What's going on in the world according to FlipMo & Friends.
- Thread starter Flipmo
- Start date
Ahem.
http://articles.nydailynews.com/201...1_painkiller-jaime-taccetta-hydrocodone-pills
I've more or less agreed with you to this point, but that's just stupid. I know at least two people personally who lost their jobs (and almost their lives) because of their addictions to Vicodin. I'm surprised you don't.
http://articles.nydailynews.com/201...1_painkiller-jaime-taccetta-hydrocodone-pills
I've more or less agreed with you to this point, but that's just stupid. I know at least two people personally who lost their jobs (and almost their lives) because of their addictions to Vicodin. I'm surprised you don't.
Which they obtained legally? It's possible to abuse even when getting a prescription legally from a doctor who feels you need it, but it's different if you're out there sucking dick for Vicodin pills. Sure people lose jobs over abuse of pills. I'm talking under the care and supervision of a physician, has someone fucked their lives over.
Because the argument for that post was not "is Vicodin addictive." It was "is Vicodin as bad if used at the amount prescribed by a non-crooked doctor?" It seems highly unlikely that someone cursed their doctors for giving them too much Vicodin and causing them to build a habit.
Because the argument for that post was not "is Vicodin addictive." It was "is Vicodin as bad if used at the amount prescribed by a non-crooked doctor?" It seems highly unlikely that someone cursed their doctors for giving them too much Vicodin and causing them to build a habit.
Maybe it seems unlikely, but that's how it usually happens. Do you think people are introduced to Vicodin by drug-dealers, by and large? What usually happens is this: someone is injured, in a car accident or whatever, and is prescribed painkillers to ease his/her recovery. Well after the recovery period is over, he/she continues to need Vicodin (or whatever it is) because painkillers are highly addictive.
You're probably right that painkillers aren't as bad if used in the amount originally prescribed, but the problem occurs when that doesn't happen, which is often.
You're probably right that painkillers aren't as bad if used in the amount originally prescribed, but the problem occurs when that doesn't happen, which is often.
No doubt. But like I said before, this becomes an issue regarding the user, and not the the doctor. I had a status about getting my wisdom tooth out on Facebook. First post, merely minutes after it was initially posted was from a kid I hadn't talked to since high school in 2007. He said "let me get your prescription." Didn't ask if I was on any, he simply assumed and was on the prowl for them. Fortunately, I didn't have to break his little heart and tell him I didn't have any because he fucked off after a few of my friends sat there and humored him.
He wasn't a druggie in high school. But since college started, he became more and more into the legalization of marijuana and absolutely idolized drug references in music, namely Eminem's. I don't know him that well, but I don't remember him being injured recently or badly enough to warrant Vicodin. I can only assume, which is a bad thing, is that he's copying what he hears in music and feels satisfied having done what he hears about. The point is, pill poppers don't even go to doctors for their pills anymore.
So why are doctors being portrayed as dope boys and not simply as doctors? They certainly don't tell patients to take abnormal doses of their medication. Good, ethical ones certainly don't. So they're not for the abuse of drugs and they don't vouch for the legalization of marijuana based on the claimed "health benefits" of it. So who's left to validate research done by parties with interests in the legalization of it? Have there been independent studies into it? Surely those wouldn't go unheeded by the general public, let alone the government, especially if there's money to be made to regulate it.
He wasn't a druggie in high school. But since college started, he became more and more into the legalization of marijuana and absolutely idolized drug references in music, namely Eminem's. I don't know him that well, but I don't remember him being injured recently or badly enough to warrant Vicodin. I can only assume, which is a bad thing, is that he's copying what he hears in music and feels satisfied having done what he hears about. The point is, pill poppers don't even go to doctors for their pills anymore.
So why are doctors being portrayed as dope boys and not simply as doctors? They certainly don't tell patients to take abnormal doses of their medication. Good, ethical ones certainly don't. So they're not for the abuse of drugs and they don't vouch for the legalization of marijuana based on the claimed "health benefits" of it. So who's left to validate research done by parties with interests in the legalization of it? Have there been independent studies into it? Surely those wouldn't go unheeded by the general public, let alone the government, especially if there's money to be made to regulate it.
LOL
I am not reading all of that. But I skimmed it.
Weed is a gateway drug. Agreed. But do Coonie and Ristol believe alcohol should be illegal. People consuming alcohol commit more violent crimes, have more accidents and put more of a strain on the health service than all other illegal drugs combined.
I don't smoke weed myself, but I don't think the Dutch have many problems in Amsterdam with their semi-legalisation of marijuana.
I am not reading all of that. But I skimmed it.
Weed is a gateway drug. Agreed. But do Coonie and Ristol believe alcohol should be illegal. People consuming alcohol commit more violent crimes, have more accidents and put more of a strain on the health service than all other illegal drugs combined.
I don't smoke weed myself, but I don't think the Dutch have many problems in Amsterdam with their semi-legalisation of marijuana.
The problem with legalizing something this big is there will be a shock amongst the American society. Whether it be the way both, users and non-users react, or it be the effects on society in the long-run economically and socially. Some users are held in check by the fact that this is an illegal substance and therefore do not over-indulge in it. If it were legal, many may see this as the government indirectly saying "smoke weed daily...just like we suggest some people take aspirins daily for health benefits."
My view on alcohol is listed in older posts.
Amsterdam is not the United States socially or economically. Vegas doesn't seem to have an issue with prostitution. Should London start hiring hookers to stand outside Harrod's and Marks?
My view on alcohol is listed in older posts.
Amsterdam is not the United States socially or economically. Vegas doesn't seem to have an issue with prostitution. Should London start hiring hookers to stand outside Harrod's and Marks?
Long term effects include memory and attention deficits. Hence why most users drop out of school and work shitty jobs as a result. They're educated on the economic effects and social effects of legalizing it, but they don't realize society will not function if everyone is like them, working minimum wage.
I agree with legalising prostitution. There would need to be some standards in place. But it would be a hell of a lot safer for the girls.
Although the exchange of money for sex is not actually illegal in the UK. Solicitation and kerb crawling are.
Depends on the person. I have a friend who smokes weed daily and is a fucking genius. I wouldn't say he's the exception. I'd say that what you are describing is a cliché. Obviously when high someone will experience these affects. But very few people are high all day, or even once a day.
Although the exchange of money for sex is not actually illegal in the UK. Solicitation and kerb crawling are.
Depends on the person. I have a friend who smokes weed daily and is a fucking genius. I wouldn't say he's the exception. I'd say that what you are describing is a cliché. Obviously when high someone will experience these affects. But very few people are high all day, or even once a day.
In what ways is he a genius? It seems like such a relative word, something that's in the eye of the beholder, sometimes.
Who will regulate the girls, the government? You think the few women in government positions, with their feminist ideas will allow for it? We can make child labor legal too, then, if we get Cambodia to "regulate" it.
I feel a lot of issues have been at a standstill for decades for a reason. People fear and/or realize a lot of these issues are slippery slopes. If something goes wrong, it will be extremely hard to make illegal again, much like tobacco and alcohol. It's true. They are just as destructive. But it's awfully hard to go back and ban those now, isn't it?
I think society learned from mistakes like that and prevent repeats by adamantly blocking the progress of more drugs being legalized.
Who will regulate the girls, the government? You think the few women in government positions, with their feminist ideas will allow for it? We can make child labor legal too, then, if we get Cambodia to "regulate" it.
I feel a lot of issues have been at a standstill for decades for a reason. People fear and/or realize a lot of these issues are slippery slopes. If something goes wrong, it will be extremely hard to make illegal again, much like tobacco and alcohol. It's true. They are just as destructive. But it's awfully hard to go back and ban those now, isn't it?
I think society learned from mistakes like that and prevent repeats by adamantly blocking the progress of more drugs being legalized.
I don't think these are banned for social responsibility. If there was more money in it for people by legalising them, they would do it. I think they realise that there is more money to be made by keeping them banned. After all the heads of our countries are controlled by TNCs. These are controlled by greedy capitalists who only care about money.
