is ok? cocaine? I guess you have your reasons, but I dont know who would legalise everything bar crack.

If cocaine was legal, wouldn't some people just make crack anyway?

 

^ and other people will argue oxy is a semilegal form of heroin
is heroin ok?
and adderol and vyvanse are straight up amphetamines which chemically are not incredibly different from methamphetamine (just safer in the poison sense)

 

Yeah I dont know, it's a hard one. I think to start with all these substances and more should be made so that using or carrying small amounts is not a criminal offence. More options and funding for rehabs and counselling and less for jail.

 

b1t- we do *not* see the same on the crack thing. we seem to agree on the nature of crack-cocaine, but you think it appropriate and/or practical to legally ban it. As stated, that's..'inferior', to be gentle, and is only the proper course if the sole reason is to enact punishment upon those who chose/choose to use it. If you think you're holding back a giant crack epidemic with prohibition, you are wrong. It does not work like that. Look at the scenarios where crack is/was "epidemic" and you will see the futility of drugs-as-crime / prohibition approaches (and of DARE approaches. If the gov must be involved, then regulating - not banning - the substances would be a 'smarter' approach, there's a certain merit to a state-run drug store wherein the permission slip system (rx prescriptions) is replaced by being of age and presenting ID at a gov-run facility that will sell you <x amount?> of <insert drug here>, a gov-run facility being preferable to a free market where the superbowl commercials show heroin-chic models IV'ing, or a sexy couple basing on a gorgeous beach. I dunno, i dislike gov controls in consumer markets like that, but i can see a lot of validity to a state's desire to control the market of psychoactives. But that does not mean i think they should be able to enact bans (nor should they, even from the perspective of their own stated goals)

 

Yeah I dont know, it's a hard one. I think to start with all these substances and more should be made so that using or carrying small amounts is not a criminal offence. More options and funding for rehabs and counselling and less for jail.

^that's definitely a solid first step. Portugal decrim'd about a decade ago and, shockingly, there was no epidemic...
Of course, there's something...incomplete, i guess, about a policy that says you can have a lil meth, but you must buy it from someone who's not allowed to sell it.

 

You say the primary focus of these drug warriors is to reduce big pharma consumption, and you disagree with this?

I never said that. The drug warriors in my area that i made reference to are fighting opiate-addiction, that is their focus, their primary. Their means, naturally, will hurt big pharma, but that's not their goal (or even necessarily a positive to them).

That's not what I meant though - I mean a much more holistic education, because the causes that make people turn to drugs are generally shitty "nurturing" growing up, and poor education in a sado-masochistic society of power dynamics - no wonder so many people wanna get high to escape - the establishment have got us fucked, and this is only because they too hate themselves, as they are relying purely on their reptilian brain.

I'm unsure what you're trying to get across here..

Leading me to my point again that they have no place doing these drugs if they don't have a problem. Nature didn't put these things here for us to get fucked up - yes we have a choice, but to be true to ourselves the right choice is to only use them for pain...emotional pain included, but to strive to take away our own pain in natural forms - these things are medicine and dpeople abuse them, which is why we have controls by cunts on them in the first place...because of our mammalian tendency to wanna get loaded - but we are humans, we have higher consciousnesses and don't live purely on instinct - so we should be able to stop fucking about, and help each other do it, and leave these gifts to people who truly need them.

There's no scarcity to these "gifts", and you're still coming across as if getting high is inherently wrong. Lots of the time, i think ppl getting high are doing the wrong thing, but that's certainly not always the case.

Therefore I state for the final time, recreational users of drugs have no place doing them after curious experimentation and the following - entheogenic, psychotherapeutic, analgesic, etc I go on - these are the only excuses, and yes I am very confident in my views - I speak a universal truth here.

LOL then huge agree to disagree. I cannot speak highly enough of the value of proper mdma sessions; of (safely-conducted)high-dosage LSD sessions; of testosterone therapy to any man who so chooses; of both alcohol and marijuana's tremendous "social lubricant", life enhancing, and relaxation-inducing qualities. Drugs absolutely have a proper role and it is neither abstinence nor addiction, nor is it limited to pain-relief.

Yes, occasionally I will have a drug to get high, I won't lie, but I strive to be just me, and that person I can be doesn't ever need drugs.

I basically agree with you here. I like not being high all the time, and know that having full-blown, high-level tolerance to opiates / benzo's /alcohol sucks. But there are times where drugs are not about "need", but simply "want", and that want can absolutely be experienced by a healthy, happy, productive person.

 

Of course, there's something...incomplete, i guess, about a policy that says you can have a lil meth, but you must buy it from someone who's not allowed to sell it.

Yeah, that's true. It's pretty similar here in Aus with pot atm, as in you aren't allowed to buy it or sell it anywhere, but in some states you can grow 2 plants and some you can get caught with 1/2 ounce or a fair bit more in some places and not get a criminal record, sometimes just a recorded caution. In other states 1 gram or 1 plant growing is a criminal offence and you will probably have to goto court, and depending on priors and amounts possibly jail.

Maybe being allowed to sell any drug shouldn't be the issue at all, there should be some limit tho don't you think? Or people will just be moving more and more all the time with no fear of any implications. I'm pretty sure the laws at present would stop a fair chunk of people in society from wanting to move large amounts and risk going to jail. Im all for drug use being non-criminal, but i dont really think it should be ok to be moving shit loads, there would possibly be more drug addicts than ever if it was just 'do as you want, move as much as anything as you like' kind of scenario? I'm glad I dont have to make these decisions, it's quite difficult. But over all, my strongest belief is end use and possibly sale or distribution for amounts under a certain level should not be a criminal offence, we have to stop jailing drug users and addicts for non-violent drug crimes, its a fucking joke and gone on way too long and ruined too many lives and families.

I might get a bit burnt here, but it's just my opinion, off the top of my head, it's early here. Go easy on me, I dont claim to know it all or have all the answers, i'm interested in everyones opinions.

 

the very idea of drug usage necessitates supply. It's extremely half-assed to allow usage but penalize supply (but as stated I don't see much issue with gov-run supply chains, provided they are done properly. Right now, the gov tries to regulate via prescriptions and criminalization, both of which are very flawed)

 

the very idea of drug usage necessitates supply.

Yeah I guess the best option is for it all to be taxed and sold legally at gov't run supply chains, taxed and legal like alcohol or tobacco. I Wonder if that will ever happen.

I'd never (well I say that now) buy certain drugs even if they were legal, but some I would sometimes sure.

 

So cracks bad, but meth is ok? I don't get it? How do you differentiate? Both highly addictive, both very strong drugs. ghb is ok? cocaine? I guess you have your reasons, but I dont know who would legalise everything bar crack.

If cocaine was legal, wouldn't some people just make crack anyway?

No - cocaine is nice and sociable in small amount, occasionally as a recreational drug and it has other uses. In a psychotherapeutic use for instance you could argue it can show you what being truly confident is like (if you have issues with this), then you can work on natural methods of confidence building until you have achieved the same effect. Yoga can give you drug euphoria so you're pretty much there.

Meth has it's occasional uses - crack really doesn't - it's not even sociable it just turns you into a fucking twitchy paranoid redfaced cunt of a mess.

^ and other people will argue oxy is a semilegal form of heroin
is heroin ok?
and adderol and vyvanse are straight up amphetamines which chemically are not incredibly different from methamphetamine (just safer in the poison sense)

Heroin is an analgesic and it is natural - so yes it is OK.

Stuff like subuxone and oxy and methadone are particularly dangerous because if you've been doing it for a certain amount of time you cannot go cold turkey - you will die. Alcohol can do this too - but alcohol causes a lot more trouble before that stage, so chances are for most people it won't get to that stage.

I don't like synthetic opiates for reasons stated above but they have their uses, they just need to be regulated even more and safeguards and heavy consequences placed upon those who prescribe them illegitimately/carelessly.

Freebase cocaine was designed to fuck us up.

BMXXX - yeah fair enough - I feel very strongly about crack, and regulated - I can see your point - BUT there is no legitimate use for it. So why should we regulate something which leads to NOTHING BUT HARM. There doesn't seem to be any reason for it to be here - it's pure darkness.

I still hold my view it should be eradicated where possible - supplying it by prescription when it has no positive use is stupid, there are some things we just need laws against, in order to further the human race.

We will have to agree to disagree on the "want" thing. Getting high is...well it can be fun, unless it's habit forming.

When I'm talking about education and nurturing I just mean we need to change how people are taught - the way they're taught in most schools is to actually make them more dependent upon state and states delegates, putting them in a box, which causes unhappiness so they turn to drugs.

I struggle to say it that we should collectively outlaw something - that takes away other people's free will, BUT I cannot see any other way - it has no place on this earth (crack).