I'll just leave this here....

[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.

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.  

And those "not too many" are the ones that the put atropine into so that they will.  The tolerance levels with Opiates work petty simply, if you take more you need more to get the desired effect and it takes more to give you any adverse effects.

Additives to make people ill are just a bad tactic.  making the housewife with the bad back ill when she takes enough of the pills that her doctor perscribed her to actually make hr back stop hurting is wrong and putting poison in that kills her stupid teenage kid when he steals some of moms pills to get high is also wrong, there's no defensible action on the part of the drug company here.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

RWHN insinuates that the government is so incompetent that they didn't realize adding atropine to opiates would result in serious harm and death, as though that thought just never crossed their minds.

I'm sure it was because they were so focused on preventing normal people from getting hooked that they just forgot about how curious kids and drug abusers might be killed.

[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. 

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

Atropine is deliberately added to certain medications for precisely the reason I just laid out.  To discourage over-dosage. 

[AFK]

RWHN insinuates that the government is so incompetent that they didn't realize adding atropine to opiates would result in serious harm and death, as though that thought just never crossed their minds.

I'm sure it was because they were so focused on preventing normal people from getting hooked that they just forgot about how curious kids and drug abusers might be killed.

The government doesn't make medications.  Pharmaceutical companies make medications.  I still haven't seen anyone provide any information that proves the government forced pharmaceutical companies to add atropine to medications to punish drug abusers. 

[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.

Atropine is deliberately added to certain medications for precisely the reason I just laid out.  To discourage over-dosage. 

You keep ignoring the part where that doesn't work, due to both the nature of opiate dependency and the nature of atropine itself.

It's like adding antifreeze to cheap wine to discourage people from drinking too much.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

RWHN insinuates that the government is so incompetent that they didn't realize adding atropine to opiates would result in serious harm and death, as though that thought just never crossed their minds.

I'm sure it was because they were so focused on preventing normal people from getting hooked that they just forgot about how curious kids and drug abusers might be killed.

The government doesn't make medications.  Pharmaceutical companies make medications.  I still haven't seen anyone provide any information that proves the government forced pharmaceutical companies to add atropine to medications to punish drug abusers.  

If they didn't consider the effect on drug abusers and children, that would make them grossly incompetent at best.

I haven't seen any documentation from you to support your claim that this was primarily targeted at normal people to prevent addiction.

ETA: I also haven't seen any evidence that atropine works the way you keep portraying it either.

[East Coast Hustle]

You also keep ignoring the part where the FDA doesn't mandate that atropine be added to opiates (obviously), but that they use the scheduling and subsequent difference in marketability and prescribability as such a huge economic incentive as to have no effective difference than if they had actually mandated it.

Pointedly ignoring any points raised in an argument that don't fit your views of things is basically the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU".

I mean, you've sunk to Teabagger tactics, FFS. At least have the intellectual honesty to face the argument that's actually being presented to you rather than just reciting some idiotic dogma from rote.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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?

Dude, that's what I've been saying! Dude's

[East Coast Hustle]

You'd think that a man in such a prominent position would have better things to do than come slumming around trolling PD with this sort of thing, but I'm glad he did. There's some masterful tactical trolling going on here.

Of course, we must keep feeding it so that we can study the coursework to its logical completion.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.  

He absolutely lost me, and any idea I had that he was at all a good person, when he just as doggedly supported the policy of no college financial aid for anyone with a felony drug conviction. Making sure that people who screw up cannot better themselves is punitive to the point of being antisocial; it has no benefit to society, only detriment. Destroying the lives and families of people who use drugs does nothing to better society, and a lot to weaken it, IMO. This is why at this point I am convinced he's a troll, because what kind of person would endorse and defend some of the most heinous and indefensible actions of any government against its own citizens?

So maybe it's not that I don't think he's a good person... more like, I think he might be a decent person who's a superb troll fucking with us for ya-yas. 

[East Coast Hustle]

I'm guessing there's some personal history that's turned him into a TRUE BELIEVER. Crackhead stabbed his grandma, bus driver got him stoned and touched his wee-wee, high school girlfriend dumped him for a pot dealer....something.

[The Rev]

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.

Atropine is deliberately added to certain medications for precisely the reason I just laid out.  To discourage over-dosage. 

It isn't working, so it does need to be rethought.

As to the other stuff, you have a perception of the situation that is different than my perception. You only see the ugly underbelly of things, but there is so much more to it than just that. I think that if it weren't drugs then many of the people you work with are simply self destructive to begin with, and they would find different avenues.

But what the fuck do I know?

[East Coast Hustle]

I'm guessing there's some personal history that's turned him into a TRUE BELIEVER. Crackhead stabbed his grandma, bus driver got him stoned and touched his wee-wee, high school girlfriend dumped him for a pot dealer....something.

I know that sounds like I'm just trying to get personal, but I honestly can't think of any other logical explanation for someone who otherwise seems to be mostly rational and non-evil to have so completely internalized such a disgustingly regressive and calvinist way of thinking about a group of people with a disease. I'm actually hoping that I'm right because the alternative is pretty shitty.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm guessing there's some personal history that's turned him into a TRUE BELIEVER. Crackhead stabbed his grandma, bus driver got him stoned and touched his wee-wee, high school girlfriend dumped him for a pot dealer....something.

I know that sounds like I'm just trying to get personal, but I honestly can't think of any other logical explanation for someone who otherwise seems to be mostly rational and non-evil to have so completely internalized such a disgustingly regressive and calvinist way of thinking about a group of people with a disease. I'm actually hoping that I'm right because the alternative is pretty shitty.

What I don't get is that you can take effective measures to reduce addiction and drug use without resorting to socially damaging punitive measures that rob people of health, life, freedom, or the ability to better themselves. There are plenty of effective programs to look at. Outside In, for example, whose model is prevention, rehab and support, and if they can't keep kids off drugs (which they have an excellent track record of doing) their next goal is to simply keep them healthy in the hope that at some point they will be able to become contributing members of society. The punishment model is simply vengeance, which doesn't help anyone. Punish someone for fucking up their life? That doesn't even make SENSE. Making it easier to fatally overdose on medicine in order to prevent drug abuse makes no sense.

[AFK]

RWHN insinuates that the government is so incompetent that they didn't realize adding atropine to opiates would result in serious harm and death, as though that thought just never crossed their minds.

I'm sure it was because they were so focused on preventing normal people from getting hooked that they just forgot about how curious kids and drug abusers might be killed.

The government doesn't make medications.  Pharmaceutical companies make medications.  I still haven't seen anyone provide any information that proves the government forced pharmaceutical companies to add atropine to medications to punish drug abusers.  

If they didn't consider the effect on drug abusers and children, that would make them grossly incompetent at best.

I haven't seen any documentation from you to support your claim that this was primarily targeted at normal people to prevent addiction.

ETA: I also haven't seen any evidence that atropine works the way you keep portraying it either.

Look up some drugs that have atropine as an additive.  You will see tha the reason it is there is to reduce the likelihood of addiciton and to deter overdose.