Drug testing in meds

[sfinch]

We all have different standards A-Stark. If you saw a man beating his wife or abusing his children, would you intervene? Some would not. I would. If I saw a fellow med student doing cocaine on a regular basis, I would intervene for the same reason. By letting the school know that someone that may be seeing patients is using illegal drugs and is a liability to the medical school. I suppose i would consider shrooms as the same category as pot - so your example is not entirely accurate. However E, and cocaine, are hardcore enough for me to report.

 

Letting colleagues get away with hardcore drugs or drunk driving, which most of you seem to advocate, is in my mind incredibily unethical and is the reason why I wonder if self-policing of the profession is really in the public interest.

[oto]

I know oto loves his illegal drugs. Well - telling impressionable premeds to be careful with illegal drugs is important. Because getting caught CAN get you into a heap of trouble.

 

LOL! You're a fool. Most of your posts are based on generalizations and assumptions accompanied with an aggressive tone. How does attacking me based on a false pretense advance your argument AT ALL!? You're focused on bringing down individuals rather than making a point.

 

bj89 disproved your rubbish post anyway..

 

p.s. I don't go drugs and I passively advocate my colleagues not to do them either. Then I let them decide rather than showering them with lies about how they'll get expelled, lose their future jobs and get deported to guantanamo bay if they get caught.. (being facetious there..)

 

 

Letting colleagues get away with hardcore drugs or drunk driving, which most of you seem to advocate,

 

Who advocated this? PLEASE tell me. Show me the posts of the majority of us which advocated this..please.

[TheBoss]

Here's something you guys might find interesting: empirical, scientific proof that drugs are harmful

[bj89]

Cautioning others against taking the risk is one thing, but this is beyond the pale. So a med student doing shrooms should be reported to the police? I have my doubts that IV drug use or smoking crack pipes are otherwise altogether common among students in professional programs. And even so - what kind of jerk are you that you would turn people in for no other reason than it's "against the law"? The law's an ass.

 

For the record, I would NOT turn ANYONE in for drug use... if there was an issue of actual abuse, then I would attempt to get that person the appropriate treatment. I'm not sure what "ethics" have to do with this.

 

To sfinch: wouldn't you think the bolded statement would be the right thing to do? Taking a paternalistic stance and going straight to the authority about this type of issue isn't whistle blowing or anything, its more like "tattle-tailing"

 

Here's something you guys might find interesting: empirical, scientific proof that drugs are harmful

 

After watching this, I think that sfinch has been making a point all a long. The effects of drug use shown in this video are certainly devastating, and I see why sfinch feels so strongly about the situation.

[itimebomb2]

To sfinch: wouldn't you think the bolded statement would be the right thing to do? Taking a paternalistic stance and going straight to the authority about this type of issue isn't whistle blowing or anything, its more like "tattle-tailing"

 

Like sfinch said, that depends entirely on your view of the law. Many people including myself believe that the law is fair and leaves room for remediation before outright punishment. For example, if you get caught with hard drugs for the first time, you're much more likely to be put through remedial programs than sent to jail.

 

The option to "settle" the matter outside of the court is a subjective one and needs to be taken on a case by case basis. Certainly, approaching the individual personally and imploring them to change their ways would be an easier thing to do than to actually have to report a colleague (or in a terrible circumstance, a friend) to the police. But sometimes individuals and society at large are better served when you take the tougher route of bringing things to the police.

 

Case in point: have you ever tried to convince a friend out of driving when they seem drunk? Calling the police on a drunk friend (if they refuse to not drive) is probably one of the hardest things you'll ever think of doing.

[oto]

Like sfinch said, that depends entirely on your view of the law. Many people including myself believe that the law is fair and leaves room for remediation before outright punishment. For example, if you get caught with hard drugs for the first time, you're much more likely to be put through remedial programs than sent to jail.

 

The option to "settle" the matter outside of the court is a subjective one and needs to be taken on a case by case basis. Certainly, approaching the individual personally and imploring them to change their ways would be an easier thing to do than to actually have to report a colleague (or in a terrible circumstance, a friend) to the police. But sometimes individuals and society at large are better served when you take the tougher route of bringing things to the police.

 

itimebomb, are you going to report your friend who smokes pot on wednesday and friday nights to relax? This behaviour literally affects nobody but your friend himself. He isn't harming anybody or helping anybody. It's completely private! If you report him, it's a criminal record. You'll make him pay fines, maybe get him on probation, make it harder for him to travel, make it tougher for him if he ever applies for another job, jeopardize so many things for him.

The law should have 0 power over him as long as he isn't harming anybody. Why them on a pedestal.. and make them godlike.

 

The moment your friend harms somebody because of his behaviour is the moment you should start considering harsh actions.

 

Case in point: have you ever tried to convince a friend out of driving when they seem drunk? Calling the police on a drunk friend (if they refuse to not drive) is probably one of the hardest things you'll ever think of doing.

 

I would call every person I know to help me physically restrain a friend--if it comes to that.. I would drive him over myself. I would go to great lengths to somehow calm him and transport him home. I would even take a calculated risk at doing something bold to pacify a friend before calling the cops.

What type of douche calls the cops on his FRIEND.

 

I understand if it's somebody you don't know and you're absolutely 100% sure whatever you do won't stop them.. then at last resort you'd have to call somebody.

 

I would NEVER let somebody drive drunk. I would definitely call the police at last resort. But I'd literally throw the kitchen sink before making such an uncompromising move such as calling the cops..

[itimebomb2]

itimebomb, are you going to report your friend who smokes pot on wednesday and friday nights to relax? This behaviour literally affects nobody but your friend himself. He isn't harming anybody or helping anybody. It's completely private! If you report him, it's a criminal record. You'll make him pay fines, maybe get him on probation, make it harder for him to travel, make it tougher for him if he ever applies for another job, jeopardize so many things for him.

The law should have 0 power over him as long as he isn't harming anybody. Why them on a pedestal.. and make them godlike.

 

The moment your friend harms somebody because of his behaviour is the moment you should start considering harsh actions.

 

You took what I said to one extreme. Like I said, the law is based on social norms and reason. Currently, the law permits individuals to smoke privately on a wednesday or a friday night, therefore I would have no right to report anyone for doing so (and nothing would come of it even if I did). The law is supposed to be fair - no more harsh or lenient than the consequences we'd expect from doing anything that we know is against the law. We don't make consequences harsher by reporting an individual - they were aware of the choice they were making to begin with. The only thing we can do is to be more lenient on an individual.

 

What you're saying is that your predisposition is to be extremely lenient to as great an extent as possible, and that's your prerogative. However, for someone to take the issue into the hands of the law is fair, not harsh - in most circumstances. Now, I am aware that the law has inefficiencies that can sometimes blow a small infraction out of proportion, so let me just say that these are general principles, and are not inflexible.

[itimebomb2]

I would call every person I know to help me physically restrain a friend--if it comes to that.. I would drive him over myself. I would go to great lengths to somehow calm him and transport him home. I would even take a calculated risk at doing something bold to pacify a friend before calling the cops.

What type of douche calls the cops on his FRIEND.

 

I understand if it's somebody you don't know and you're absolutely 100% sure whatever you do won't stop them.. then at last resort you'd have to call somebody.

 

I would NEVER let somebody drive drunk. I would definitely call the police at last resort. But I'd literally throw the kitchen sink before making such an uncompromising move such as calling the cops..

 

I'd like to see you call everybody you know and dismantle a kitchen sink in the 30 seconds you have between when your best friend punches you in the face and gets to his car. Maybe we're not all as lucky as you as to have such friendly and patient drunks as friends. Getting the police BEFORE your friend reaches the car would be saving a life or lives. I would hardly consider that being a douche. There are plenty of dead people out there who wish their friends were more douche-like right now.

[thebouque]

Dead people have no wishes

[bloh]

I'd like to see you call everybody you know and dismantle a kitchen sink in the 30 seconds you have between when your best friend punches you in the face and gets to his car.

 

Sounds like you have ****ty friends. Or no friends at all.

 

My best friend would never punch me, drunk or not.

[bloh]

Taking illegal drugs and getting caught IS a career killer (or derailer). You will not be able to enter the US for anything (hence you need to try to get a pardon - which is not cheap). Do not think otherwise. Even POT use.

 

I remember a few premeds a few months ago talking about how drinking and driving is not that big a deal. Seriously. And well, two med students at MAC died because of drinking and driving a month ago.

 

If you are serious about entering medicine - keep it clean. One mistake, one slip up with a cop catching you - and your career IS in jeopardy. You do it WHILE a med student - and your career is in jeopardy.

 

I know oto loves his illegal drugs. Well - telling impressionable premeds to be careful with illegal drugs is important. Because getting caught CAN get you into a heap of trouble.

 

You clearly have no idea about law practicalities at all. What's written does not necessarily happen in court. Most pot possessions are minor and never even followed up on. Do you ever go out? Ever? Everyone smokes and I don't see clubs being raided. In fact, every single club would be permanently shut down if that was the case. The most that will happen is that the bouncer will make you go and smoke around the corner out of his sight. No one gives a ****.

 

For the record, I don't see anyone condoning drug use here. If you want to use pot, go right ahead. I don't give a ****. Furthermore it won't affect your practice at all, as long as you keep it off hours. Ironically, what's going to affect patient care the most is stuck up individuals like you who go through life not enjoying it and end up being severely depressed, alone and single with 'friends' that are all too eager to punch you any chance they get.

[sfinch]

Did you hear abut the NFL bucaneer tight end that got caught with 1 once of personal pot. The dude's NFL career is basically over, and his team cut him for it.

That was yesterday. Some of you seriously think there are no consequences to drug use - mind boggling.

 

Sure, teens and college kids are often let go. Doctors caught doing illegal things are not. Most clubs hear in London don't have people smoking pot within them regularly - though i do smell chronic on the streets. And I don't think London is any more chaste than other major Ontario cities. Hell, in Vancouver, where pot is much more accepted, I still didn't see it in clubs all the time.

 

Those that support pot, also support some of the most violent gangs on the west coast - where even dozens of innocents have been murdered in cold blood. While many of you have a problem with blood diamonds - when it comes to your precious illegal drugs - the misery and crime behind them doesn't even cross your selfish little mind.

 

Occasional pot use - whatever I don't care. But if I catch any colleague of mine using stronger drugs, and the authorities will hear about it. I believe in laws. That IS MY PREROGATIVE. If you like breaking the law, smoking drugs, and not ratting on people committing crimes - so be it. People like me do exist though. I personally strongly believe on the war on drugs. So do many people in this country.

 

And I have plenty of friends in my class - and am known to be a pretty funny guy. So keep your idea that only heavy drug users and those that condone them are fun people to your self, you arrogant douche.

[Icebox]

Edit: Wrong thread.

[apache]

nope, not well enforced enforced at all, as the old saying goes, those who do not know that they do not know are dangerous because they think they know, whereas those who know they don't know are at better off because they know that they are ignorant, r.d. laing i believe... not quite sure

 

Then it's not well enforced because I know of a handful of practicing MDs that get trashed on E quite frequently and openly in the bars.

 

I think it's only an issue if it is affecting your patients.

[apache]

You're Right!!!!

 

The war on drugs is great, it creates a 7 billion dollar a year pot industry in BC, I was watching a documentary the other day and all the dealers sounded horrified at the thought of legalization cutting into their profits, as were the cutters getting paid 20 dollars an hour, the real estate agents who "specialized" in finding drug houses, the drivers, the electricians doing the lighting, the electricity companies who only seemed to report people when the ridiculous power bills weren't being paid. It seems everyone except the helpless junkie agrees with Sfinch, it's too bad we all have to profit from his suffering.

 

The war on drugs also creates jobs in law enforcement, the ability to hyper-inflate drug costs, which the average joe pays to fund the dealers' mercedes, which is eventually confiscated by the government, making more money. We can't forget politicians, either, they need something to do, some platform, some sort of "othering" to win votes. It's also great for the medical industry, at least the specialty I want to do, instead of having patients who manage getting by using heroin occasionally, if it were legally and safely distributed to them, I'll have a lot more patients who aren't functional because of the constraints societies lack of condonement of drug use places on them, meaning good jobs in addictions. I also get to have people come to me looking for the pharmaceutical equivalent of their substance of choice. It's also great for the infectious disease guys, they get to deal with all the AIDS and treatment resistant stuff. ****, let's not forget community health and ER, they make big off the illegal drug industry too.

 

****, Sfinch was right, why am I complaining?

 

Occasional pot use - whatever I don't care. But if I catch any colleague of mine using stronger drugs, and the authorities will hear about it. I believe in laws. That IS MY PREROGATIVE. If you like breaking the law, smoking drugs, and not ratting on people committing crimes - so be it. People like me do exist though. I personally strongly believe on the war on drugs. So do many people in this country.

[itimebomb2]

You're Right!!!!

 

The war on drugs is great, it creates a 7 billion dollar a year pot industry in BC, I was watching a documentary the other day and all the dealers sounded horrified at the thought of legalization cutting into their profits, as were the cutters getting paid 20 dollars an hour, the real estate agents who "specialized" in finding drug houses, the drivers, the electricians doing the lighting, the electricity companies who only seemed to report people when the ridiculous power bills weren't being paid. It seems everyone except the helpless junkie agrees with Sfinch, it's too bad we all have to profit from his suffering.

 

The war on drugs also creates jobs in law enforcement, the ability to hyper-inflate drug costs, which the average joe pays to fund the dealers' mercedes, which is eventually confiscated by the government, making more money. We can't forget politicians, either, they need something to do, some platform, some sort of "othering" to win votes. It's also great for the medical industry, at least the specialty I want to do, instead of having patients who manage getting by using heroin occasionally, if it were legally and safely distributed to them, I'll have a lot more patients who aren't functional because of the constraints societies lack of condonement of drug use places on them, meaning good jobs in addictions. I also get to have people come to me looking for the pharmaceutical equivalent of their substance of choice. It's also great for the infectious disease guys, they get to deal with all the AIDS and treatment resistant stuff. ****, let's not forget community health and ER, they make big off the illegal drug industry too.

 

****, Sfinch was right, why am I complaining?

 

Are you trying to be sarcastic here? Those are all good points.

[oto]

Are you trying to be sarcastic here? Those are all good points.

 

lol, if you agree those are 'good' points, then you're indirectly agreeing of encouraging drug use.

[seeking1]

Could somebody find that editorial in a journal from that scientist who studied effects of pot on people and was using the stuff while doing so? I remember that he got canned from his research and was facing significant legal charges. I think hes in the States somewhere....

 

I think one of the bigger issues people have with drugs but can't explain is that they make people lazy and unfocused. At least pot does anyways. Hard drugs are concerning for more obvious reasons.

 

With regards to an effective legal manner of dealing with pot use, pot should be decriminalized but not legalized. Two different things, interestingly enough. By doing this the cops could effectively turn pot smoking into a minor charge which they would issue you a ticket for, like breaking a bylaw. They could charge $150 for it, rake in the cash for their troubles and not have to take in pot users. It also drains money from people who use, thus making it more difficult to obtain said drugs.

 

This is me assuming, of course, that we want to decrease the number of pot smokers. I suggest this only because I think its about time that THC from pot finally gets acknowledged for its useful place in science and medicine, i.e. using it to stave off severe nausea for chemo patients. I care little for the moral arguments surrounding drugs, because in more than 30 years they've (the moral arguments) done nothing to influence positive change in society.

 

Note: edited for clarity.

[Mr_Obvious]

Could somebody find that editorial in a journal from that scientist who studied effects of pot on people and was using the stuff while doing so? I remember that he got canned from his research and was facing significant legal charges. I think hes in the States somewhere....

 

I think one of the bigger issues people have with drugs but can't explain is that they make people lazy and unfocused. At least pot does anyways. Hard drugs are concerning for more obvious reasons.

 

With regards to an effective legal manner of dealing with pot use, pot should be decriminalized but not legalized. Two different things, interestingly enough. By doing this the cops could effectively turn pot smoking into a minor charge which they would issue you a ticket for, like breaking a bylaw. They could charge $150 for it, rake in the cash for their troubles and not have to take in pot users. It also drains money from people who use, thus making it more difficult to obtain said drugs.

 

This is me assuming, of course, that we want to decrease the number of pot smokers. I suggest this only because I think its about time that THC from pot finally gets acknowledged for its useful place in science and medicine, i.e. using it to stave off severe nausea for chemo patients. I care little for the moral arguments surrounding drugs, because in more than 30 years they've done nothing to influence positive change in society.

 

 

"You see, I think drugs have done some good things for us. I really do. And if you don't believe drugs have done good things for us, do me a favor. Go home tonight. Take all your albums, all your tapes and all your CDs and burn them. 'Cause you know what, the musicians that made all that great music that's enhanced your lives throughout the years were rrreal ****ing high on drugs. The Beatles were so ****ing high they let Ringo sing a few tunes."

-Bill Hicks

 

From a comedy act, so meant to be a bit out there, but still rings true. A gargantuan proportion of art from as long as there has been art has been inspired by altered states of consciousness. Social activist movements of the 60s and 70s were also highly influenced by drugs and drug culture. Not to mention the millions of people out there who had the many of the most enjoyable times of their lives while socially and responsibly indulging in legal and/or illegal drug use. What has the drug war ever done to influence positive change in society? Because things ran so much smoother during America's alcohol prohibition experiment, right?

 

Do people out there really not realize drug related gang activity is a direct result of drug prohibition, and not drug use? Remember the crazy ass pot grower out in Mayerthorpe a few years back who shot and killed good RCMP officers out on his property? How many people would have died if 10 pounds of pot was dropped right now into every home in Canada? 0! The fact that even one police officer died while trying to prevent something like pot to getting to those who choose to use it destroys the entire prohibition argument. Good people shouldn't be dying to prevent other good people (or even *******s) from having a good time that hurts noone except possibly themselves. If the current socio-legal environment was actually able to do anything about the levels of uncontrolled usage of harder drugs and the harm they caused then possibly there would be arguments for continuing prohibition, but the evidence certainly does not support that.

[leviathan]

They could charge $150 for it, rake in the cash for their troubles and not have to take in pot users. It also drains money from people who use, thus making it more difficult to obtain said drugs.

Unfortunately you'll hardly make it difficult for drug users to obtain their drugs, and you'll never stop people from doing drugs. All you do is push the problem further underground so that the distribution and production gets dealt with by criminals rather than controlled by the government.

[seeking1]

Unfortunately you'll hardly make it difficult for drug users to obtain their drugs, and you'll never stop people from doing drugs. All you do is push the problem further underground so that the distribution and production gets dealt with by criminals rather than controlled by the government.

 

I'm cool with the government running it, so long as I don't hear from free-market babies.

[itimebomb2]

"You see, I think drugs have done some good things for us. I really do. And if you don't believe drugs have done good things for us, do me a favor. Go home tonight. Take all your albums, all your tapes and all your CDs and burn them. 'Cause you know what, the musicians that made all that great music that's enhanced your lives throughout the years were rrreal ****ing high on drugs. The Beatles were so ****ing high they let Ringo sing a few tunes."

-Bill Hicks

 

From a comedy act, so meant to be a bit out there, but still rings true. A gargantuan proportion of art from as long as there has been art has been inspired by altered states of consciousness. Social activist movements of the 60s and 70s were also highly influenced by drugs and drug culture. Not to mention the millions of people out there who had the many of the most enjoyable times of their lives while socially and responsibly indulging in legal and/or illegal drug use. What has the drug war ever done to influence positive change in society? Because things ran so much smoother during America's alcohol prohibition experiment, right?

 

Do people out there really not realize drug related gang activity is a direct result of drug prohibition, and not drug use? Remember the crazy ass pot grower out in Mayerthorpe a few years back who shot and killed good RCMP officers out on his property? How many people would have died if 10 pounds of pot was dropped right now into every home in Canada? 0! The fact that even one police officer died while trying to prevent something like pot to getting to those who choose to use it destroys the entire prohibition argument. Good people shouldn't be dying to prevent other good people (or even *******s) from having a good time that hurts noone except possibly themselves. If the current socio-legal environment was actually able to do anything about the levels of uncontrolled usage of harder drugs and the harm they caused then possibly there would be arguments for continuing prohibition, but the evidence certainly does not support that.

 

You're ignoring the massive and important FACT that drug abuse leads thousands of people to ruin and death every single year in this country. Drugs used for creative purposes make up a very small minority of drug use, and unfortunately, recreational drug use has the tendency of evolving into full blown additions without much warning. Waging a "war" against drugs isn't the terminology I'd use, but like somebody else said, putting the control into the hands of authorities is a far better long-term plan than the laissez-faire attitude you have. I'm sure that the drug bosses out there are more than happy to make every person in this country addicted to their product, and they do a damn good job these days in tricking children and even adults into taking their products, trying it, getting hooked on it and eventually selling it. If we don't have laws to control these forces, how do you imagine our country will look in a decade?

 

As for social/liberalist movements, I think we've had quite enough of those in the last century. Rates of divorce, obesity, illiteracy, unemployment, and just all-round social decay that we are seeing in North America are simple proof that we've swung too far along the pendulum, and we need to reconsider the direction we've taken as a society in many of the things we do. Our generation's LIFE EXPECTANCY is expected to be lower than our predecessors - and we're not even waging any massive wars. Maybe if all the liberalist hippies stopped condoning all the self-gratifying, unbridled frivolity that marks our generation, we might not end up like continental Europe.

[apache]

It leads people to ruin because drug use isn't medically supervised, Adderall is regularly administered with Clonidine (negates peripheral CNS effects) and Memantine HCl (negates glutamate mediated apoptosis, and habituation to amphetamines).

 

It also leads people to share needles, to mix drugs inappropriately because they don't have the proper medical advice (i.e. people are TOLD by their DOCTOR not to mix benzodiazepines and alcohol).

 

It leads people to ruin because instead of going to their local pharmacy to get their meds (i.e. oxycodone), people have to go to sketchy crime infested (due only to the nature of the illegality and necessary veil that has to be placed on the action) neighbourhoods.

 

The drug bosses love the "war" on drugs, ask a dentist how much 1 gram of cocaine is, and then ask a user, the disparity is about 5000 percent... this creates a rediculous incentive. In fact, if you are a border crosser, one who crosses the border with drugs, your commission is directly proportional to where you're delivering, the places with the stiffest penalties pay the most, because the product is worth the most. I know a dealer who's going to jail for a year, his motivation was to make his mom proud, to have some sense of esteem, he'd been undermined and not given an equal opportunity all his life, and saw dealing as a way to escape poverty.

 

I think you have the wrong criminals in mind, it's not the dealers who wan't us to all be addicted, it's pharma. In 2004, American congress concocted a bill to make mandatory mental health screening for every child in America... now if that isn't a big market base then I don't know what is, better make a new formulation for Ritalin, the patent on Concerta is running out.

 

By the way, I'm not a liberal hippy, I'm just a realist who doesn't tie himself to any sort of partisan politics, I'm very conservative on a few issues, very liberal on many, and in the middle on quite a bit... it really depends on the issue, but it's good to have an open mind like that, wouldn't you agree?

 

I don't think life expectancy comes into the play, politically at least. The shorter lifestyle is simply due to a more sedentary lifestyle, poorer eating habits, and a higher stress life.

 

You're ignoring the massive and important FACT that drug abuse leads thousands of people to ruin and death every single year in this country. Drugs used for creative purposes make up a very small minority of drug use, and unfortunately, recreational drug use has the tendency of evolving into full blown additions without much warning. Waging a "war" against drugs isn't the terminology I'd use, but like somebody else said, putting the control into the hands of authorities is a far better long-term plan than the laissez-faire attitude you have. I'm sure that the drug bosses out there are more than happy to make every person in this country addicted to their product, and they do a damn good job these days in tricking children and even adults into taking their products, trying it, getting hooked on it and eventually selling it. If we don't have laws to control these forces, how do you imagine our country will look in a decade?

 

As for social/liberalist movements, I think we've had quite enough of those in the last century. Rates of divorce, obesity, illiteracy, unemployment, and just all-round social decay that we are seeing in North America are simple proof that we've swung too far along the pendulum, and we need to reconsider the direction we've taken as a society in many of the things we do. Our generation's LIFE EXPECTANCY is expected to be lower than our predecessors - and we're not even waging any massive wars. Maybe if all the liberalist hippies stopped condoning all the self-gratifying, unbridled frivolity that marks our generation, we might not end up like continental Europe.

[seeking1]

As for social/liberalist movements, I think we've had quite enough of those in the last century. Rates of divorce, obesity, illiteracy, unemployment, and just all-round social decay that we are seeing in North America are simple proof that we've swung too far along the pendulum, and we need to reconsider the direction we've taken as a society in many of the things we do. Our generation's LIFE EXPECTANCY is expected to be lower than our predecessors - and we're not even waging any massive wars. Maybe if all the liberalist hippies stopped condoning all the self-gratifying, unbridled frivolity that marks our generation, we might not end up like continental Europe.

 

I am with you on your previous paragraph, but this polemic is just disappointing. Prove what you are saying regarding this stuff about life expectancy sucking due to liberalism, then connect it to the drugs stuff. I know far more people who are conservative that abuse drugs because they can because they are the authority/in charge. See: old people and abuse of alcohol.

 

But thats just stereotypes of social causes you were talking about. What should really matter to you is the understanding of the divide between social democrat/liberal/conservative. I assure you itimebomb2, all the things you lament get better under a social democratic society. See: Sweden, Denmark, Norway. Once you figure that divide out, you'll get the bigger picture.

[seeking1]

I think you have the wrong criminals in mind, it's not the dealers who wan't us to all be addicted, it's pharma. In 2004, American congress concocted a bill to make mandatory mental health screening for every child in America... now if that isn't a big market base then I don't know what is, better make a new formulation for Ritalin, the patent on Concerta is running out.

 

Please update us as to the name of that bill of Congress and its current position as potential legislature. I wish to know more.

 

Also, I think you're jumping the gun here. While I agree that the killing that pharma is currently making on antidepressants is mind-numbing, I can't say there is a way out of the conundrum of producing drugs for clinical depression and other psychiatric disorders. Never mind that its an uphill battle in the minds of people to convince them that psychiatric conditions are things that warrant serious medical attention.

 

Also, don't change the topic to pharma, stick to illegal drugs. Be relevant.