Here is my theory of drug use.
People in chronic pain chronically take pain relievers. Which is why beyond a certain point supply and demand in the illegal drug market are inelastic. Once you have eliminated the casual users those with chronic pain will pay a lot for pain relief.
A rational person who was against drug use would be agitating to find out why chronic drug users are in pain and doing something to relieve it. Putting the police in charge of a medical problem seems unwise to me.
I'm just full of irrational ideas like that.
Healthcare & rationing
What? Sorry, but that is silly. Prescription drugs are tested (as you know) in many double blind studies both for their side effects and their effectiveness until they get approved by the FDA. Drugs available on the streets are not. We do not even know most of the side effects that they have yet and those that we know they have dont make them look to good. In addition to this you never know what these drugs bought on the street may contain beyond the promised content. You know strichnin, rat poison, baking powder....Fewer side effects (not counting law enforcement).
Plus the administration of prescription drugs is monitored by doctors. Self medication may be common in the US (due to people being unable to afford a doctor), but it is probably not a good idea and definitely inferior to having medication prescribed and its administration and effectiveness monitored by a doctor.
If you had a pulmonia, you would go to the doctor too, rather than self medicating, wouldnt you?
There are lots of drugs with the same function that are indicated depending on the side effects.Skipjack wrote:What? Sorry, but that is silly. Prescription drugs are tested (as you know) in many double blind studies both for their side effects and their effectiveness until they get approved by the FDA. Drugs available on the streets are not. We do not even know most of the side effects that they have yet and those that we know they have dont make them look to good. In addition to this you never know what these drugs bought on the street may contain beyond the promised content. You know strichnin, rat poison, baking powder....Fewer side effects (not counting law enforcement).
Plus the administration of prescription drugs is monitored by doctors. Self medication may be common in the US (due to people being unable to afford a doctor), but it is probably not a good idea and definitely inferior to having medication prescribed and its administration and effectiveness monitored by a doctor.
If you had a pulmonia, you would go to the doctor too, rather than self medicating, wouldnt you?
I wonder where taking care of yourself got such a bad reputation? Where deciding what side effects you will tolerate is considered bad intentioned? Strange country you live in my friend.
I haven't had a serious infection in years that I couldn't cure with massive doses of Vitamin C. Now it is possible that it is all placebo effect. What matters is that it works for me. But if I got seriously ill and couldn't fix it myself I might risk a hospital. Definitely for a broken leg. Or a hip replacement. Or a pacemaker.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
It's funny, marijuana is considered to be a "street drug" despite being used medically for thousands of years. A DEA administrative law judge has said it is the least harmful therapeutically active drug known to man.
We didn't know how aspirin worked till a few years ago. It was noted in the 1990s that aspirin could not have been approved if it was introduced at that time, because no one really understood how it worked.
Putting the criminal justice system in charge of treating drug addiction is literally attempting to do brain surgery with a truncheon.
We didn't know how aspirin worked till a few years ago. It was noted in the 1990s that aspirin could not have been approved if it was introduced at that time, because no one really understood how it worked.
Putting the criminal justice system in charge of treating drug addiction is literally attempting to do brain surgery with a truncheon.
There are about a hundred cites listed, if you click through the link.Skipjack wrote:This is just one mans opinion. Where are the studies his opinions are based on. Where are the statistics? Who is coming up with this?
Here's a couple:
“This year, Americans, who account for a fraction of prescription drug use worldwide, will pay for about half of all pharmaceutical spending worldwide. By contrast, citizens of the world’s third largest economy, Germany, paid less than 5 percent. The same kind of drug payment disparity is true for many other developed nations who have about as much ability to pay as Americans do.” Mark McClellan, then FDA commissioner,
Why do you mean socialists want to kill people? And why are you stealing from America, after all we've done for you?If Canada and Europe paid market prices for drugs, even more pharmaceuticals would be available to fight disease and save lives around the world. But that’s a fantasy; they won’t. The best the world can hope for is a continuation of the current process—which is another example of how Americans, often maligned by others for their selfishness, are, in fact, carrying heavy burdens for the rest of the world.” Glassman and Lott.
This is what the moralist argument sounds like from the other side.
Oh dear God. You're comparing exchange rates in an open market to monopsony purchasing power dictated by governments? Really?German cars are cheaper in the US than they are in Germany and Austria (e.g.). A lot of R&D and cost goes into the development of a new car. Does the cheaper price in the US make the US a "free rider"?
If you look at it that way, I would say the whole argument looses its bite.
I don't think Uncle Sam is telling BMW they have to meet certain prices or will not be allowed to sell here. I also very much doubt they're not covering R&D in the cars they sell here. And R&D is a much smaller percentage of cost in cars than drugs anyway.
Anyways, I don't know where you're getting that information. German cars are expensive here. If they're cheaper it's generally because they're substantially different cars.
Winterkorn also noted that the Jetta and Passat have been priced out of their markets in the U.S., necessitating replacements that may be built exclusively for North America. Winterkorn would like to see the Passat starting in the $20,000 range (the base Passat is currently almost $25,000) and the Jetta start around $15,000 (currently over $17,000).
Talldave, ther is a lot of R&D in cars of course. That starts with the headlights, e.g. It can be years for the development of those allone. I know that for a fact, since we used to work with a headlight company.
The US car manufacturers are getting government help, one way or the other. Be it via contracts, or lately via bailout money.
Anyway, maybe it was a bad analogy.
The only evidence you are bringing for pharmaceutical companies going bankrupt without the US, or there being less research is opinions by biased people, or opinion leaders and lobbyists. You are not bringing facts.
The prescription drugs if administered and supervision by a medical doctors will have reduced addictive effects or none at all. The "street market" drugs are highly addictive and probably have been stretched with poisonous add ins.
Further, there is precise regulations regarding the e.g. driving capabilities when on prescription drugs. Nothing like this exists for street drugs, not just because they are illegal anyway, but also because there is no defined dosage.
Further, if they were legal, you could pass the same drugs on to your kids as a "self medication", with potentially terrible effects.
Anyway, you can get most of the working contents of street drugs fully legally from your MD, for a smaller price. It is called prescription drugs.
The US car manufacturers are getting government help, one way or the other. Be it via contracts, or lately via bailout money.
Anyway, maybe it was a bad analogy.
The only evidence you are bringing for pharmaceutical companies going bankrupt without the US, or there being less research is opinions by biased people, or opinion leaders and lobbyists. You are not bringing facts.
Because it is bullshit. Sorry. Same with your Vitamin C. It is ridiculous and silly. On one hand you are giving the pharmaceutical companies to much credit, on the other hand, none at all.There are lots of drugs with the same function that are indicated depending on the side effects.
I wonder where taking care of yourself got such a bad reputation? Where deciding what side effects you will tolerate is considered bad intentioned?
The prescription drugs if administered and supervision by a medical doctors will have reduced addictive effects or none at all. The "street market" drugs are highly addictive and probably have been stretched with poisonous add ins.
Further, there is precise regulations regarding the e.g. driving capabilities when on prescription drugs. Nothing like this exists for street drugs, not just because they are illegal anyway, but also because there is no defined dosage.
Further, if they were legal, you could pass the same drugs on to your kids as a "self medication", with potentially terrible effects.
Anyway, you can get most of the working contents of street drugs fully legally from your MD, for a smaller price. It is called prescription drugs.
skipjack,
Evidently you are unaware of the receptor theory of brain function. If something binds well to a euphoria receptor and by so binding causes good things to happen then anything that binds to that receptor will give some level of euphoria.
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... holes.html
Many of the euphoria inducing chemicals the body produces have plant analogs.
For the anandamides there are cannabinoids for the endorphins the opiates.
If some people have a deficiency (often experienced as pain) they will supplement the body's production from external sources. I don't see why this is such a threat.
Oh. I know. It makes people feel good. As pain relief should.
Evidently you are unaware of the receptor theory of brain function. If something binds well to a euphoria receptor and by so binding causes good things to happen then anything that binds to that receptor will give some level of euphoria.
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... holes.html
Many of the euphoria inducing chemicals the body produces have plant analogs.
For the anandamides there are cannabinoids for the endorphins the opiates.
If some people have a deficiency (often experienced as pain) they will supplement the body's production from external sources. I don't see why this is such a threat.
Oh. I know. It makes people feel good. As pain relief should.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
That is the beauty of smoked plant drugs. They can be titrated to match the dose with the need. Or as the pharma guys like to say "quant. suff."Further, there is precise regulations regarding the e.g. driving capabilities when on prescription drugs. Nothing like this exists for street drugs, not just because they are illegal anyway, but also because there is no defined dosage.
As opposed to pill type drugs where you get too much or too little.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
I havent been unaware of it since 4th grade, thanks. I dont see how it is relevant to what I said. I did not deny illegal drugs to affect these receptors.Evidently you are unaware of the receptor theory of brain function.
But, if the dosage and its administration is not controlled, people will get addicted. You need a medical doctor to do that. A normal person has not been trained for this and undoubtedly will lack the judgement after a dosage of say heroin, about whether he should have another one or not.
Also, as I said previously, prescription drugs dont have the side effects that the street drugs have, since they are "packaged" differently, even if the basic component is indeed the same (e.g. morphium and heroin).
The prescription version of the chemical compound Tetra Hydro Canabinol is e.g. better administered in a form that does not cause lung cancer. Something that will evidently result from directly inhaling the smoke of anything that is burned.
Further, the argument that your medical research is making the medication so expensive and that this is responsible for healthcare being at a multitude of the cost than in other countries has a serious flaw:
pharmaceuticals only make 10% of the healthcare cost. 31% go to hospitals, 21% to physicians. 7% is administrative and the rest is bunch of other stuff. If it was just the pharmaceuticals being so much more expensive that keeps the prices for medicare up in the US, then the difference would be maybe 20% and not 200%.
So, nope, thats not it. I can tell you what it is: Due to the fact that so many people can not pay their health bills and due to the fact that the rest just sues the hospitals, all other paying patients have to pay for the higher risk hospitals and doctors have in the US.
pharmaceuticals only make 10% of the healthcare cost. 31% go to hospitals, 21% to physicians. 7% is administrative and the rest is bunch of other stuff. If it was just the pharmaceuticals being so much more expensive that keeps the prices for medicare up in the US, then the difference would be maybe 20% and not 200%.
So, nope, thats not it. I can tell you what it is: Due to the fact that so many people can not pay their health bills and due to the fact that the rest just sues the hospitals, all other paying patients have to pay for the higher risk hospitals and doctors have in the US.
In America street drugs are cheaper. BTW I defy you to find an anti-depressant that costs less than 15 cents a dose. And that is the illegal price. If the stuff was legal it would be .1 cent a dose.Further, if they were legal, you could pass the same drugs on to your kids as a "self medication", with potentially terrible effects.
Anyway, you can get most of the working contents of street drugs fully legally from your MD, for a smaller price. It is called prescription drugs.
and yes. With drugs illegal or legal some parents will be giving their kids drugs.
http://www.the40yearplan.com/Lester_Grinspoon.php
A video of Dr. Grinspoon. (about 35 seconds).Lester and Betsy Grinspoon first witnessed medical marijuana use in their own home. In 1971, doctors diagnosed their oldest son Danny with leukemia.
"Danny was torn apart by pain for hours," says Keith Stroup. The vomiting was awful. "Danny got to the point where he was not willing to go through chemotherapy."
Having no way to score weed, Lester asked one of Danny's high school friends to buy, Stroup relates.
"Danny smoked a couple hits of marijuana before chemo," Stroup says. "Instead of vomiting out the window on the way home, he stopped for a submarine sandwich. That's when Lester and his wife became sensitized to its importance as medicine."
Danny died January 13, 1973. Lester and Betsy spread his ashes at Nauset Inlet in Cape Cod, a place the Grinspoon family once caught a huge striped bass. "He and Betsy go there annually to remember Danny," St. Pierre says.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVADnBB96Ww
=====
BTW where prohibition creates an imbalance between supply and demand there will always be diversions. Legal drugs, semi-legal drugs, illegal drugs. Makes no difference.
What makes a difference is that in a legal market those who sell to groups for whom drugs are prohibited are some easier to find. And sanctioned. So there is less of it than in a categorically prohibited substance.
=====
I don't see why you worry about drugged drivers. They are already out there. You just have no easy way (like a prescription or a receipt) of finding out who they are.
http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/1775.html
Well as I said way back. Just the word drugs seems to impair some people's thinking.A 1983 study by the US National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) used stoned drivers on simulators, and concluded that the only statistically significant effect associated with marijuana use was slower driving.
A comprehensive 1992 study by the NHTSA found that marijuana is rarely involved in driving accidents, except when combined with alcohol. It concluded that "the THC-only drivers had an [accident] responsibility rate below that of the drug free drivers. While the difference was not statistically significant, there was no indication that cannabis by itself was a cause of fatal crashes." This study was buried for six years and not released until 1998.
Another NHTSA study performed in 1993 dosed Dutch drivers with THC and tested them on real Dutch roads. It concluded that "THC's adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small."
A massive 1998 study by the University of Adelaide and Transport South Australia analyzed blood samples from 2,500 accidents, and found that drivers with cannabis in their system were actually slightly less likely to cause accidents than those without.
A University of Toronto study released in March 1999 found that moderate pot users typically refrained from passing cars and drove at a more consistent speed than non-users.
===
Judge Young of the DEA:
http://www.druglibrary.org/olsen/medica ... oung4.html
Except that it is illegal for doctors to be directly involved. That is a bright move.15. In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many
foods we commonly consume. For example, eating ten raw potatoes can
result in a toxic response. By comparison, it is physically impossible
to eat enough marijuana to induce death.
16. Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest
therapeutically
- 58 -
active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis
marijuana can be safely used within a supervised routine of medical care.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
How are illegal drugs cheaper than prescription drugs that are fully payed by the health insurance here and from what you are claiming are also payed by the health insurance in the US? But maybe the health insurance in the US is not as good after all?
That annectode is sad and heart warming, but it is just an annectode. Also, I dont see what the advantage is of smoking a joint versus swollowing a prescription drug, if both contain the same agent, or an agent that works the same way. The only difference I see is that smoking a joint every day will most likely cause lung cancer after a few decades of doing so. Swallowing a pill should not (since, as we have previously established, has been thoroughly tested by the FDA in the US, right?).
Also, a prescription med will be dosed by a medical doctor, carefully and according to the patients need. Show me the drug dealer that tells you "dont take more than 1 ug a day of it". I doubt we are going to see that happen.
I dont have a problem with making certain drugs legal for medical use. In fact marijuana was (or has been legal) in California for medical use. Even smoking it. I have no problem with that as long as a doctor prescribes it and a pharmacy hands you the exact dosage prescribed, not more.
Why not more? Because otherwise you will get addicted. Many pain meds already have that danger, even when most carefully dosed (which is because they are the same agents that are in some non prescription drugs).
That annectode is sad and heart warming, but it is just an annectode. Also, I dont see what the advantage is of smoking a joint versus swollowing a prescription drug, if both contain the same agent, or an agent that works the same way. The only difference I see is that smoking a joint every day will most likely cause lung cancer after a few decades of doing so. Swallowing a pill should not (since, as we have previously established, has been thoroughly tested by the FDA in the US, right?).
Also, a prescription med will be dosed by a medical doctor, carefully and according to the patients need. Show me the drug dealer that tells you "dont take more than 1 ug a day of it". I doubt we are going to see that happen.
I dont have a problem with making certain drugs legal for medical use. In fact marijuana was (or has been legal) in California for medical use. Even smoking it. I have no problem with that as long as a doctor prescribes it and a pharmacy hands you the exact dosage prescribed, not more.
Why not more? Because otherwise you will get addicted. Many pain meds already have that danger, even when most carefully dosed (which is because they are the same agents that are in some non prescription drugs).
Linus Pauling disagreed. And quite a few studies have vindicated him.Because it is bullshit. Sorry. Same with your Vitamin C. It is ridiculous and silly.
This study is especially interesting:
http://www.vaccinationnews.com/dailynew ... itC-RC.htm
It's not entirely clear what we gave up when we lost the gene to make Vitamin C. There was probably a stepped response, like we see in animals that have not lost this capacity.
Last edited by TallDave on Tue Sep 01, 2009 6:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The cost of drugs is around 99% the cost of the product. Cars don't approach that. And I don't see any evidence carmakers are losing money on R&D anyway. There is no monopsony pricing for cars.Talldave, ther is a lot of R&D in cars of course.
Shrug. 10% of our cost is still probably more than twice what you pay. Your welcome, btw.pharmaceuticals only make 10% of the healthcare cost.
Who said it was just pharma? We do all kinds of medical R&D that you guys never pay for. And no, of course that's not the whole cost difference; I've already pointed out we do more and better diagnostics than Europe as well.If it was just the pharmaceuticals being so much more expensive that keeps the prices for medicare up in the US
That doesn't actually make any sense. Health care expense is measured by what's billed, so it includes the paid and unpaid alike. Torts are an issue, but they're less than 5% of the cost in the system by most estimates, and less than 2% by some.So, nope, thats not it. I can tell you what it is: Due to the fact that so many people can not pay their health bills and due to the fact that the rest just sues the hospitals, all other paying patients have to pay for the higher risk hospitals and doctors have in the US.
The practictioner costs are mostly driven by AMA cartelization and are a problem, but not one anyone seems to want to fix. If orthopedic surgeons make $400,000 a year, well, they may have had ten years of training. That's the argument, anyway. Personally, I think we need to break the AMA monopoly, but that's only slightly more likely than pay caps for lawyers.