I'll just leave this here....

[AFK]

Because it wasn't for the drug abuser.  It was for the person who was getting the medication for an actual ailment.  And so if they double up or take a higher dosage, they feel bad enough that they think twice about taking a higher dosage again.  This, then, would reduce the likelihood of someone becoming addicted to it.  It wasn't intended for the drug abuser, the drug abuser who is already taking higher dosages of a medication, where there is no ailment, and the medication wasn't prescribed to them. 

This argument that you, and TGRR, and ECH are making suggests that it is the pharmaceutical companies' duty to make sure their drugs are safe for drug abusers, people who take far more than was ever intended.  Medications are designed for people with legitimate ailments, they are not designed for drug abusers. 

Now, with all of that said, it may very well be that there are far more effective ways to make medicines less addictive than adding something like atropine.  I will agree that there may be better ways to do that.  However, what I'm rejecting, without evidence, is that the government purposefully forced pharmaceutical companies to add atropine as a way to punish drug abusers.  Because that is what is being alleged.  If there is evidence to support this, not beliefs evidence, I would be glad to consider it. 

[Triple Zero]

Oh! Oh! Oh! I have one for you... I met this guy at a bar, and he's a fish biologist with a degree from Evergreen. I am pretty sure you can ID him based on that, right? 

AT A BAR YOU SAY?

THAT'S ALL I NEEDED TO KNOW ...

OK, just hacked into his webcam. Can you tell him to put on some pants, people are watching! I mean, the lobster-boxershorts is kind of awesome, but I'm trying to eat.

[Telarus]

Because it wasn't for the drug abuser.  It was for the person who was getting the medication for an actual ailment.  And so if they double up or take a higher dosage, they feel bad enough that they think twice about taking a higher dosage again.  This, then, would reduce the likelihood of someone becoming addicted to it.  It wasn't intended for the drug abuser, the drug abuser who is already taking higher dosages of a medication, where there is no ailment, and the medication wasn't prescribed to them.  

This argument that you, and TGRR, and ECH are making suggests that it is the pharmaceutical companies' duty to make sure their drugs are safe for drug abusers, people who take far more than was ever intended.  Medications are designed for people with legitimate ailments, they are not designed for drug abusers.  

Now, with all of that said, it may very well be that there are far more effective ways to make medicines less addictive than adding something like atropine.  I will agree that there may be better ways to do that.  However, what I'm rejecting, without evidence, is that the government purposefully forced pharmaceutical companies to add atropine as a way to punish drug abusers.  Because that is what is being alleged.  If there is evidence to support this, not beliefs evidence, I would be glad to consider it.  

So would a court of law. Good luck with that.

The government doesn't 'force' the drug companies to do it via any language in the law.

They say, "do this and you can let people refill prescriptions by telephone, don't do this and you can't", and which point the decision has been taken out of the corp's hands (meaningfully) because one product leads to market exposure (Dr's willing to prescribe their products on the knowledge they won't have to see the patient for just 15 minutes every week just to refill a script), while the other (un-laced) product get buried under the other drug companies marketing/lobbying Drs on their products, which do toe the "refill by telephone" guidelines.

That the Feds are now going, "Oh, maybe we shouldn't 'allow' that much additives to opiates, y'know due to the amount that emergency room visits have spiked in the past 15 years." is not only refreshing, it's INSANELY HONEST.

Oh, wait, they let the drug companies have 2 years to sell their back-stock of already laced opiates.

NEVER MIND.

[BabylonHoruv]

Because it wasn't for the drug abuser.  It was for the person who was getting the medication for an actual ailment.  And so if they double up or take a higher dosage, they feel bad enough that they think twice about taking a higher dosage again.  This, then, would reduce the likelihood of someone becoming addicted to it.  It wasn't intended for the drug abuser, the drug abuser who is already taking higher dosages of a medication, where there is no ailment, and the medication wasn't prescribed to them. 

This argument that you, and TGRR, and ECH are making suggests that it is the pharmaceutical companies' duty to make sure their drugs are safe for drug abusers, people who take far more than was ever intended.  Medications are designed for people with legitimate ailments, they are not designed for drug abusers. 

Now, with all of that said, it may very well be that there are far more effective ways to make medicines less addictive than adding something like atropine.  I will agree that there may be better ways to do that.  However, what I'm rejecting, without evidence, is that the government purposefully forced pharmaceutical companies to add atropine as a way to punish drug abusers.  Because that is what is being alleged.  If there is evidence to support this, not beliefs evidence, I would be glad to consider it. 

It looks like you are admitting that the intent is to make people greivously ill.

I don't expect the company to attempt to make drugs safe for people who take more than they are supposed to,  I do expect them not to purposely make them unsafe which is what they are doing when they add atropine.

[East Coast Hustle]

I knew it would only be a matter of time before you found an angle to start acting like asshats.  And you performed just as I imagined you would. 

Now, where have I heard this before?


RWHN, are you conducting a socioLOLgical experiment?

[East Coast Hustle]

Because it wasn't for the drug abuser.  It was for the person who was getting the medication for an actual ailment.  And so if they double up or take a higher dosage, they feel bad enough that they think twice about taking a higher dosage again.  This, then, would reduce the likelihood of someone becoming addicted to it.  It wasn't intended for the drug abuser, the drug abuser who is already taking higher dosages of a medication, where there is no ailment, and the medication wasn't prescribed to them. 

This argument that you, and TGRR, and ECH are making suggests that it is the pharmaceutical companies' duty to make sure their drugs are safe for drug abusers, people who take far more than was ever intended.  Medications are designed for people with legitimate ailments, they are not designed for drug abusers. 

Now, with all of that said, it may very well be that there are far more effective ways to make medicines less addictive than adding something like atropine.  I will agree that there may be better ways to do that.  However, what I'm rejecting, without evidence, is that the government purposefully forced pharmaceutical companies to add atropine as a way to punish drug abusers.  Because that is what is being alleged.  If there is evidence to support this, not beliefs evidence, I would be glad to consider it. 

two problems here:

1) someone who is physically dependent on an opiate is not going to stop taking it just because an adulterant in it makes them feel funny. Opiate withdrawal is going to make them feel way worse.

2) Atropine doesn't work like that anyway. It just builds up and makes your heart stop once you reach a critical threshold.

And last I checked, drug abusers are, you know, still human fucking beings. There's no justification at all for poisoning them. Period.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

 Can you think of any other reason to add Atropine aside from to make people gravely ill if they take more than the suggested dose?

Well, they might want to give the patients really pretty eyes... 

As an aside, adding anything that is not necessary to a drug is a very stupid thing to do. If pot growers were lacing weed with atropa belladonna 'to make sure the pot smokers didn't smoke too much'  I'm sure we'd be hearing about how the DEADLY WEED LACING is claiming lives and putting the innocent kids in the hospital.

I think RWHN is probably in the field he claims, because his comments seem pretty close to the comments I've heard from other people in similar work.

I think ol' Fuck You One-Eye is also well informed, because my personal experiences seem to align pretty closely with what he's said.

In short:
Obama is an asshole politican going after people that are not really causing harm, while the country falls apart.
Drug companies, with or without the government's pushing, are assholes for making any drug more poisonous than necessary.

[Freeky]

This thread is just chalk-full of unfortunate.  

And yeah, defending anyone for putting poison in medicine is a completely indefensible position.  Defending it because then drug abusers, who are going to get their drugs anyway, could get high easier otherwise is an atrocious sentiment, and puts you on a level of... I can't even think of a good comparison right now, it's that abhorrent.

Dude, RWHN, I thought you were for helping people who had a drug problem, not for punishing everyone just to minimize (what seems like a fractional amount) the people who want to get fucked up.  I thought you were a better guy than that.  

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Because it wasn't for the drug abuser.  It was for the person who was getting the medication for an actual ailment.  And so if they double up or take a higher dosage, they feel bad enough that they think twice about taking a higher dosage again.  This, then, would reduce the likelihood of someone becoming addicted to it.  It wasn't intended for the drug abuser, the drug abuser who is already taking higher dosages of a medication, where there is no ailment, and the medication wasn't prescribed to them. 

Why don't we just use cattle prods?

This argument that you, and TGRR, and ECH are making suggests that it is the pharmaceutical companies' duty to make sure their drugs are safe for drug abusers, people who take far more than was ever intended.  Medications are designed for people with legitimate ailments, they are not designed for drug abusers. 

How is "not putting poison in" the same thing as "making sure their drugs are safe for drug abusers"?

[AFK]

Because it wasn't for the drug abuser.  It was for the person who was getting the medication for an actual ailment.  And so if they double up or take a higher dosage, they feel bad enough that they think twice about taking a higher dosage again.  This, then, would reduce the likelihood of someone becoming addicted to it.  It wasn't intended for the drug abuser, the drug abuser who is already taking higher dosages of a medication, where there is no ailment, and the medication wasn't prescribed to them. 

This argument that you, and TGRR, and ECH are making suggests that it is the pharmaceutical companies' duty to make sure their drugs are safe for drug abusers, people who take far more than was ever intended.  Medications are designed for people with legitimate ailments, they are not designed for drug abusers. 

Now, with all of that said, it may very well be that there are far more effective ways to make medicines less addictive than adding something like atropine.  I will agree that there may be better ways to do that.  However, what I'm rejecting, without evidence, is that the government purposefully forced pharmaceutical companies to add atropine as a way to punish drug abusers.  Because that is what is being alleged.  If there is evidence to support this, not beliefs evidence, I would be glad to consider it. 

It looks like you are admitting that the intent is to make people greivously ill.

I don't expect the company to attempt to make drugs safe for people who take more than they are supposed to,  I do expect them not to purposely make them unsafe which is what they are doing when they add atropine.

I wouldn't say "greivously ill".  There aren't too many prescription drugs that aren't going to make you greivously ill if you take far more than was prescribed by the doctor.  From what I've read the intent was to keep someone who is earnestly taking the drug.  That is, someone who would likely be gradually increasing their dose.  Not someone who is purposefully seeking out rx drugs to abuse.  Someone who was prescribed the drug isn't generally going to go from, for example, taking  a prescribed dosage of two pills to taking dosages of 5 or 6 pills.  More often than not they are going to take an extra pill, maybe two, because they are just trying to treat their pain or symptoms.  They aren't seeking to get high or addicted.  But of course we know that this is how tolerances are developed.  So I think the aim was to stop that from happening.  It wasn't for the people who go from two pills to 10 pills.  

[AFK]

This thread is just chalk-full of unfortunate.  

And yeah, defending anyone for putting poison in medicine is a completely indefensible position.  Defending it because then drug abusers, who are going to get their drugs anyway, could get high easier otherwise is an atrocious sentiment, and puts you on a level of... I can't even think of a good comparison right now, it's that abhorrent.

Dude, RWHN, I thought you were for helping people who had a drug problem, not for punishing everyone just to minimize (what seems like a fractional amount) the people who want to get fucked up.  I thought you were a better guy than that.  

I'm not defending I'm explaining.  This thread of the discussion started by people asserting that the government was intentionally putting in an additive to punish drug users.  What I'm explaining is that it is far more likely, short of someone producing evidence otherwise, that the goal was to keep the person who was prescribed the drug form developing an addiction.  I also did state a couple of posts ago that there are likely better ways to do this and if their are they should be pursued.  I'm not defending what they did I'm just pushing back on the assertion that this was the government attacking drug abusers which is pretty much what has been alleged. 

[AFK]

Because it wasn't for the drug abuser.  It was for the person who was getting the medication for an actual ailment.  And so if they double up or take a higher dosage, they feel bad enough that they think twice about taking a higher dosage again.  This, then, would reduce the likelihood of someone becoming addicted to it.  It wasn't intended for the drug abuser, the drug abuser who is already taking higher dosages of a medication, where there is no ailment, and the medication wasn't prescribed to them. 

Why don't we just use cattle prods?

This argument that you, and TGRR, and ECH are making suggests that it is the pharmaceutical companies' duty to make sure their drugs are safe for drug abusers, people who take far more than was ever intended.  Medications are designed for people with legitimate ailments, they are not designed for drug abusers. 

How is "not putting poison in" the same thing as "making sure their drugs are safe for drug abusers"?

Again, my main argument here is against the implied intent.  You guys are implying, well more than implying, that the government purposefully mandated pharmaceutical companies put in this ingredient to punish drug abusers.  So far I see a lot of belief statements but no proof of intent.  I'm not going to disagree that there may be better ways to make this particular drug abuse resistant.  I'm just pushing back against the, so far, unfounded assertion that this was a deliberate government sanctioned attack on drug abusers. 

[Triple Zero]

As an aside, adding anything that is not necessary to a drug is a very stupid thing to do. If pot growers were lacing weed with atropa belladonna 'to make sure the pot smokers didn't smoke too much'  I'm sure we'd be hearing about how the DEADLY WEED LACING is claiming lives and putting the innocent kids in the hospital.

But it's different if Big Pharma does it in order to let doctors prescribe laced medications more easily.

...

Actually, Rat, come to think of it, you better want to keep that idea very very quiet, because they'd DO IT too, you know that. I won't spell it out anymore, because whatever dystopian prophecies we make here have the nasty tendency to come true. There's enough .gov IPs in our server logs, who's to say they're not watching us to keep tabs on us, but for inspiration??

[Don Coyote]

As an aside, adding anything that is not necessary to a drug is a very stupid thing to do. If pot growers were lacing weed with atropa belladonna 'to make sure the pot smokers didn't smoke too much'  I'm sure we'd be hearing about how the DEADLY WEED LACING is claiming lives and putting the innocent kids in the hospital.

But it's different if Big Pharma does it in order to let doctors prescribe laced medications more easily.

...

Actually, Rat, come to think of it, you better want to keep that idea very very quiet, because they'd DO IT too, you know that. I won't spell it out anymore, because whatever dystopian prophecies we make here have the nasty tendency to come true. There's enough .gov IPs in our server logs, who's to say they're not watching us to keep tabs on us, but for inspiration??

GODDAMNIT TRIP!!!!!

[East Coast Hustle]

Because it wasn't for the drug abuser.  It was for the person who was getting the medication for an actual ailment.  And so if they double up or take a higher dosage, they feel bad enough that they think twice about taking a higher dosage again.  This, then, would reduce the likelihood of someone becoming addicted to it.  It wasn't intended for the drug abuser, the drug abuser who is already taking higher dosages of a medication, where there is no ailment, and the medication wasn't prescribed to them. 

This argument that you, and TGRR, and ECH are making suggests that it is the pharmaceutical companies' duty to make sure their drugs are safe for drug abusers, people who take far more than was ever intended.  Medications are designed for people with legitimate ailments, they are not designed for drug abusers. 

Now, with all of that said, it may very well be that there are far more effective ways to make medicines less addictive than adding something like atropine.  I will agree that there may be better ways to do that.  However, what I'm rejecting, without evidence, is that the government purposefully forced pharmaceutical companies to add atropine as a way to punish drug abusers.  Because that is what is being alleged.  If there is evidence to support this, not beliefs evidence, I would be glad to consider it. 

It looks like you are admitting that the intent is to make people greivously ill.

I don't expect the company to attempt to make drugs safe for people who take more than they are supposed to,  I do expect them not to purposely make them unsafe which is what they are doing when they add atropine.

I wouldn't say "greivously ill".  There aren't too many prescription drugs that aren't going to make you greivously ill if you take far more than was prescribed by the doctor.  From what I've read the intent was to keep someone who is earnestly taking the drug.  That is, someone who would likely be gradually increasing their dose.  Not someone who is purposefully seeking out rx drugs to abuse.  Someone who was prescribed the drug isn't generally going to go from, for example, taking  a prescribed dosage of two pills to taking dosages of 5 or 6 pills.  More often than not they are going to take an extra pill, maybe two, because they are just trying to treat their pain or symptoms.  They aren't seeking to get high or addicted.  But of course we know that this is how tolerances are developed.  So I think the aim was to stop that from happening.  It wasn't for the people who go from two pills to 10 pills. 

You keep ignoring the part where that idea is completely contrary to how both opiates and atropine actually work.