6 ms·

And that's not legitimate? Withdrawal is probably one of the worst physical experiences someone can go through. On top of that, do you know why she was on the

And that's not legitimate? Withdrawal is probably one of the worst physical experiences someone can go through. On top of that, do you know why she was on the medication in the first place? Would you have the same attitude if she was taking SSRIs for depression, couldn't afford them (or wasn't allowed to have them!), and stole them instead?

downandout 10y ago
I don't know all of the details as to how she became addicted to them, but it certainly wasn't a financial issue. Her husband owned a chain of auto body shops and was by all accounts worth at least a few million dollars.
- MichaelGG 10y ago
  So the predicate "wasn't allowed" is even more accurate. She was prohibited, legally, to get properly labelled medication. Again, would you have the same attitude if her options for depression were "steal SSRIs from a pharma company" or "buy from someone that gets unlabeled, unmonitored shit from China, resold by whoever?"
  - random_rr 10y ago
    There are better times to argue for legalization. You're trying too hard to make a point of this. Junkies sometimes do shitty stuff.
    - MichaelGG 10y ago
      Legalization would avoid the shitty stuff part of junkies, for the most part. Or at least mitigate it to a huge extent, since costs would go down. Oxycodone, for instance, goes for about 30-100x on the street than at a grocery store. If gas was 50x more expensive, we'd probably see some desperate behaviour for a while.
      - tigershark 10y ago
        How can anyone that can't even work because lives his life in a continuous high afford something even if it is cheaper without stealing?
        MichaelGG 10y ago
        You'd be surprised at just how many professionals are on opiates. With those hundreds of millions of prescriptions, where are they all going? Maybe your experience will differ. Keep your eyes out for pinned pupils when next dealing with lawyers, doctors, engineers, executives, etc.
        bobdole1234 10y ago
        You know a few functional alcoholics right now, and you likely don't even know it. You also almost certainly know someone addicted to opiates and have no idea. There's only a small percentage of drug users who lack the ability to regulate enough to prevent a complete destruction of their lives, but those people will generally destroy their lives with anything, be it opiates or beanie baby mania. The rest of humanity can mostly hold their shit together, and you'll have no idea.
  - bduerst 10y ago
    Forgive me if this is wrong, but are you really arguing for the over-the-counter sale of chemically addicting drugs, premised on the actions of junkies? Won't that just create more junkies? Alcohol is chemically addictive, sold over the counter, and is currently the fourth leading cause of preventable death in the U.S.
    - MichaelGG 10y ago
      Opiates are not anywhere nearly as harmful as alcohol. Apart from overdosing, there's very little side effect, generally. (Some people don't tolerate them well.) The health issues that junkies have is usually due to poor hygiene - many places don't even let them buy needles! The legal aspects cause all of this. They raise prices, make supply hard, encourage fraud, discourage help, increase the terrible social stigma. There are millions of legal users that are doing fine - hundreds of millions of prescriptions! On top of this, it's an affront to the concept of individual freedom to deny medicine to patients just because you don't like them or have labelled them an addict. The current system encourages for-profit gatekeepers.
      - Aelinsaar 10y ago
        I'm curious, you seem very passionate about this topic, why is that?
        MichaelGG 10y ago
        I know a fair amount of people that have used, some that died. I've been robbed by a relative so he could sell my shit to buy drugs. Yet I strongly believe that people should be able to make their own decisions, that personal freedoms are worth the price of people deciding to use whatever medicine they want. In this thread there's a lot of blaming of a chemical. There's a lot of blaming people getting caught by laws. Jaywalking is more dangerous to third parties than these drugs, yet we would not accept this kind of attitude toward jaywalkers. People conflate the situation of drug use with the actual effects of substance. Even in this thread there's people bemoaning that junkies will do anything. While failing to acknowledge it's purely an artificial constraint that creates this situation in the first place. Antibiotics are far more dangerous. It provides a serious threat to everyone, even those that don't engage. Where are the task forces raiding and jailing people for that? I can personally go purchase a 4th line antibiotic in about 20 minutes, but I can't get strong pain relievers? The war on drugs, including (perhaps most importantly) the social attitudes, keeps countries in poverty and disarray. Look at Latin America, and how much money and blood, crime and fear is caused by this idiocy. Yet much of the population still views "dealers" and "drug traffickers" as inherently vile. In some countries, they have basically no drug user issues, yet they pay this ridiculous price. I find it abhorrent to have for-profit gatekeepers deciding what people cannot do with their own bodies (or possessions for that matter). It's far worse than say, DRM or Apple-style device lockdown. Edit: Perhaps I'm also excitable. I'd probably get annoyed if commenters kept repeating that "function" was a fine length for the lambda keyword/syntax, while simultaneously saying lambdas are too verbose.
- Spooky23 10y ago
  It often starts with an injury. I had a chronic back problem, for which I was prescribed a whole bunch of painkillers. After Vioxx and Celebrex were pulled, that was the only real option for any kind of relief. Those drugs give me a headache, and I didn't take them... But if I did, I would have taken hundreds of the things for a couple of years.

downandout 10y ago

I don't know all of the details as to how she became addicted to them, but it certainly wasn't a financial issue. Her husband owned a chain of auto body shops and was by all accounts worth at least a few million dollars.

MichaelGG 10y ago
So the predicate "wasn't allowed" is even more accurate. She was prohibited, legally, to get properly labelled medication. Again, would you have the same attitude if her options for depression were "steal SSRIs from a pharma company" or "buy from someone that gets unlabeled, unmonitored shit from China, resold by whoever?"
- random_rr 10y ago
  There are better times to argue for legalization. You're trying too hard to make a point of this. Junkies sometimes do shitty stuff.
  - MichaelGG 10y ago
    Legalization would avoid the shitty stuff part of junkies, for the most part. Or at least mitigate it to a huge extent, since costs would go down. Oxycodone, for instance, goes for about 30-100x on the street than at a grocery store. If gas was 50x more expensive, we'd probably see some desperate behaviour for a while.
    - tigershark 10y ago
      How can anyone that can't even work because lives his life in a continuous high afford something even if it is cheaper without stealing?
      - MichaelGG 10y ago
        You'd be surprised at just how many professionals are on opiates. With those hundreds of millions of prescriptions, where are they all going? Maybe your experience will differ. Keep your eyes out for pinned pupils when next dealing with lawyers, doctors, engineers, executives, etc.
      - bobdole1234 10y ago
        You know a few functional alcoholics right now, and you likely don't even know it. You also almost certainly know someone addicted to opiates and have no idea. There's only a small percentage of drug users who lack the ability to regulate enough to prevent a complete destruction of their lives, but those people will generally destroy their lives with anything, be it opiates or beanie baby mania. The rest of humanity can mostly hold their shit together, and you'll have no idea.
- bduerst 10y ago
  Forgive me if this is wrong, but are you really arguing for the over-the-counter sale of chemically addicting drugs, premised on the actions of junkies? Won't that just create more junkies? Alcohol is chemically addictive, sold over the counter, and is currently the fourth leading cause of preventable death in the U.S.
  - MichaelGG 10y ago
    Opiates are not anywhere nearly as harmful as alcohol. Apart from overdosing, there's very little side effect, generally. (Some people don't tolerate them well.) The health issues that junkies have is usually due to poor hygiene - many places don't even let them buy needles! The legal aspects cause all of this. They raise prices, make supply hard, encourage fraud, discourage help, increase the terrible social stigma. There are millions of legal users that are doing fine - hundreds of millions of prescriptions! On top of this, it's an affront to the concept of individual freedom to deny medicine to patients just because you don't like them or have labelled them an addict. The current system encourages for-profit gatekeepers.
    - Aelinsaar 10y ago
      I'm curious, you seem very passionate about this topic, why is that?
      - MichaelGG 10y ago
        I know a fair amount of people that have used, some that died. I've been robbed by a relative so he could sell my shit to buy drugs. Yet I strongly believe that people should be able to make their own decisions, that personal freedoms are worth the price of people deciding to use whatever medicine they want. In this thread there's a lot of blaming of a chemical. There's a lot of blaming people getting caught by laws. Jaywalking is more dangerous to third parties than these drugs, yet we would not accept this kind of attitude toward jaywalkers. People conflate the situation of drug use with the actual effects of substance. Even in this thread there's people bemoaning that junkies will do anything. While failing to acknowledge it's purely an artificial constraint that creates this situation in the first place. Antibiotics are far more dangerous. It provides a serious threat to everyone, even those that don't engage. Where are the task forces raiding and jailing people for that? I can personally go purchase a 4th line antibiotic in about 20 minutes, but I can't get strong pain relievers? The war on drugs, including (perhaps most importantly) the social attitudes, keeps countries in poverty and disarray. Look at Latin America, and how much money and blood, crime and fear is caused by this idiocy. Yet much of the population still views "dealers" and "drug traffickers" as inherently vile. In some countries, they have basically no drug user issues, yet they pay this ridiculous price. I find it abhorrent to have for-profit gatekeepers deciding what people cannot do with their own bodies (or possessions for that matter). It's far worse than say, DRM or Apple-style device lockdown. Edit: Perhaps I'm also excitable. I'd probably get annoyed if commenters kept repeating that "function" was a fine length for the lambda keyword/syntax, while simultaneously saying lambdas are too verbose.
Spooky23 10y ago
It often starts with an injury. I had a chronic back problem, for which I was prescribed a whole bunch of painkillers. After Vioxx and Celebrex were pulled, that was the only real option for any kind of relief. Those drugs give me a headache, and I didn't take them... But if I did, I would have taken hundreds of the things for a couple of years.