In article ,
says...

On 2/15/2011 12:57 PM, Upscale wrote:

massively destructive almost forever--alcohol. However I think we all
have the right poison ourselves provided we aren't harming others in the
process. So if a person wants to drive home sober and then drink himself
senseless every night, he has the right to do that. It's different if
he's beating the wife and kids or something like that, then society is
entitled to intervene. But aside from things like that I think people
have the right to smoke or drink or whatever those substances they choose
to consume, it is not the job of government to save us from ourselves
unless there is a compelling public interest in doing so.

And, there is a compelling public interest in doing so.You're scenario talks
about what happens in a perfect world. The fact is, that perfect world
doesn't exist and never will. You're not just poisoning yourself. You've
having an effect on all those around you whether it be family, at work or
just in everyday living.

Prohibition was repealed. Alcohol then became easier to obtain and people
felt at home again having a drink now and then. But, you're ignoring the
downside. How many families have been and are destroyed by alcoholism? How
many deaths and injuries can be attributed to drinking and driving? You
might shrug that off, but if you're so ready to do so, then you haven't been
a member of one of those families so afflicted.

Please understand, I'm not advocating the removal of alcohol. I too like the
occasional drink just as much as anybody. But habit forming drugs have a
downside to them that pales in comparison to the downsides of excessive
drinking. The proposed scenario of government legalizing, marketing and
benefitting monetarily from the incorporation of such an action have the
very real possibility (and I'd suggest liklihood) of repercussions without
exception.


Undoubtedly there would be repercussions. But there are already
repercussions from the existing illegal drug trade. The question is,
which set of repercussions is worse?

Precisely.

And I am curious as to the evidence that leads Upscale to believe that
alcohol is not a "habit forming drug". He might want to google
"alcoholism".

"CW" wrote in message
...

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
Doubly. I bought some and tried 1 Benedryl one time and got so
depressed I considered suicide. Scared the **** out of me. 24 hours
later I was peachy, and angry with the discovery of how that med hit
me.

Some of the drugs out there have really bad side effects. Specially some
of the prescriptions. Never noticed the warnings about Lunesta until after
having it's most notorious side effect. Took a couple one night. Went to
sleep. Woke up the next afternoon handcuffed to a hospital bed. Don't
remember a thing.


Scary!

--
Ever wonder why doctors, dentists and lawyers have to Practice so much? Ever
wonder why you let them Practice on You?

"Upscale" wrote in message
news

"DGDevin" wrote in message
So what would it cost to supply those addicts with legal heroin,
eliminating the need for them to steal to support their addiction? Seven
billion a year, or a tiny fraction of that?

Want to compare this to alcohol? Imagine what would happen if alcohol was
given freely to those to asked for it. Do you have any idea how quickly
that would become an unsistainable act and what it would cost? Think about
it. Any possible scenario you might propose for alcohol would be
compounded many times when compared to habit forming drugs.


Alcohol and tobacco are both habit forming.

--
Ever wonder why doctors, dentists and lawyers have to Practice so much? Ever
wonder why you let them Practice on You?

"DGDevin" wrote in message
...


"Just Wondering" wrote in message
...


Recreational drug use alone should be decriminalized if for no other
reason that it makes no sense to use our limited tax dollars to house,
feed and cloth people whose only offense is against themselves. It's
when drug use impairs a person's judgment and physical abilities that we
should be concerned. Think the equivalent of DUI laws for drug users.
There is a potential middle ground between legalization and
criminalization. Make the conduct to be deterred a civil violation and
impose a civil fine. Give a person injured by a drug user a civil claim.

Well said. To that I would add that rehab is way, way cheaper than
prison. I'd rather pay for an addict to go to rehab (even more than once)
than to put him in prison for years at enormous expense.

Rehab is 30k/month. Institute the death penalty for first offense DEALING.

--
Ever wonder why doctors, dentists and lawyers have to Practice so much? Ever
wonder why you let them Practice on You?

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Upscale" wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
We need to lock MORE of them up, not find ways to reduce the prison
population.

Not a solution I'd want to support because prison has it's own heavy tolls
on society and the economy, but it would certainly be one of my choices
far
above that of decriminalizing drugs.

But why lock up the *users*? In many cases, they're victims, too. Lock up
the
*dealers*.

A fellow I used to carpool with had an innovative solution: Get rid of all
the
drug laws. All of them. Except for this one: make a list of banned drugs;
if
you're caught with anything on the list, whatever you have, you eat.

Possession of small amounts for personal use would be effectively
decriminalized; after all, the guy was planning to eat it anyway. And
narcotics dealing would carry an instantaneous capital sentence.


They did something similar with cigarette smoking when I was in basic
training. If you got caught smoking when you were not allowed to do so, you
were taken into the latrine and a bucket was placed on your head. A wool
blanket soaked in hot water was thrown over the bucket and a carton of
cigarettes and a lighter handed under the blanket with a direct order to
smoke them all. This punishment was watched by everyone else. After seeing
the result, no one who watched this ever got caught no mater how addicted
they were. And, AFAIK, the 'demonstrator' never even smoked again.
Just getting detailed to wash the guy down and get him to the infirmary was
bad enough!

--
Ever wonder why doctors, dentists and lawyers have to Practice so much? Ever
wonder why you let them Practice on You?

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Upscale" wrote:

"DGDevin"
massively destructive almost forever--alcohol. However I think we all
have the right poison ourselves provided we aren't harming others in the
process. So if a person wants to drive home sober and then drink himself
senseless every night, he has the right to do that. It's different if
he's beating the wife and kids or something like that, then society is
entitled to intervene. But aside from things like that I think people
have the right to smoke or drink or whatever those substances they
choose
to consume, it is not the job of government to save us from ourselves
unless there is a compelling public interest in doing so.

And, there is a compelling public interest in doing so.You're scenario
talks
about what happens in a perfect world. The fact is, that perfect world
doesn't exist and never will. You're not just poisoning yourself. You've
having an effect on all those around you whether it be family, at work or
just in everyday living.

That depends on the extent of the use. Occasional recreational use of
marijuana (or most other drugs) is not noticeably damaging to family,
colleagues, or the fabric of society. The larger point is, should abuse be
a
*crime*, or regarded as a public health problem? I argue for the latter.

Prohibition was repealed. Alcohol then became easier to obtain and people
felt at home again having a drink now and then. But, you're ignoring the
downside. How many families have been and are destroyed by alcoholism?

But should that be a crime?
If so, then since adultery also destroys families, should it also be a
crime?
If not, then why should similar [ab]use of marijuana or cocaine be a
crime?

How many deaths and injuries can be attributed to drinking and driving?

What is (or should be) the crime here, getting drunk, or driving while
drunk?
The problem isn't the alcohol, the problem isn't the drinker getting
drunk --
the problem is the drinker getting drunk and then driving. If you get
drunk at
home, or get drunk at a bar and take a cab home, it's no business of mine,
or
society's -- you're not endangering anyone else. Why should getting stoned
be
treated any differently?

When your liver rots out and you have no health insurance, then what?

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

I live in Indianapolis; there's a bill being debated in the Indiana
legislature right now that would require a prescription to buy
pseudoephedrine in Indiana. There is considerable opposition to that
bill, and it's not coming from "drug industry lobbyists". It's coming
from everyday Hoosiers who suffer from seasonal allergies and don't
want the additional delays and expenses of having to see a physician
in order to buy decongestants that actually work.

Amen to that. It is already annoying and embarassing enough to have to
hand over my driver's license whenever I need to get more Zyrtec-D or
generic equivalent. NJ & MA at least, but I think it's a federal rule.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article , "Lobby Dosser" wrote:

When your liver rots out and you have no health insurance, then what?

Then you die. Sounds harsh, but really, why should others have to pay the
consequences of your bad choices?

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article , "Lobby Dosser"
wrote:

When your liver rots out and you have no health insurance, then what?

Then you die. Sounds harsh, but really, why should others have to pay
the consequences of your bad choices?

Agree. Giving Mickey Mantle a new liver was a publicity stunt. I hope it
gave people a reason to become donors, but I have my doubts. IMHO, it
stole a good liver from someone who could have really used it. OTOH,
transplants sometimes give the recipient a new disease ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 02:24:54 -0800, "Lobby Dosser"
wrote:

"CW" wrote in message
...

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
Doubly. I bought some and tried 1 Benedryl one time and got so
depressed I considered suicide. Scared the **** out of me. 24 hours
later I was peachy, and angry with the discovery of how that med hit
me.

Some of the drugs out there have really bad side effects. Specially some
of the prescriptions. Never noticed the warnings about Lunesta until after
having it's most notorious side effect. Took a couple one night. Went to
sleep. Woke up the next afternoon handcuffed to a hospital bed. Don't
remember a thing.


Scary!

Indeed! CW wins the "scary side effects" sub-thread so far, with Mark
coming in second and me third.

--
The ultimate result of shielding men from the
effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.
--Herbert Spencer

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 02:31:46 -0800, "Lobby Dosser"
wrote:

"DGDevin" wrote in message
...


"Just Wondering" wrote in message
...


Recreational drug use alone should be decriminalized if for no other
reason that it makes no sense to use our limited tax dollars to house,
feed and cloth people whose only offense is against themselves. It's
when drug use impairs a person's judgment and physical abilities that we
should be concerned. Think the equivalent of DUI laws for drug users.
There is a potential middle ground between legalization and
criminalization. Make the conduct to be deterred a civil violation and
impose a civil fine. Give a person injured by a drug user a civil claim.

Well said. To that I would add that rehab is way, way cheaper than
prison. I'd rather pay for an addict to go to rehab (even more than once)
than to put him in prison for years at enormous expense.

Rehab is 30k/month. Institute the death penalty for first offense DEALING.

That's ridiculous, Lob. If there were no demand, there would be no
dealer. Fix the -addicts- and the dealers will die off. Execute the
dealers for all their other crimes, though.

--
The ultimate result of shielding men from the
effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.
--Herbert Spencer

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
When your liver rots out and you have no health insurance, then what?

Then you die. Sounds harsh, but really, why should others have to pay the
consequences of your bad choices?

Really ignorant response Doug. What if it's not the result of a bad choice?
What if it's the result of not being able to afford sufficient insurance?

"Larry Jaques"
That's ridiculous, Lob. If there were no demand, there would be no
dealer. Fix the -addicts- and the dealers will die off. Execute the
dealers for all their other crimes, though.

Fix the addicts??? What kind of asshole are you? And yeah, you deserve that
response for an ingnorant comment.

If the capability to 'Fix the addicts' was even half as easy as your
assinine comment would suggest, it would have been done already and the
dealers would be starving for new users.

Any future comments you might have go in the bit bucket despite any validity
to them.

Asshole. You're a really big ****ing asshole. Bet you know it too.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


The good news is, however, there's no such thing as a long-term
Heroin addict. Three years is the normal life expectancy.

Dunno where you got that info, but life expectancy is far longer than
that, sometimes 40 years.
That is at 1 gram at 3-5% per day.
Still not a good life choice.

I grant some may keep going for 40 years. These few are offset, however,
by those who die during their first use. I guess it all averages out to
three years.

And you've never been one to worry much if the facts and figures you quote
are right, wrong or just plain incomprehensible.

I got the information from a week-long class for law enforcement officers
conducted by the (then) Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs.

LOL, the guys who hold press conferences to report the seizure of drugs
worth eleventeen gazillion dollars (real street value $111,514.76). Yeah,
there's a source to be trusted without a second thought.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
in.local...


How many Heroin addicts in your town? In mine, I'd guess about 50,000
(out
of six million).

On what information do you base this guess?

Information? He dont got no information. He don't got to show you no
stinkin' information.

"Upscale" wrote in message
news

So what would it cost to supply those addicts with legal heroin,
eliminating the need for them to steal to support their addiction? Seven
billion a year, or a tiny fraction of that?

Want to compare this to alcohol? Imagine what would happen if alcohol was
given freely to those to asked for it.

I take it you've never been in a Nevada casino.

Do you have any idea how quickly that would become an unsistainable act
and what it would cost? Think about it. Any possible scenario you might
propose for alcohol would be compounded many times when compared to habit
forming drugs.

As usual you're not thinking this through. Ever hear of methadone? It's
given to junkies as a safer substitute for heroin, something to suppress
their addiction as well as the criminal behavior needed to pay pushers. It
isn't given out to anyone who asks for it, but to confirmed junkies as part
of medical treatment, sometimes at the order of a court. Now, pay
attention--the point here is whether a junkie has access to methadone or
actual clinical heroin, the costs to society are going to be far, far less
than if he's out doing crimes to pay for street heroin. Nobody is saying
drug addiction is cool, nobody is encouraging the free distribution of
drugs, the whole point is that since there are already millions of addicts
we need to consider ways to reduce the vast expense those addicts impose on
society. Think about your own neighborhood; would you rather have addicts
out breaking into cars and homes to pay street dealers for drugs, with cops
and prosecutors chasing after them and prison guards keeping them locked up?
Or would it be better if they were getting methadone at a clinic--which
approach will consume fewer of your tax dollars?

"Lobby Dosser" wrote in message
...

"Upscale" wrote in message

Want to compare this to alcohol? Imagine what would happen if alcohol was
given freely to those to asked for it. Do you have any idea how quickly
that would become an unsistainable act and what it would cost? Think
about it. Any possible scenario you might propose for alcohol would be
compounded many times when compared to habit forming drugs.


Alcohol and tobacco are both habit forming.

And based on the number of people who become addicted to them, they're more
dangerous than heroin.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...


I live in Indianapolis; there's a bill being debated in the Indiana
legislature right now that would require a prescription to buy
pseudoephedrine
in Indiana. There is considerable opposition to that bill, and it's not
coming
from "drug industry lobbyists".

But drug industry lobbyists are why the key ingredients in making meth
remained available to the criminal underworld. These websites describe how
the industry's profits were put ahead of public safety, with results we know
all too well. This is especially tragic when you consider that choking off
the supply of raw ingredients worked in suppressing the traffic in
Quaaludes; there was an opportunity to do that with meth, but protecting $3
billion in annual sales of cold medications was apparently more important.

http://www.mappsd.org/Meth%20History.htm
http://www.opb.org/meth/tv/essays/?essay=1
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...views/suo.html

It's coming from everyday Hoosiers who suffer
from seasonal allergies and don't want the additional delays and expenses
of
having to see a physician in order to buy decongestants that actually
work.

Having to get a prescription and go to the pharmacy counter doesn't seem
like much of a crushing burden to me. I'm on a couple of medications, and
having to get my prescriptions refilled once a year so far hasn't proved
very onerous. Minor inconvenience to people with hayfever vs. depriving
meth labs of the ingredients they need--I have no trouble making that
decision.

"Upscale" wrote in message
...


And just possibly, my opinions on this matter are correct.


Possible, yes. Likely, no.

"Lobby Dosser" wrote in message
...


Well said. To that I would add that rehab is way, way cheaper than
prison. I'd rather pay for an addict to go to rehab (even more than once)
than to put him in prison for years at enormous expense.

Rehab is 30k/month.

Where, at some celebrity rehab resort?

http://www.drug-alcohol-rehabs.org/drug-rehab-cost.html

"From the National Substance Abuse Treatment Services Survey (N-SATSS), the
average cost for inpatient programs was about $7,000 per month. Since more
than 30 days produces a higher recovery rate, the cost of drug rehab can
easily go between $7,500 and $75,000. A typical cost is usually going to be
about $36,000 for a 90-day program."

And that's private treatment, I bet the VA or the armed services do it
cheaper than that.

Besides, if the rehab works (and sometimes it doesn't) then you're looking
at a one-time expense. For the same money you get to lock up someone for
just a year of perhaps a multi-year sentence, and the odds of them returning
to prison are high. So which approach seems like a better use of the
taxpayer's dollar? Half of all federal prison inmates are there for drug
offenses, and prisons cost the American taxpayer over $60 billion a year--I
think exploring alternatives is at least worth trying.

Institute the death penalty for first offense DEALING.

What do you figure your odds are of getting that past the Supreme Court?

"Upscale" wrote in message
...


is tobacco, clearly prison time for those who refuse to quit smoking is
justifiable.

Tobacco was an industy in production long before governments became
directly involved in people activities.

Mind altering drugs are as old as civilization. The Incas chewed coco
leaves, the ancient Egyptians used cannabis, brewing beer is one of the
oldest scientific achievements of mankind. So if longevity is the key, then
drugs would seem to be here to stay.

Despite that, there has been a concerted effort to reduce smoking by many
governments for some years now. Increased taxation on tobacco is an
example of that. But no, you wouldn't see that because it's not in your
nature. You see, every little niggling or ridiculous comparison you throw
at me, I can easily shoot down for the farce that it is.

You couldn't hit a bull in the butt with a bass fiddle.

I take drunk driving very seriously, so how about you don't make up
positions I haven't expressed, okay?

Such as ridiculous comparisons of drug addiction use to obesity or tobacco
use? Uhh, sure, I won't make anything up. I don't have to. Your absolutely
feeble arguments make it simple to dispose of any inane reasoning you
choose to spew.

Okay tiger, you go on telling yourself how devastating your rhetorical
attack is. The rest of us will smile and perhaps roll our eyes a bit.

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 02:44:58 -0800, Lobby Dosser wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Upscale" wrote:

"DGDevin"

snip of 55 lines - one line addition below


When your liver rots out and you have no health insurance, then what?


Please take the time to snip (no, I didn't say snipe).


--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

"rest of us"?

Time to give the subject a rest. tempers flare and for what? It's a strongly
biased, old argument, opinion subject and nobody will convince anybody else
to change their brainwashed culture, for or agin' guns.

Luckily most of the government people, telling YOU what to do, see my
side...LOL


"DGDevin" wrote in message
m...

Okay tiger, you go on telling yourself how devastating your rhetorical
attack is. The rest of us will smile and perhaps roll our eyes a bit.

In article , "Upscale" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
When your liver rots out and you have no health insurance, then what?

Then you die. Sounds harsh, but really, why should others have to pay the
consequences of your bad choices?

Really ignorant response Doug. What if it's not the result of a bad choice?

Really ignorant comment Upscale. The question about livers rotting out was in
the context of discussing the effects of alcohol abuse -- which is indeed a
bad choice.

Do try to pay attention.

What if it's the result of not being able to afford sufficient insurance?

Perhaps if the hypothetical owner of the hypothetical rotted liver had not
spent all his money on booze, he would have been able to affort insurance. I
think you'd agree that choosing to spend your money on liquor instead of
health insurance is a poor choice.

In article , "DGDevin" wrote:


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...


I live in Indianapolis; there's a bill being debated in the Indiana
legislature right now that would require a prescription to buy
pseudoephedrine
in Indiana. There is considerable opposition to that bill, and it's not
coming
from "drug industry lobbyists".

But drug industry lobbyists are why the key ingredients in making meth
remained available to the criminal underworld. These websites describe how
the industry's profits were put ahead of public safety, with results we know
all too well. This is especially tragic when you consider that choking off
the supply of raw ingredients worked in suppressing the traffic in
Quaaludes; there was an opportunity to do that with meth, but protecting $3
billion in annual sales of cold medications was apparently more important.

Hellooooooo.... the reason they have $3B in annual sales of cold medications
is that people want decongestants that work.

"DGDevin" wrote in message
Or would it be better if they were getting methadone at a clinic--which
approach will consume fewer of your tax dollars?

I wasn't going to take part in this thread anymore as related to you, but
you deserve a response.

Methadone has been around for over 30 years. Junkies haven't been lining up
for it as your assumptions suggest and it's not nearly as effective as you
seem to think. Just to support your universal Methadone solution, why don't
you go get some facts on how many addicts eventually go back to their former
drug life.

Methadone occupies the receptor area in the brain that heroin and other
opiate drugs used to occupy. Methadone does *not* produce the high or the
rush that opiate drugs cause. Methadone does not cure an addiction. Many
patients require continuous treatment and others often take years to break
their addiction cycle. Finally, methadone is only effective for opiate
drugs. It has no effect on amphetamine type drugs as well as a number of
others.

As usual, your uninformed solutions are short sighted, reactionary and
simple spouting off out of frustration. That I can understand. But for a
number of you here who seem to come up with viable solutions to drug control
daily (and often hourly) you're all deluded if you think your solutions are
workable. For years, many people both infinitely more experienced and much
more knowledgable about the drug industry have been working on solutions to
the drug problem without coming up with a truly workable solution.

The rec is your sounding board. Fine, let it all out. But for those of you
who seem think that they 'have the solution', perhaps you should commit
yourself for awhile. You need it.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
Really ignorant comment Upscale. The question about livers rotting out was
in
the context of discussing the effects of alcohol abuse -- which is indeed
a
bad choice.

Oh, excuse. I didn't realize you were so perfect and never made a bad choice
in your life. And more surely, you've never tried a cigeratte or had a drink
in your life. Of course you've never been drunk either. And when you were a
teenager all exuberant with life, you never intentionally went over the
speed limit at the wrong time and place killing yourself. And if it had
happened, your family would have said c'est la vie and you deserved to die
for making an unwise choice. I'm quite sure you live a pristine life and
will never ever regret anything you've done.

Jackass.

"Upscale" wrote in message
...

Methadone has been around for over 30 years.

Over 70 years actually, but don't start worrying about accuracy at this late
date.

Junkies haven't been lining up for it as your assumptions suggest and it's
not nearly as effective as you seem to think.

Please--quote the words I posted which say junkies line up to get methadone
of their own free will. I'll even leave room for you to do so.





Now that you've done that, quote my words indicating how effective I think
methadone is.





Just to support your universal Methadone solution, why don't you go get
some facts on how many addicts eventually go back to their former drug
life.

And now you get to quote the part where I propose some "universal methadone
solution" or claim any rate of success for the treatment.





As usual, your uninformed solutions are short sighted, reactionary and
simple spouting off out of frustration.

I think we've reached the point where I have to ask if you're like this
offline as well, do you routinely make up things other people didn't
actually say and respond to your fabrication rather than what they really
said? Or is this just your standard debating technique online, used in
place of rational arguments backed up by verifiable facts?

The rec is your sounding board. Fine, let it all out. But for those of you
who seem think that they 'have the solution', perhaps you should commit
yourself for awhile. You need it.

And we're back to you informing the rest of the world it is stupid,
delusional, ignorant and so on. How many times in just this thread have you
pulled that stunt? You don't back up your claims with documentation, you
carefully ignore the documentation others offer to support their views, and
whenever you're backed into a corner you announce that the person who
disagrees with you is a dummy of some sort.

Oh, and then you run away, although in this case you couldn't resist coming
back to suggest the world needs to check into a mental health facility for
disagreeing with you.

Seriously, grow up.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...

Hellooooooo.... the reason they have $3B in annual sales of cold
medications
is that people want decongestants that work.

They want lots of drugs that work for a variety of complaints, and many of
them are available only with a prescription. Are you seriously claiming
that an annual prescription renewal and walking up to the druggist's counter
rather than grabbing a package off the shelf is some serious hindrance to
your health and happiness? Dang, you must be *busy* if that qualifies as a
major crimp in your day.

In article , "Upscale" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
Really ignorant comment Upscale. The question about livers rotting out was in
the context of discussing the effects of alcohol abuse -- which is indeed a
bad choice.

Oh, excuse. I didn't realize you were so perfect and never made a bad choice
in your life.

Please quote the post in which I made such a claim.

And more surely, you've never tried a cigeratte or had a drink
in your life.

Please quote the post in which I made such a claim.

Of course you've never been drunk either.

Please quote the post in which I made such a claim.

And when you were a
teenager all exuberant with life, you never intentionally went over the
speed limit at the wrong time and place killing yourself.

Please -- oh, never mind. You've obviously run out of rational arguments, if
you ever had any to begin with, and the only thing left for you to do is to
attack straw men of your own creation.

plonk

In article , "DGDevin" wrote:


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...

Hellooooooo.... the reason they have $3B in annual sales of cold medications
is that people want decongestants that work.

They want lots of drugs that work for a variety of complaints, and many of
them are available only with a prescription. Are you seriously claiming
that an annual prescription renewal and walking up to the druggist's counter
rather than grabbing a package off the shelf is some serious hindrance to
your health and happiness? Dang, you must be *busy* if that qualifies as a
major crimp in your day.

You're apparently one of the fortunate ones who's never had a major -- and
sudden -- allergy attack.

"DGDevin" wrote in message
Seriously, grow up.

Go **** yourself asshole.
Let's see how much crap you can generate from that. Should be quite a lot
because you're full of it.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
Please -- oh, never mind. You've obviously run out of rational arguments,
if
you ever had any to begin with, and the only thing left for you to do is
to
attack straw men of your own creation.

When your liver rots out and you have no health insurance, then what?

Then you die. Sounds harsh, but really, why should others have to pay the
consequences of your bad choices?

Are you really that dense? I was responding to your harshness and lack of
sensitivity. Your words above. Being so cavalier must mean that you don't
make mistakes like your hypothetical person above. That's where my rant came
from. Hope you never have to deal with a similar situation.

On 2/17/2011 12:13 AM, Upscale wrote:
SNIP

I was responding to your harshness and lack of sensitivity.

That was the most entertaining post in this thread. It made my night.

"DGDevin" wrote in message
m...


"Lobby Dosser" wrote in message
...

"Upscale" wrote in message

Want to compare this to alcohol? Imagine what would happen if alcohol
was given freely to those to asked for it. Do you have any idea how
quickly that would become an unsistainable act and what it would cost?
Think about it. Any possible scenario you might propose for alcohol
would be compounded many times when compared to habit forming drugs.


Alcohol and tobacco are both habit forming.

And based on the number of people who become addicted to them, they're
more dangerous than heroin.


Tobacco is reputed to be more difficult to kick than heroin. Five years for
me on May 1st.

The most difficult part of the quitting process for any of them is Admitting
you Have an Addiction. Not just a bad habit, not something you can quit
whenever you want, the same thing the heroin addict nodding off on the curb
has, An Addiction.

--
Ever wonder why doctors, dentists and lawyers have to Practice so much? Ever
wonder why you let them Practice on You?

"Han" wrote in message
...
(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

I live in Indianapolis; there's a bill being debated in the Indiana
legislature right now that would require a prescription to buy
pseudoephedrine in Indiana. There is considerable opposition to that
bill, and it's not coming from "drug industry lobbyists". It's coming
from everyday Hoosiers who suffer from seasonal allergies and don't
want the additional delays and expenses of having to see a physician
in order to buy decongestants that actually work.

Amen to that. It is already annoying and embarassing enough to have to
hand over my driver's license whenever I need to get more Zyrtec-D or
generic equivalent.

Flashing back to 16 and having to ask for condoms ...

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 02:31:46 -0800, "Lobby Dosser"
wrote:

"DGDevin" wrote in message
...


"Just Wondering" wrote in message
...


Recreational drug use alone should be decriminalized if for no other
reason that it makes no sense to use our limited tax dollars to house,
feed and cloth people whose only offense is against themselves. It's
when drug use impairs a person's judgment and physical abilities that
we
should be concerned. Think the equivalent of DUI laws for drug users.
There is a potential middle ground between legalization and
criminalization. Make the conduct to be deterred a civil violation and
impose a civil fine. Give a person injured by a drug user a civil
claim.

Well said. To that I would add that rehab is way, way cheaper than
prison. I'd rather pay for an addict to go to rehab (even more than
once)
than to put him in prison for years at enormous expense.

Rehab is 30k/month. Institute the death penalty for first offense DEALING.

That's ridiculous, Lob. If there were no demand, there would be no
dealer. Fix the -addicts- and the dealers will die off. Execute the
dealers for all their other crimes, though.

If there is no supply ...

Say, whatever happened to stopping the flow from Afghanistan. Taliban was
better at that.

"Upscale" wrote in message
...

"Larry Jaques"
That's ridiculous, Lob. If there were no demand, there would be no
dealer. Fix the -addicts- and the dealers will die off. Execute the
dealers for all their other crimes, though.

Fix the addicts??? What kind of asshole are you? And yeah, you deserve
that response for an ingnorant comment.

If the capability to 'Fix the addicts' was even half as easy as your
assinine comment would suggest, it would have been done already and the
dealers would be starving for new users.

Any future comments you might have go in the bit bucket despite any
validity to them.

Asshole. You're a really big ****ing asshole. Bet you know it too.




Jeez, Chill!

--
Ever wonder why doctors, dentists and lawyers have to Practice so much? Ever
wonder why you let them Practice on You?

"DGDevin" wrote in message
m...
"Lobby Dosser" wrote in message
...


Well said. To that I would add that rehab is way, way cheaper than
prison. I'd rather pay for an addict to go to rehab (even more than
once) than to put him in prison for years at enormous expense.

Rehab is 30k/month.

Where, at some celebrity rehab resort?


Nope. Hazelden. And they also get criminals and You pay the 30k.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Lobby Dosser"
wrote:

When your liver rots out and you have no health insurance, then what?

Then you die. Sounds harsh, but really, why should others have to pay the
consequences of your bad choices?


Who Decides? You? Me?

--
Ever wonder why doctors, dentists and lawyers have to Practice so much? Ever
wonder why you let them Practice on You?