Well, 433 over six years, 2007 through 2012. Which is about 72 per year, per person. I mean, what is supposed to be done about this? Cut off WV from painkillers? Have the DEA raid a bunch of pharmacies?
> Cut off WV from painkillers? Given the kind of logical leaps the War on Drugs takes, why not? I'm sure that someone, somewhere, in WV is getting high on pills as we speak.
Sometimes I think there will be movies like 'Blow' in 20 years that will be about the wild west times of prescription drugs, and the kingpins who had houses filled with money from the proceeds.
The FDA bans drugs from making unverified medical claims. That's the raison d'etre for its existence. Given the circumstances, they do a pretty damn good job of this. You can put whatever the hell you want in your non-FDA-approved snake oil supplement - but then you won't have the legitimacy of the medical establishment behind you. This legitimacy depends on your drug having verifiable, understood effects. You can't…
Well, they still destroy unapproved drugs at the border and raid places like whole milk producers and nutritional supplement makers. It's not exactly "caveat emptor" over at the FDA. My point is really that, if somebody's solution to the problem of people overdosing on drugs is to ban them or prohibit access, then they're defacto acquiescing to the tools that make the War on Drugs possible. People seem to expect drug…
There are plenty of snake oil manufacturers who manage to operate within the boundaries of the law. Those don't get raided.
The milk salesman wasn't raided for selling whole milk. He was raided for selling unpasteurized milk... Across state lines.
Generally speaking, clearing the bar for FDA tolerance of nutritional supplements is quite easy. They don't care that your product works, only that you don't put actively dangerous things in it. It's caveat emptor for efficiency, but not for safety - which is a pretty reasonable place to draw the line.
Well, 433 over six years, 2007 through 2012. Which is about 72 per year, per person. I mean, what is supposed to be done about this? Cut off WV from painkillers? Have the DEA raid a bunch of pharmacies?
Wouldn't it look different if you adjusted for the number of persons who take none ? [disclaimer - self: none] What percentage of the population 1) is taking any? 2) needs to be taking any? Not everyone has had accident/surgery/cancer/etc.
I mean, I don't know what those numbers are. But when people give a per capita value for something that occurs over time, nearly always, that value is per annum. But here it wasn't, it was over several years.
It'd be like saying "the per capita income of New York State is $185,688!" When that's actually the per capita income over six years.
Well, 433 over six years, 2007 through 2012. Which is about 72 per year, per person. I mean, what is supposed to be done about this? Cut off WV from painkillers? Have the DEA raid a bunch of pharmacies?
You can tell it was a tabloid style article by the headline: "Drug firms poured..." >Which is about 72 per year, per person. That doesn't sound unreasonable. I would guess the average prescription is 2-4 a day per person per year.
I'd be surprised if more than 5% (probably even less) of the population should be on heavy painkillers at any given time. I don't know statistics from other countries but we're talking about pills that are being used to treat severe pain, not just a headache.
Wouldn't it look different if you adjusted for the number of persons who take none ? [disclaimer - self: none] What percentage of the population 1) is taking any? 2) needs to be taking any? Not everyone has had accident/surgery/cancer/etc.
I mean, I don't know what those numbers are. But when people give a per capita value for something that occurs over time, nearly always , that value is per annum. But here it wasn't, it was over several years. It'd be like saying "the per capita income of New York State is $185,688!" When that's actually the per capita income over six years.
The 6 year scope is in the sentence immediately before, and it is clear that it means per capita over all the shipments (it says so!) and not per year/unit of time.
I've never been quite able to grasp the logic of those people who think that, while the War on Drugs is a bad idea, the FDA being able to ban whatever drugs it likes is a good idea. Either the government should have the power to ban drugs or it shouldn't, but too many people seem to want it both ways: prohibition without enforcement.
I think there are a large number of people that simply want a different mix of prohibition and enforcement than we have today. It doesn't take a whole lot of doublethink to want laws around marijuana relaxed while at the same time preferring to keep the FDA.
Okay, but what I'm saying is that once the tools are in place to ban various substances for personal consumption, and make those bans stick through enforcement, then that's all the tools you need for a War on Drugs. I mean, at that point, it's just "ban this thing, and not that thing, because it's what I want."
What takes doublethink is imagining that, once these powers are in place, they won't be used against one's preferred substances.
Not that pharma is angelic here, but don't the doctors have the largest measure of blame for writing unnecessary scripts, failing to monitor for abuse, and failing to encourage alternate options? I'm in favor of maximum MD power. I think they should be allowed to prescribe everything from cocaine to bleach, or any other chemical compound, as suits the patient care, if they know what they're doing. But they should als…
Ultimately, doctors follow the instructions and prescribing guidelines from the pharmaceutical companies.
I mean, I don't know what those numbers are. But when people give a per capita value for something that occurs over time, nearly always , that value is per annum. But here it wasn't, it was over several years. It'd be like saying "the per capita income of New York State is $185,688!" When that's actually the per capita income over six years.
The 6 year scope is in the sentence immediately before, and it is clear that it means per capita over all the shipments (it says so!) and not per year/unit of time.
I was replying to the comment, which left out that context from the quoted statement. Context which I knew because I read the article.
Well, they still destroy unapproved drugs at the border and raid places like whole milk producers and nutritional supplement makers. It's not exactly "caveat emptor" over at the FDA. My point is really that, if somebody's solution to the problem of people overdosing on drugs is to ban them or prohibit access, then they're defacto acquiescing to the tools that make the War on Drugs possible. People seem to expect drug…
There are plenty of snake oil manufacturers who manage to operate within the boundaries of the law. Those don't get raided. The milk salesman wasn't raided for selling whole milk. He was raided for selling unpasteurized milk... Across state lines. Generally speaking, clearing the bar for FDA tolerance of nutritional supplements is quite easy. They don't care that your product works, only that you don't put actively d…
I understand that, yes. But what I am saying is that, even with a "safety" criterion, the War on Drugs is completely prosecutable. Heck, alcohol is dangerous as hell, as evidenced by the number of deaths it precipitates. There is nearly always a safety criterion that can be thought up for "products for personal consumption" (as opposed to, say, environmental pollutants) You can have prohibition of "unsafe substances", or you can have an end to the War on Drugs. I don't think you can have both.
The 6 year scope is in the sentence immediately before, and it is clear that it means per capita over all the shipments (it says so!) and not per year/unit of time.
I was replying to the comment, which left out that context from the quoted statement. Context which I knew because I read the article.
Fair enough, I didn't think about that the isolated quote here in the comments could be misleading.