Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Should DayQuil Be Legal?

theargumentmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 322 posts

Re: Should DayQuil Be Legal?

#21

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

robobro wrote: post #4

Dextromethorphan is definitely not a placebo. Take enough and you'll go to space and meet God. Smaller doses produce euphoria and dissociation, which, even if they don't make the cough go away, makes it easier to tolerate a cold -- same reason antitussives have historically contained alcohol, cannabis extract (which may incidentally work as bronchodilator but was not the reason I imagine it was in antitussives) Funny…

> Dextromethorphan is definitely not a placebo.

It definitely works for me. It'd be wild if for all 44 years of my life, it's only worked because of the placebo effect.

The article mentions phenylephrine, and that shit definitely doesn't work. Not even a placebo.

Re: Should DayQuil Be Legal?

#22

Post by ikesau »

the_sleaze_ wrote: post #18
techbro92 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the argument for legalizing drugs that are contraindicated for all medical purposes, are toxic, and have a high addictive potential? How does it benefit me or society if my neighbor is permitted to choose to basically roll the dice on afflicting themselves with a debilitating chronic illness (severe addiction)? If I don’t want to do illegal drugs why would I ant to support this?

I went to a southeast asian country and got a staph infection. I walked down to the pharmacy, asked the pharmastst for a topical and an oral antibiotic. 3 days later i was healed, continued the course the rest of the week and that was it. $12 dollars american. I got another staph infection previously in the united states. Needed to go to a doc in the box who misdiagnosed it. A few days went by and i needed to go to a…

I'm sorry that happened to you. Sincerely. That sounds incredibly frustrating, painful, and scary.

I think your maximalist conclusion of "drugs should be legalized" might have some second-order effects that might be net worse for society, though. Addiction, misuse, MRSA, overdoses, etc.

Re: Should DayQuil Be Legal?

#23

Post by sph »

MisterTea wrote: post #16
jona-f wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Came here to say this, the author is hating on dextromethorphan like he never robotripped before. But then, overdosing dxm isn't all that healthy and I'd recommend ketamine if you want to experiment like that.

> But then, overdosing dxm isn't all that healthy and I'd recommend ketamine if you want to experiment like that. Ketamine is neurotoxic itself and can cause permanent brain damage. I can't find the info but there was someone in the tech industry who accidentally overdosed and suffered a two year bout of severe debilitating depression culminating in suicide.

Sorry to say, we shouldn't really base our opinion on drug safety from people who accidentally overdose or are generally reckless with drugs. There's people who drink for the first time and end up in the hospital.

If you want to do it the smart way, just consult erowid.org and use a little common sense.

https://erowid.org/chemicals/ketamine/ketamine_faq.shtml

Re: Should DayQuil Be Legal?

#24

Post by fooglove34 »

MisterTea wrote: post #16
jona-f wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Came here to say this, the author is hating on dextromethorphan like he never robotripped before. But then, overdosing dxm isn't all that healthy and I'd recommend ketamine if you want to experiment like that.

> But then, overdosing dxm isn't all that healthy and I'd recommend ketamine if you want to experiment like that. Ketamine is neurotoxic itself and can cause permanent brain damage. I can't find the info but there was someone in the tech industry who accidentally overdosed and suffered a two year bout of severe debilitating depression culminating in suicide.

one off experience of someone in a stressful job. are we gate keeping?

Re: Should DayQuil Be Legal?

#25

Post by eli »

delichon wrote: post #15

Of course placebos should be legal, they're effective medications. https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/the-power-...

The placebo effect is not an excuse to allow drug companies to make false claims about the efficacy of the ingredients

Re: Should DayQuil Be Legal?

#26

Post by jfyi »

techbro92 wrote: post #7
nekusar wrote: post #2

All drugs should be legal, full stop. And I should be able to get medical drugs on my own, without a permission slip from a doctor I have to convince. Drug prohibition has caused magnitudes more harm than decriminalization and legalization. And part of this article is about claims from what is likely inert or mild effect at best. Remember, we used to have amphetamines, pseudoephedrine, and much more potent drugs to a…

What is the argument for legalizing drugs that are contraindicated for all medical purposes, are toxic, and have a high addictive potential? How does it benefit me or society if my neighbor is permitted to choose to basically roll the dice on afflicting themselves with a debilitating chronic illness (severe addiction)? If I don’t want to do illegal drugs why would I ant to support this?

Legal status of these chemicals is not going to prevent your neighbor from getting them and becoming addicted.

Legal status (along with stigma associated with it) does prevent them from getting help before completely crashing out. It has the additional side effect of whatever portion of their lives they come out of it with being completely destroyed by the legal process. You know, because chronic illness obviously deserves punishment.

So I guess the real question is: what is the goal? Help chronic illness, or punish people that do things we don't like?

Also, don't we already have laws for literally all the bad things someone can do while addicted? If not, then why is it bad just because they are suffering from a chronic illness?

Re: Should DayQuil Be Legal?

#27

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

bigfishrunning wrote: post #17
nekusar wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and the question lends itself to control (or lack of) by relevant medical "authorities". I honestly do not trust somebody with a doctor license who I talked to for 7 minutes out of 259200 minutes (6 months). For example, when I went on a camping trip, I got bit by 15 ticks. After I got back, went to doc for 15 day doxycyclene, gold standard. And its cheap, like $15. NOPE, fucker wanted the ticks in a bag to grin…

One of the reasons doxycyclene is so effective is because it's less overprescribed. Antibiotic resistance is a real thing, and the day we run out of viable ones is going to be ugly. Having a gatekeeper isn't a bad idea.

To add to this, despite all efforts to educate people, many STILL don't know that antibiotics don't work against viruses and will want one when dealing with a cold or other viral infection.

If we let antibiotics be over-the-counter, every damn infectious bacteria will be a super-strain in a year.

Re: Should DayQuil Be Legal?

#28

Post by ryandrake »

robertpateii wrote: post #8

Yeah, intentionally misleading consumers should always be at least somewhat illegal. Sure caveat emptor, but consumers having accurate information is implied and a cornerstone of a competitive market.

"Caveat Emptor" and "Do your own research" is not a basis for a functional society. Providing reading material is not a sufficient substitute for regulation in a country like the USA where 54% of adults read below a sixth-grade level. And letting marketing decide what counts as "accurate information" is just letting the fox guard the henhouse.

Re: Should DayQuil Be Legal?

#29

Post by nekusar »

bigfishrunning wrote: post #17
nekusar wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and the question lends itself to control (or lack of) by relevant medical "authorities". I honestly do not trust somebody with a doctor license who I talked to for 7 minutes out of 259200 minutes (6 months). For example, when I went on a camping trip, I got bit by 15 ticks. After I got back, went to doc for 15 day doxycyclene, gold standard. And its cheap, like $15. NOPE, fucker wanted the ticks in a bag to grin…

One of the reasons doxycyclene is so effective is because it's less overprescribed. Antibiotic resistance is a real thing, and the day we run out of viable ones is going to be ugly. Having a gatekeeper isn't a bad idea.

That's why I went amoxycillan. I can buy medical grade as "fish antibiotics".

Alpha-gal wasn't prevalent then. It was primarily Lyme and rocky mountain spotted fever. Doxy and amox is the gold/silver standard for both.

I don't need a fucking doctor to tell me I was bitten by 15 ticks. I removed them myself with a tick puller. I don't need to he told that I probably got a disease from at least 1 of them. So yeah, its either going to cure the infection before it starts up, or is a prophylactic to prevent it.

And in more sane countries, I can go in a pharmacy, tell the pharmacist and reasonablely and cheaply treat myself. US? Not so much.

But, I can smoke delta8, tobacco, and drink until my lungs and liver give out. But how dare I take some antibiotics when I need them.

Re: Should DayQuil Be Legal?

#30

Post by Marsymars »

bigfishrunning wrote: post #17
nekusar wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and the question lends itself to control (or lack of) by relevant medical "authorities". I honestly do not trust somebody with a doctor license who I talked to for 7 minutes out of 259200 minutes (6 months). For example, when I went on a camping trip, I got bit by 15 ticks. After I got back, went to doc for 15 day doxycyclene, gold standard. And its cheap, like $15. NOPE, fucker wanted the ticks in a bag to grin…

One of the reasons doxycyclene is so effective is because it's less overprescribed. Antibiotic resistance is a real thing, and the day we run out of viable ones is going to be ugly. Having a gatekeeper isn't a bad idea.

I generally agree, but it seems darkly comical to be worried about gatekeeping antibiotics as a tick disease prophylactic when the vast majority of antibiotics are applied non-therapeutically to farm animals.
Post reply on HN