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

171–180 of 322 posts

Re: Should DayQuil Be Legal?

#171

Post by nostrademons »

timothyisonline wrote: post #157
nostrademons wrote: post #96

The article kinda glossed over it, but one fact under-appreciated by the general public is just how dangerous acetaminophen overdoses can be . Scientists often talk about the "therapeutic index" or "safety ratio" of a drug. It's the LD50 (dose at which 50% of recipients die) divided by the effective dose. Common hard drugs like heroin or methamphetamine have a safety ratio of about 6-10 [1]. "Soft" drugs like marijua…

Ibuprofen isn’t much better, unfortunately.

The therapeutic index for ibuprofen is considerably better: it's around 10, fairly similar to alcohol. Accidental overdoses of ibuprofen are rare.

The main issue with ibuprofen is that it can have fairly annoying (but non-life-threatening) side effects like stomach upset and GI bleeds even with normal dosing.

Re: Should DayQuil Be Legal?

#173

Post by kube-system »

tristor wrote: post #162
kube-system wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OTC drugs should be both available and regulated to be sold in such a way to minimize harm to people who use it. Honestly, combination drugs are out of fucking control. Some people don't know Advil is ibuprofin. Some people think all Advil is ibuprofin. Both are wrong! It used to be true that doctors could tell people that it was okay to take [X] brand drug with [Y] brand drug but anymore, there are a half dozen form…

I agree that drugs should be regulated, but that regulation should be primarily about ensuring that they are effective, safe when taken as instructed, and that they contain the ingredients they say that they do and don't contain ingredients that aren't listed. It is not the government's responsibility, nor should it be, to try to solve the fact that someone can do something stupid with medication and harm themselves.…

We don't have to prevent people from being stupid, but we do want to mitigate it, because medicine is supposed to be accessible to everyone, and part of the safety profile of a medication plainly is the ability for it to be administered safely.

> safe when taken as instructed

Part of that means that instructions and ingredients should be clear.

I am educated and knowledgeable and a trip to the pharmacy is more complicated than it needs to be. You damn near have to pick up every damn box to see what is actually in things, if your pharmacy doesn't have things locked up, and half of the time I ask a pharmacist for pseudoephedrine even they give me combination drugs instead.

I don't think we should take anything off the shelf (except oral phenylephrine). If anything, I think we should make more drugs available OTC.

Re: Should DayQuil Be Legal?

#174

Post by dantillberg »

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.

In the US at least, medicine is so highly regulated/gate-kept that I don't think caveat emptor really applies. What's happening here is more like deception of the public by the state, or by groups granted special status by the state. It's morally somewhere between fraud and treason.

Re: Should DayQuil Be Legal?

#175

Post by graypegg »

Maxatar wrote: post #105
andy99 wrote: post #75

In Canada if you go to a drug store, the shelves are literally filled with literal homeopathic medicine. You have to carefully confirm that what you’re buying isn’t water, and there is no signage or other differentiation between actual medicine and magic. Completely unrelated, I noticed recently that tire detailing spray that makes your tires look black, and the recommended lubricant for my garage door weather stripp…

In Canada all homeopathic medicine must clearly identify itself as such and must also state that it's based on traditional form of medicine and not based on any kind of scientific evidence. The very "medicine" you linked to in fact displays it right on the cover.

To be fair, they are clearly following that rule, yes. But also, if I went to a clinic, and got told it was my fault something didn't get treated because I spoke to the person dressed as a doctor wearing the "Aspiring Dr. Soandso (Untrained but did watch House MD all the way through)" nametag instead of the one that said "Dr. Soandso", I would be pretty pissed. They were still in the clinic, dressed like a doctor.

Re: Should DayQuil Be Legal?

#176

Post by [deleted] »

gavinray wrote: post #54

"DXM does nothing", proceeds to link a study whose contents describe significant decreases in cough severity versus placebo. I am convinced that many people ask LLM's "give me a citation URL" and don't bother to read it.

[deleted]

Re: Should DayQuil Be Legal?

#177

Post by GuinansEyebrows »

CodeWriter23 wrote: post #155

It should be legal. Caveat Emptor applies always. to everything. I'd rather have choices available in a marketplace rather than a nanny state stifling innovation through its own incompetence.

in the specific case of this article, "innovation" and "choice" are exactly the problem here. we know what works well - they're well-studied generic compounds. there's no social reason whatsoever that "dayquil" or "tylenol" or "sudafed" should exist when generics are readily available and clearly labeled.

Re: Should DayQuil Be Legal?

#178

Post by eatsyourtacos »

bityard wrote: post #39

I just can't get super upset about this. Sure, OTC companies are duping customers with marketing, but what's new about that? As the person holding the money, it's my job to look at what is effective and what the active ingredients are in any given product. Or ask my doctor/nurse/pharmacist what to do, if I can't be bothered to make the effort myself. When I want to get irrationally angry about something in a departme…

>Sure, OTC companies are duping customers with marketing, but what's new about that

Downvoting you isn't enough. How about we stop trying to take advantage of people and extra every dollar from them in every possible way?

Re: Should DayQuil Be Legal?

#179

Post by jona-f »

MisterTea wrote: post #143
sph wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The post I replied to stated that a DXM OD is dangerous then mentions ketamine without stating its OD dangers giving it the appearance of a safe alternative.

You need much higher doses of dxm to get the psychedelic effects compared to ketamine. Ketamine is a pretty safe drug when used responsibly and occasionally, especially because you can slowly dose to the required intensity and it wears off quickly. Like any drug there are risks involved. Most notably psychosis and addiction. Apart from the immediate toxicity, of course. And that is very much higher for dxm in my experience. It's also a very weird trip and it took me a while (2 weeks) for my brain to fully settle again, whereas with ketamine I would bounce right back feeling better than ever, which of course increases its addiction potential. What we didn't know back then is that ketamine is actual toxic to the kidneys in prolonged high doses, so yes, be careful.

Re: Should DayQuil Be Legal?

#180

Post by Forgeties79 »

CodeWriter23 wrote: post #154
Lich wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn’t know this until recently either. I grew up on a family where if there was pain, you just take tylenol to deal with it. We always followed the dosage timing and never had issues. So recently when my wife had some chronic pain I suggested taking tylenol but even after two days the pain would not go away and she went to ER. They did a blood check to see if they could find anything. They didn’t find the cause, j…

Not to chastise you or your wife, there is an actual "Liver Warning" on Tylenol Product labels. They warn against 4000mg/day or with alcohol consumption. It's not an on/off switch, the damage occurs on a ramp that achieves a critical point after so much consumption. Saying this to encourage label reading and to refute those who might try to characterize your wife's experience as anecdotal. And for those who stop read…

>or with alcohol consumption

This part is what a lot of people miss IME

Post reply on HN