Lower Drinking Age?

[OldFatGuy]

Yeah, the AMA made of doctors would have no reason to want to push more pills. Why would they want to sell more pills and make more profits for drug companies who sponsor doctors, hold retreats, etc?

The vast majority of science AND government is corrupt to the point that quoting this study or that study is useless.

So, are you saying there aren't lots of people with Doctor's refusing to treat their pain? Or are you saying its OK for them to suffer? Or are you saying I'm lying when I personally know of this?

And, for the record, this wasn't a study, it was a position statement. And I think it holds a lot of weight when even Doctor's themselves (that IS who makes up the AMA) admit to feeling intimidated and not writing prescriptions.

So, which is it? There really isn't this suffering going on and the Doctor's are a bunch of liars, or the suffering is immaterial to the debate at hand?

[filihok]

And I think it holds a lot of weight when even Doctor's themselves (that IS who makes up the AMA) admit to feeling intimidated and not writing prescriptions.

Originally Posted by filihok
Yeah, the AMA made of doctors

Thank you for clarifying my clarification.

I have no doubt that some people suffer.
I have no doubt that some people abuse.

Yes. The AMA, made of doctors who receive "gifts" and other perks from pharmacutical companies made a statement saying that more drugs should be prescribed. I for one am absolutely shocked and see no possibility of corruption or conflict of interest there.

[dickay]

So, are you saying there aren't lots of people with Doctor's refusing to treat their pain? Or are you saying its OK for them to suffer? Or are you saying I'm lying when I personally know of this?

And, for the record, this wasn't a study, it was a position statement. And I think it holds a lot of weight when even Doctor's themselves (that IS who makes up the AMA) admit to feeling intimidated and not writing prescriptions.

So, which is it? There really isn't this suffering going on and the Doctor's are a bunch of liars, or the suffering is immaterial to the debate at hand?

I can't speak for filihok, but I will say that for starters there is a great benefit to Doctors pushing more pills, though I believe most doctors are ethical.

I don't believe there is alot of suffering going on due to a fear of prescription. I personally have never had a problem getting pain medication even over the phone, I know of nobody who has. I am also sure a simple google will find many accounts of people who feel drugs in America are greatly overprescribed. Especially amongst youth and ADD, there's a great outrage over the over-prescribtion of drugs. Do you want to go to bed with the institution that benefits from saying that more people should be taking pills, or do you want to take it with a grain of salt and compile it with other information on the topic and make your own decision?? I'm willing to admit I can't tell you for sure yes or no that pain medication is over or underprescribed...only that I've seen both claims but have never had nor no of anyone that has had an issue getting pain medication.

[OldFatGuy]

Thank you for clarifying my clarification.

I have no doubt that some people suffer.
I have no doubt that some people abuse.

Yes. The AMA, made of doctors who receive "gifts" and other perks from pharmacutical companies made a statement saying that more drugs should be prescribed. I for one am absolutely shocked and see no possibility of corruption or conflict of interest there.

And if I found a group representing those that suffer making a statement that more of these drugs should be prescribed that would be equally as shocking, yes, since that's also self-interest? So, you have no doubt some people suffer and have no doubt some people abuse. I agree, and where I come down is that I would tolerate the possibility of the abuse and do a better job of alleviating the suffering, while others want to focus only on the abuse, at the cost of more suffering.

So, again, just curious as to where you come down.

And for those that do only want to focus on the abuse, what gives you the right to say that in the long term battle against the dangers of drug abuse, we realize some of you will suffer, too bad?

[filihok]

I can't speak for filihok, but I will say that for starters there is a great benefit to Doctors pushing more pills, though I believe most doctors are ethical.

I don't believe there is alot of suffering going on due to a fear of prescription. I personally have never had a problem getting pain medication even over the phone, I know of nobody who has. I am also sure a simple google will find many accounts of people who feel drugs in America are greatly overprescribed. Especially amongst youth and ADD, there's a great outrage over the over-prescribtion of drugs. Do you want to go to bed with the institution that benefits from saying that more people should be taking pills, or do you want to take it with a grain of salt and compile it with other information on the topic and make your own decision?? I'm willing to admit I can't tell you for sure yes or no that pain medication is over or underprescribed...only that I've seen both claims but have never had nor no of anyone that has had an issue getting pain medication.

THis reminds me. About two years ago I had my wisdom teeth pulled. As I was leaving the Dentist hands me 3 slips of paper. Each a prescription for pain medication. I never requested any. I asked what this was for. He told me. I asked which I should get. He said all three. This one is for a little pain, this one is for medium pain. This one is for a lot of pain. He was obviously quite fearful of over prescribing.

[OldFatGuy]

THis reminds me. About two years ago I had my wisdom teeth pulled. As I was leaving the Dentist hands me 3 slips of paper. Each a prescription for pain medication. I never requested any. I asked what this was for. He told me. I asked which I should get. He said all three. This one is for a little pain, this one is for medium pain. This one is for a lot of pain. He was obviously quite fearful of over prescribing.

And this one Doctor obviously proves most others aren't fearful as well.

[dickay]

And this one Doctor obviously proves most others aren't fearful as well.

Certainly an AMA statement doesn't prove most doctors are fearful either.

[OldFatGuy]

Certainly an AMA statement doesn't prove most doctors are fearful either.

Ok, what would? I believe I remember a poll of Doctor's sometime ago responding to this question (a few years ago I think, but I'll try to find it), or is that "biased"? Or the fact that over the years several non-profit organizations and societies have formed to speak up for those suffering.

What would prove it? Or, is this in your mind unprovable, since you're not going to believe it no matter the source?

EDIT: I just found one article stating 7 in 10 believe its a problem, but it didn't link the actual survey

Sill looking. Or should I bother? I mean if I find a survey of Doctor's, are they lying in Filhok's "corruptoin" theory to preserve their self interest in writing prescriptoins? This is really becoming fairly amusing when you think about it. Facts don't matter, only our own self-perceptions, and in this "I've already made my mind up, facts be damned" atmosphere, why bother with these discussions anyway?

Well, heres the link to the article mentioning the 7 in 10, but I couldn't find a link to the actual survey.
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/200...6/prca0616.htm

Although it does post the results of a survey it conducted of 150 primary care providers on what the barriers were to providing pain relief by using painkillers, and fear of law enforcement was number 1.

So, is this good? No, still self-interest and possibly lying makes this unreasonable too? Then what?

Because this is a very real problem. The fact that you have no personal experience with it doesn't make it any less real. So, how can I prove it if everyone's got a special interest to protect and no one facts or surveys should be considered?

[ohms_law]

increase in availability has always led to an increase in youth usage.

No, it doesn't.

usage of steriods and alcohol is still very high and in many places has climbed.

Again, no it hasn't.

Who bought you alcohol as a minor? If its available, kids will obtain it which leads to higher addiction rates, higher drop out rates, higher criminal activity = very negative effects on society and our 'personal freedoms' you are trying to protect.

Kids drink largely because it's illegal. Their teens, they want to rebel, and underage drinking is illegal, so that's what they do. You don't see huge issues with 25 year olds drinking, do you? I'm not talking about the 1% of 25 year olds who are alcoholic, I'm talking about the 99% or the population who isn't. Once people turn 21, they generally don't drink as much. Why is that?

ubsurd.

A bit OT, but: Absurd. "ubsurd" isn't a word. It wouldn't bother me so much, but you say "ubsurd" at least once a day...

How are your personal freedoms compromised if someone smokes a joint?

Excellent question.

Even if your sources say the US is 'underreporting' crime I suppose you're saying that Europe is 'overreporting' it?

I'd be nice if you respected me and the opinion that I represent to actually read what I'm saying. Based on this statement it's obvious that you haven't, which just goes to prove one of the points that myself and others have been saying all along: you don't care about the actual issues or the truth, you feel that you're right and we're wrong and that's the end of the story for you. That sort of attitude make me sad really.

Look up the Alaska experiment and Needle Park if you look up no others.

I wish that you actually would. If you did, I doubt that you would bring Alaska up at all, since it's about a victory for the pot legalization lobbies and is considered to be a successful effort in the battle to at least legalize pot.

I'd personally rather pay to keep drugs off the street than to pay for clinics to help wane kids off their addictions, the costs of increased crime which I believe evidence supports happens with legalized drugs and increased health care costs more so than we already are.

I really don't get this. It costs much more to provide police "protection" then it does to deal with addiction. It's also much more effective to treat addiction, especially when people who are addicted can come forward without fearing that they'll be arrested for being addicted. You say that you're adamantly against taxation, so why do you support a policy which leads to a net increase in taxes over a policy which would likely decrease taxation overall?

It is a fact however that Steroids being more accepted in society and body building has become more and more available to our youth who are using it in much increased numbers. Oxycotton has a significant black market, is highly addictive and people are getting killed to obtain it or fund their addiction. These are all legal substances when controlled.

Prove it

[HoustonGM]

Sounds like a Boston Tea Party. Taxation pi$$es me off as much as anything.

If you don't do drugs, it shouldn't matter to you that the drugs are taxed. And I've seen you make the argument that legalizing drugs would lead to higher taxes on the general population because of the strain it might put on the healthcare system to treat overdoses, addiction, etc.

Here's an idea...put high taxes on the drugs, and use that tax revenue to treat people with drug issues.

[ohms_law]

I quoted govt. sources from the DEA during a recent thread of this nature. It was immediately shot down as completely biased.

Maybe if you posted some sources that were generally accepted by both sides, then we'd take your statements here more seriously. The one source that you have provided is obviously biased, and if you look at the actual source (it was a press release, for crying out loud!) it's obviously intended to be propaganda. I guess it did it's job effectively though, based on what you've been saying for the past several months...


Regarding pain management:

The Gallup polling organization performed a survey on pain for the Arthritis Foundation. They found that:
"* Nine in 10 Americans aged 18 and older (89%) suffer from pain at least once a month.
"* Forty-three percent of adults - a projected 83 million - report that pain frequently affects their participation in some activities.
"* Fewer than half (43%) of respondents report they have a "great deal of control" over their pain.
"* More than half (54%) of adults report that they prefer to be alone when in pain and 50 percent say they are in a bad mood when in pain.
"* One in four Americans (23%) experience joint pain daily or every few days and 18% report suffering pain from arthritis, a disease that affects areas in or around the joints.
"* More than 26 million Americans (15%) who suffer pain monthly have severe pain.
"* More than half (55%) of Americans aged 65 and older have pain daily.
"* Older pain sufferers are considerably less likely than younger pain sufferers to talk to family and friends about pain (38% of those aged 65 and older and 46% of those aged 50 to 64 are likely to discuss their pain vs. 58% of those aged 18 to 34).
"* Older Americans (age 65 and older) are most likely to cite getting older (88%) and arthritis (69%) as causes of their pain. Younger Americans (aged 18 to 34), on the other hand, are more likely to say tension or stress (73%), overwork or overexertion (64%) or their lifestyle (51%) cause their pain.
"* Eighty percent of Americans believe their aches and pains are "just part of getting older" and 28 percent believe there is no solution to their pain.
"* Pain experienced by older Americans tends to be more frequent (55% of those aged 65 and older compared to 32% of those aged 18 to 34 suffer daily pain) and lasts longer (110 weeks for those aged 65 and older vs. 49 weeks for those aged 18 to 34 with severe or moderate pain).
"* Forty-six percent of women report experiencing daily pain compared to only 37 percent of men.
"* Women feel they have significantly less control over their pain than men - only 39 percent of women with severe or moderate pain claim to have a "great deal of control over their pain" compared to 48 percent of men.
"* While tension and stress are significant causes of pain for both men and women, they are the leading causes of pain among women (72% of women vs. 56% of men).
"* Women more often become upset when their pain prevents them from doing things they enjoy (60% of women vs. 50% of men)
"* Women are more likely to want to be alone when in pain (61% of women vs. 46% of men)
"* Men are more likely than women to see a doctor only when they are urged by others to do so. Thirty-eight percent of men say they will wait to see a doctor until someone encourages them to go compared with 27% of women.
"* One in three women (35%) cite the trials of balancing work and family life as the most significant cause of their pain compared to only 24 percent of men.
"* Women are more likely than men to experience frequent pain, particularly headache (17% vs. 8%), backache (24% vs. 19%), arthritis (20% vs. 15%) and sore feet (25% vs. 17%).
"* Sixty-four percent of pain sufferers will see a doctor only when they cannot stand the pain any longer.
"* Less than half (42%) of people who visit their doctor for pain believe that their doctor completely understands how their pain makes them feel."
Source: The Arthritis Foundation, "Pain In America: Highlights from a Gallup Survey," 2000, from the web at http://www.arthritis.org/conditions/.../factsheet.asp, last accessed March 1, 2004.

"Physicians are concerned that their prescribing decisions and patterns may be questioned and that they could be investigated without sufficient cause. Some physicians contend that patients may suffer because physicians will be reluctant to prescribe appropriate controlled substances to manage a patient’s pain or treat their condition. Patients are concerned that their personal information may be used inappropriately by those with authorized access or shared with unauthorized entities. Pharmacists have also expressed concerns."
Source: General Accounting Office, "Prescription Drugs: State Monitoring Programs Provide Useful Tool to Reduce Diversion" (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, May 2002), GAO-PO-634, p. 18.

[filihok]

Maybe if you posted some sources that were generally accepted by both sides, then we'd take your statements here more seriously. The one source that you have provided is obviously biased, and if you look at the actual source (it was a press release, for crying out loud!) it's obviously intended to be propaganda. I guess it did it's job effectively though, based on what you've been saying for the past several months...

All the rolled eyes in the world don't mean anything.

Yeah. Of course the DEA release would be propoganda because you don't agree with it but the AMA statement would be a clear representation of truth because you do.

The same goes for both sides.

The whole thing is corrupt. My girlfriend works at the National Institute of Health as a researcher. Yeah, yeah, she's only one researcher-sample size, I know, but she has about a story a week about how science comes in second to politics and business. This only reinforces my distrust for ANY scientific study.

So, again, just curious as to where you come down.

I come down believing that people who NEED medication should have access to it.

[ohms_law]

All the rolled eyes in the world don't mean anything.

Yeah. Of course the DEA release would be propoganda because you don't agree with it but the AMA statement would be a clear representation of truth because you do.

The same goes for both sides.

The whole thing is corrupt. My girlfriend works at the National Institute of Health as a researcher. Yeah, yeah, she's only one researcher-sample size, I know, but she has about a story a week about how science comes in second to politics and business. This only reinforces my distrust for ANY scientific study.

So, we're back to the question that OFG originally asked then. What would be an acceptable source? Who can be trusted? As he brought up, if the answer is "no one", then why are we even having this discussion?

I come down believing that people who NEED medication should have access to it.

So... why do you seem to want to stand in the way of those people who NEED medication?

[filihok]

So, we're back to the question that OFG originally asked then. What would be an acceptable source? Who can be trusted? As he brought up, if the answer is "no one", then why are we even having this discussion?

That's half (3/4, 99%) of the problem. I don't think there actually are a lot of sources out there that can be trusted. I think most of them are more guided by greed than any sort of good will toward man

So... why do you seem to want to stand in the way of those people who NEED medication?

Where'd I say that?

My main point in this discussion has been what I said earlier in this post.

[ohms_law]

That's half (3/4, 99%) of the problem. I don't think there actually are a lot of sources out there that can be trusted. I think most of them are more guided by greed than any sort of good will toward man

So... this makes me wonder why you're participating in this discussion at all.

Where'd I say that?

Uh... You brought it up, you tell me. I was just replying to what you said.