4 ms·

I wish the press would dedicate ink to the endless War On Meds That Maintain Quality Of Life. I have a loved one who takes 1x/day of lowest dose of Ambien - an

I wish the press would dedicate ink to the endless War On Meds That Maintain Quality Of Life. I have a loved one who takes 1x/day of lowest dose of Ambien - and has for years. It's effective for them and is key for their functionality. They have never exceeded their dosage. Their Dr (2hrs away) was replaced by a Dr who is hostile to responsibly prescribing sleep meds - a reflection of ever reactive medical laws being added to the books every year. It's the primary reason my loved one is migrating to another state. Another loved one has the exact same story except it's ADHD meds. Their newly assigned Dr is openly hostile to them. I have the same story as above. After 15y of responsible Adderall use, the practice I use was bought out and my Dr replaced by one who is slowly yielding to the ceaseless gov (DEA, state agencies) pressure stop prescribing ADHD meds. A close/aging friend has crippling arthritis which he kept at bay with responsible opioid use for years. Until the nuance-less drumming against opioids led to the state to pass a 3-day-max Rx law. Afterward, his choices became black market or crippling pain. Thankfully, kratom has walked that back somewhat. At least until short-sighted lawmakers take that away too. Fed & state govs continually ratchet up pressure to abandon these effective meds; our doctors keep giving ground.

Salgat 2y ago
It seems like online doctors are the future for ease of prescribing medication. I know they're primarily trying to maximixe profits by getting your business, but they are also way less emotional about the process than your typical local doctor who seems to think their job is to judge you based on less-than-scientific factors.
- howard941 2y ago
  But the DEA is requiring yearly in person visits for controlled substances. Checkmate.
LorenPechtel 2y ago
Yup. They're nasty drugs--but when the alternative is worse you use them anyway. The DEA should be nuked from orbit. And they're making the fundamental mistake of thinking you can cut a waste problem by cutting supply. No, in the real world the waste is better at defending itself and you end up disproportionately cutting the good.
Reubend 2y ago
> I wish the press would dedicate ink to the endless War On Meds That Maintain Quality Of Life. These drugs certainly improve quality of life for some people, but they have legitimate dangers. As we begin to understand them better, I think it's a good thing that we become more cautious in our approach towards recommending them to people. I don't know your friends, and I cannot presume to know the exact details of their situations or their exact prescriptions. But have you ever considered that they're addicted? Ambien (Zolpidem) is only prescribed for short term use (around 2 weeks) nowadays because of the risk for addiction and various psychological side effects (aggressiveness, agitation, even minor amnesia). But you said your friend has taken those pills for years and *plans to move to another state* just to get more of them? As for your friend who has taken opioids for years, it's certainly possible to take them irregularly for years and remain in control. However, most people who regularly take opioids for several years become addicts. I genuinely wish the best for all of your friends, and of course I hope we can invent better pharmaceuticals to treat these issues without the risks of current options. Unfortunately, quite a lot of people have had their lives ruined by those drugs, and I think your stance on this is underestimating the larger harm to society that they present.
- WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
  > These drugs certainly improve quality of life for some people, but they have legitimate dangers. This is a good illustration of my point. You express this concern as if we haven't had decades of relentless - and insanely disproportionate - demonization of these meds. > But have you ever considered that they're addicted? Of course. My repeated inclusion of responsible use is a strong signal that the risks (which are relentlessly bullhonred at us) have been considered. > Ambien (Zolpidem) is only prescribed for short term use (around 2 weeks) nowadays because of the risk for addiction and various psychological side effects (aggressiveness, agitation, even minor amnesia). But you said your friend has taken those pills for years This leaves out every key part of my assertion. It omits that they take the lowest manufactured dosage (a dosage so low, it can be difficult to source). It ignores the med is consistently effective and enables functionality. Omitting those details increases the alarm factor in your presentation and it sacrifices the nuances of our actual reality. What you did there is important. Altering my point this way completely diminishes our challenges. Once our challenges are cut from the discussion, you have room to present an anti-med narrative - the same narrative that fuels the harms being done to us. > But you said your friend has taken those pills for years and plans to move to another state just to get more of them? At this point you are presenting one surgically altered context after another. The context of my statement said >a reflection of ever reactive medical laws being added to the books every year. It's the primary reason my loved one is migrating to another state. Their med issues are a reflection of the ever increasing hostility to effective medical treatment. That is a primary factor in my loved one's migration. . You keep mischaracterizing my points, severely. This could be reasonably interpreted as bad faith on your part. However, I don't believe you're acting in bad faith. Instead, I think you rewrite my statements inside your head. Once done, I think what you have doesn't reflect what I wrote. And then I think you react to that.

Salgat 2y ago

It seems like online doctors are the future for ease of prescribing medication. I know they're primarily trying to maximixe profits by getting your business, but they are also way less emotional about the process than your typical local doctor who seems to think their job is to judge you based on less-than-scientific factors.

howard941 2y ago
But the DEA is requiring yearly in person visits for controlled substances. Checkmate.

LorenPechtel 2y ago

Yup. They're nasty drugs--but when the alternative is worse you use them anyway. The DEA should be nuked from orbit. And they're making the fundamental mistake of thinking you can cut a waste problem by cutting supply. No, in the real world the waste is better at defending itself and you end up disproportionately cutting the good.

Reubend 2y ago

> I wish the press would dedicate ink to the endless War On Meds That Maintain Quality Of Life. These drugs certainly improve quality of life for some people, but they have legitimate dangers. As we begin to understand them better, I think it's a good thing that we become more cautious in our approach towards recommending them to people. I don't know your friends, and I cannot presume to know the exact details of their situations or their exact prescriptions. But have you ever considered that they're addicted? Ambien (Zolpidem) is only prescribed for short term use (around 2 weeks) nowadays because of the risk for addiction and various psychological side effects (aggressiveness, agitation, even minor amnesia). But you said your friend has taken those pills for years and *plans to move to another state* just to get more of them? As for your friend who has taken opioids for years, it's certainly possible to take them irregularly for years and remain in control. However, most people who regularly take opioids for several years become addicts. I genuinely wish the best for all of your friends, and of course I hope we can invent better pharmaceuticals to treat these issues without the risks of current options. Unfortunately, quite a lot of people have had their lives ruined by those drugs, and I think your stance on this is underestimating the larger harm to society that they present.

WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
> These drugs certainly improve quality of life for some people, but they have legitimate dangers. This is a good illustration of my point. You express this concern as if we haven't had decades of relentless - and insanely disproportionate - demonization of these meds. > But have you ever considered that they're addicted? Of course. My repeated inclusion of responsible use is a strong signal that the risks (which are relentlessly bullhonred at us) have been considered. > Ambien (Zolpidem) is only prescribed for short term use (around 2 weeks) nowadays because of the risk for addiction and various psychological side effects (aggressiveness, agitation, even minor amnesia). But you said your friend has taken those pills for years This leaves out every key part of my assertion. It omits that they take the lowest manufactured dosage (a dosage so low, it can be difficult to source). It ignores the med is consistently effective and enables functionality. Omitting those details increases the alarm factor in your presentation and it sacrifices the nuances of our actual reality. What you did there is important. Altering my point this way completely diminishes our challenges. Once our challenges are cut from the discussion, you have room to present an anti-med narrative - the same narrative that fuels the harms being done to us. > But you said your friend has taken those pills for years and plans to move to another state just to get more of them? At this point you are presenting one surgically altered context after another. The context of my statement said >a reflection of ever reactive medical laws being added to the books every year. It's the primary reason my loved one is migrating to another state. Their med issues are a reflection of the ever increasing hostility to effective medical treatment. That is a primary factor in my loved one's migration. . You keep mischaracterizing my points, severely. This could be reasonably interpreted as bad faith on your part. However, I don't believe you're acting in bad faith. Instead, I think you rewrite my statements inside your head. Once done, I think what you have doesn't reflect what I wrote. And then I think you react to that.