yguy

The point is, they don't address the root of the problem.

It doesn't mean that even a significant minority of Hollanders are pedophiles, of course. It is, however, an indication that apologists for pedophilia feel comfy there, more so than they would in Kansas, for instance; and that, of course, is because the people there find their presence tolerable for some reason. What would that reason be?

I don't know, but their website hasn't been updated since 2K.

This appears to be a non sequitur.

How is that of any moment?

I don't reject empirical evidence outright as a matter of policy. In the thread you mention, however, most of the evidence I presented was from sources which my opponents would have reason to find credible.

As for the facts supporting my prejudices, you haven't presented the facts in their entirety, just a bunch of figures which address points I haven't raised. By bringing up Holland as some kind of example that the United States should follow, you opened the door to some closer examination of the mindset that coddles people's weaknesses for drugs, sex, and so on. What you've shown me so far is that the deck chairs on the Titanic are arranged flawlessly, but you have failed to address the perceptible listing of the ship.

Gurdur

All incorrect, but more importantly irrelevant.

Re-read the thread OP and title.
The topic is drugs and drug-abuse.
Your prejudices are a different topic. Open a new thread if you wish. All further derailment attempts will be ignored.

yguy

Anything can be used to make one's self feel OK when one is not OK; so I would say you are correct to say that a toking is not necessarily more odious than reveling in good food.

Ultimately the effect on society has to be the determining factor from a legislative POV. Where you and I would differ, I think, is with respect to long term effects, which I don't think those in favor of drug legalization generally take into consideration.

It may well be wrong for them, if they are curing a symptom with a drug, thus preventing them from seeing any deeper cause that may exist. For instance, I've never purchased a bottle of aspirin in my life. When I get a headache, I live with it; and in retrospect, I believe I can safely say I've never had one that wasn't caused by some wrong reaction to stress.

In the case of headaches, one could start by looking at one's emotional reactions. Also, I had a bad case of eczema a few years ago - a recurrence of what I'd had as a teenager - and got over it without the prescribed topical medication I'd used the first time.

I don't see anything wrong with prescribing drugs as long as it is realized that they are a band-aid.

You really think Ritalin applied to children addresses a mental health issue in them, or is it more for the convenience of parents and teachers?

If we feel good, why do we want to feel better?

Do we really want to encourage people to run to a chemical mommy surrogate when people are mean to them? Do you really look forward to a career which includes passing out pills which help people feel OK about being crybabies?

Could it be that much of this pain is caused by precisely the same thing that motivates these people to take drugs to begin with?

Swell, but that doesn't necessarily make it legitmate .

fatherphil

me too

Buddrow_Wilson

LOL, ok then.

Nowhere357

Are you in favor of the reenactment of Prohibition?

Jackalope

Well ain't you lucky? However, simply because you have never had a headache so bad that you had the urge to yank your hair out by the roots and then bang your head against the nearest hard object does not mean that other people have been so lucky. Some causes of headache have absolutely nothing to do with stress (migraine and cluster headaches, anyone?). Generalizing your experience to everyone especially when there's a large body of medical literature that says otherwise is likely to be met with scorn here.

Similarly, the pain of having one's kneecaps regularly slide off to the side with each step you take has nothing to do with stress or the wrong way of looking at life. Or the pain caused by the immune system's destruction of joint surfaces, leaving one with essentially gravel in the joints instead of cartilege cushioning. Or the unspeakable pain caused by nerve damage. In all these cases, patients generally have better lives if given adequate analgesia. And no, they don't tend to get addicted either. Patients with severe chronic pain tend to titrate their dose to just kill the pain without causing significant impairment.

And that ignores the line of reasoning that goes: these folks pretty much have no life because of the pain anyway. Why in the world would anyone worry about them getting addicted to the painkillers? Even if they're addicted, at least they get to have lives. Under that line of reasoning, the doctors who do not dispense appropriate analgesics are depriving their patients of the chance to have a decent life.

As someone who must take painkillers to function, I find the "it's all in your head" thesis to be particularly offensive. Tell you what, I'll take a sledgehammer and smash one of your kneecaps. Then you can tell me that pain is "all in the mind."
[and in case our moderator has an itchy finger: yes, that's a hypothetical suggestion, not a threat.]

yguy

I'm wishy-washy on that one. I suppose one could make as good an argument for banning liquor as weed. I think what we have to keep in mind, though, is that the Constitution was not meant to protect anyone's right to get high by whatever means; and that liberty is not license.

yguy

mi·graine n.

A severe recurring headache, usually affecting only one side of the head, characterized by sharp pain and often accompanied by nausea, vomiting, and visual disturbances. Also called megrim. Some causes of headache have absolutely nothing to do with stress (migraine and cluster headaches, anyone?). Generalizing your experience to everyone especially when there's a large body of medical literature that says otherwise is likely to be met with scorn here.

I've had one-sided headaches that hurt like hell. Whether they qualify as migraines I don't know, never having sought treatment; but maybe people increase the suffering by struggling with the pain.

I know a 30-something woman who was afflicted with rheumatoid arthritis and fibromyalgia for years, and was dependent on medication to physically function. A few months ago, she stopped taking the medication, as the symptoms had disappeared. Here's how she put it: "I decided not to fight the pain or blame the pain, but to make my peace with it. Then I quit noticing it was there. Then it just wasn't there." Notice that there was no particular intent on her part to cure the symptom - she just related to it differently than she had. She is not religious at all, by the way.

This is not to say that every malady can be healed through adopting such an attitude, but if one person can escape enslavement to drug companies, maybe others can.

I never said the pain wasn't there.

scigirl

yguy,

I'm glad that you don't need to take aspirin (although you should be taking a baby aspirin a day if you are at risk of blood clots, but that's a whole nother topic...)

Yes there are amazing people who don't need drugs to ward off pain. My father for instance - he waterskiied with a freaking broken wrist. The man has no fear. (but he does take nexium of course - for some reason he can't "will" his esophagus to heal. Hmm, maybe this willing idea you have is just not as simple as you describe it).

I have a question for you - do you think that because of your personal experiences, you are now more qualified to know and understand the various causes, and treatments, of chronic pain and disease? Do you claim to have more knowledge about these topics than people who have worked in these fields for years and years?

If you want me to go on and on about "there was this one lady" stories to refute your anecdotal stories, trust me I could do that for hours. Get Dr rick in here and he could probably go on for years describing people who really do need some type of medication in order to function. (Which really really makes me doubt any sort of "intelligent design" argument but again, that's another forum! )

Although I am happy to hear your stories - if you don't need medicine, I am truly happy for you! Especially with my patient clientele - I work with a lot of elderly patients, and they are on soooo many drugs.

However, your two personal accounts do nothing to convince me that I should drop out of medical school and, instead, start giving notes to all my patienst that say "Buck up, sissy." Sorry, but I actually do believe in empirical data and randomised controlled trials.

scigirl