> 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 co

> 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.