I'll just leave this here....

[East Coast Hustle]

Eh, I'd argue that all medicines are poisonous, by definition.

Well then you'd be making a horribly wrong argument. Medicines are substances that, while they may have poisonous effects if taken wrong, also have the ability to heal human being and/or relieve discomfort. So they are not "poisons by definition".

[The Rev]

Once in a while you guys amaze me.

You are astounded that our government would do something like this?

Like deliberately infecting poor black people with syphilis?
Like telling soldiers that dirt would protect them from radiation poisoning?
Well, the list is endless, but you get the idea.

[East Coast Hustle]

I'm not the least bit surprised, but that doesn't make it any less sickening.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I don't think opiates are the only drugs they do this with. I mean, even Robitussin has something in it that makes you puke if you ingest too much (which doesn't seem to stop people from doing it anyway). I was under the impression that it's pretty de riguer to spike potential intoxicants with something that makes people sick if they try to use them in an unapproved way.

Hmmm, this might explain why people who work for government agencies are so obsessed with the idea of marijuana being laced.

[AFK]

Well, for SOME reason, if codeine is mixed with other active ingredients such as acetaminophen, it's schedule V, but if it's not, it's schedule II. That seems like a pretty clear message.

Yes, that reason is because Schedule V drugs contain lower levels of narcotics, which is what you'd expect to see when you are mixing in other ingredients. 

Schedule V Controlled Substances

    Substances in this schedule have a low potential for abuse relative to substances listed in schedule IV and consist primarily of preparations containing limited quantities of certain narcotics. These are generally used for antitussive, antidiarrheal, and analgesic purposes.

    Examples include cough preparations containing not more than 200 milligrams of codeine per 100 milliliters or per 100 grams (Robitussin AC® and Phenergan with Codeine®).

Right. And you can't just take more because it'll poison you.

Uh, if you require the stronger, purer, stuff the doctor will prescribe it for you.  P

[AFK]

Again, I don't think they had a hardcore drug user in mind with that kind of additive.  I think the intent was likely more to deter the normal prescription drug user (that is a person taking a prescription drug legitimately prescribed to them) from taking a larger dose of a particular medicine, and therefore, reduce the chances of building a tolerance and addiction.  I don't think they had specifically in mind to poison someone who is already abusing prescription drugs for the purposes of getting high.

This may not seem like a significant distinction but I think it is an important one.  I don't think it was aimed at the drug abuser, but the patient to keep them from becoming an abuser of that particular drug. 

Funny, I've NEVER had a doctor inform me that the codeine he was prescribing me had atropine in it and that I should remember that before I decided to take more than the recommended dose.

Anyone else ever had their doctor tell them that?

I can't believe that you're actually making what appears to be a serious argument in favor of intentionally making prescription drugs MORE DEADLY, and framing that argument as though it's for the greater good.

Please tell me I'm wrong about that and have managed to badly misinterpret you somehow.

I would say you have a shitty doctor.  Doctor was very thorough with my wife in explaining some meds he had to put her on for her migraine, INCLUDING, the potential for addiction, and what the different components could create in terms of side effects.  Also, usually if you get your prescription from a reputable pharmacy, they will give you a very comprehensive sheet explaining in nauseating detail the medicine you just picked up. 

[AFK]

Eh, I'd argue that all medicines are poisonous, by definition.

Well then you'd be making a horribly wrong argument. Medicines are substances that, while they may have poisonous effects if taken wrong, also have the ability to heal human being and/or relieve discomfort. So they are not "poisons by definition".

Which was pretty much what I said in that bit you deleted from my quote.  

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Well, for SOME reason, if codeine is mixed with other active ingredients such as acetaminophen, it's schedule V, but if it's not, it's schedule II. That seems like a pretty clear message.

Yes, that reason is because Schedule V drugs contain lower levels of narcotics, which is what you'd expect to see when you are mixing in other ingredients. 

Schedule V Controlled Substances

    Substances in this schedule have a low potential for abuse relative to substances listed in schedule IV and consist primarily of preparations containing limited quantities of certain narcotics. These are generally used for antitussive, antidiarrheal, and analgesic purposes.

    Examples include cough preparations containing not more than 200 milligrams of codeine per 100 milliliters or per 100 grams (Robitussin AC® and Phenergan with Codeine®).

Right. And you can't just take more because it'll poison you.

Uh, if you require the stronger, purer, stuff the doctor will prescribe it for you.  P

My doctor didn't, because he needed me to be able to get it right away, before I even left the hospital, and there was some sort of bureaucratic delay with getting schedule II opiates to take home. That was at the hospital pharmacy. There was also an issue about my husband being able to pick it up for me, because I sure as hell wasn't going anywhere. My doctor specifically did not want me to leave the hospital until I had the meds in my bag and he specifically did not prescribe stronger meds because he knew I would have trouble getting the prescription filled and picked up as quickly as I needed it.

So, I had to take two different meds in order to get the dose high enough not to be in screaming pain. I've been though unmedicated childbirth three times, BTW, and this pain surpassed it by miles. It was horrific. It was so bad that I didn't even notice the opiate headache for weeks. Even ON the drugs I couldn't talk or eat.

I don't think there is any excuse for needlessly adding toxins to medicine. I was on that stuff for weeks, on an every-3-hour dosage schedule... there is absolutely no doubt that I was physically dependent, and my doctor specifically told me that I would have to wean off it, which I did faster than I was supposed to because of the damn headache. I would really rather not have also been exposed to a substance that is poisonous and provides no therapeutic benefit. At the time my heart condition was undiagnosed... sure would have sucked if it'd killed me, all for some puritanical notion of discouraging people from using Codeine to get high.

I am sure that if my doctor had known about my arrhythmia, he would have prescribed something else. And of course, if he'd known my surgery was going to end up being so complicated, he could have sent the prescription down a day in advance. But complications are complicated. I don't think doctors should be hobbled by the FDA (or by insurance companies, or drug companies) in their efforts to provide the best medical care for their patients, but oftentimes they are, and it sucks.

[East Coast Hustle]

Eh, I'd argue that all medicines are poisonous, by definition.

Well then you'd be making a horribly wrong argument. Medicines are substances that, while they may have poisonous effects if taken wrong, also have the ability to heal human being and/or relieve discomfort. So they are not "poisons by definition".

Which was pretty much what I said in that bit you deleted from my quote. 

Then the rest of your post contradicted your lead statement, so we're in agreement.

[AFK]

Well, no, but I really don't feel like doing this: 

[East Coast Hustle]

Dude, words have definitions. They have meanings. And as someone who tries to explain and impress the potential dangers of things upon the most impressionable and vulnerable members of society (or, indirectly, to those who are tasked with that directly), you have a duty to remember the power of those words and their meanings. you might know that "medicines are poison by definition" is inaccurate hyperbole, and you might convince me that you know that, but saying some shit like that to a kid is gonna leave an impression and probably not a helpful or useful one. At the very least, it gives the impression that you're more concerned with defending your position than you are with examining or refining it.

[Telarus]

This whole 'laced opiates' debate cuts really close to home for me. I recently lost a good family friend due to liver failure because his doctor failed to tell him of the added acetaminophen / gave him enough info to manage his dosages, and when he developed jaundice and went to the local hospital they told him "You're just an old drunk, go home." By the time a friend drove from Portland and personally got him from McMinville to PDX (they refused him an ambulance @ the McM hospital) it was way too late.

I's not just dangerous "If you have a shitty doctor", you could have a shitty intake nurse and die from it.

And my friend would still be alive if the mentality towards medications isn't "punish the abuser" (yes, yes, we're _starting_ to change our minds, publicly, on that issue.. but all of the regulations in force today were written in that mindset, see the Supreme Court quote about the purpose of incarceration).

Acetaminophen, arguably, is put in opiods for a variety of reasons (one is the 'opiod sparing effect' where it takes less active opiods to achieve the same pain killing effect.. others may be politically motivated). Unfortunately the process of tolerance, even if slowed by this opioid sparing effect, is still underway. We may have reduced the percentage of people addicted purely due to the tolerance effect by combining them, but with typical acetaminophen content being around 500mg per Vicodin or Percocet pill, a mere 8 pills exceeds the toxicity threshold.

Emergency-room reports involving hydrocodone & acetaminophen drugs increase 500 percent between 1990 and 2002.

You see this language everywhere:

A New York state senator is calling on fellow lawmakers to tighten controls over hydrocodone, the key ingredient in Vicodin and other painkillers, amid growing concern over abuse of the powerful and addictive narcotic.

Hydrocodone has become the country's second most-abused medicine after oxycodone, the key ingredient in OxyContin, according to DEA data. Emergency room visits related to non-medical hydrocodone use quadrupled between 2000 and 2009, soaring from 19,221 to 86,258 in 2009. Overdoses kill hundreds of people each year.

Hydrocodone and oxycodone are both powerful narcotics related to opium, but they fall into different legal categories when mixed with a non-narcotic painkiller such as acetaminophen or aspirin.

Under federal law, oxycodone combinations like Percocet or Percodan are classified as Schedule II drugs. Their hydrocodone equivalents like Vicodin, Lortab or Norco fall into the less restrictive Schedule III.

States have their own drug laws and controlled substance schedules, but they usually mirror the federal rules.

It's all fear talk about the Opiod, even though they know very well what's putting these people in the emergency room.

The LD50 level for hydrocodone is surprisingly large. Around 375 milligrams of the drug per kilogram of body weight (in the animal models the FDA used for approval). According to this guy, that means, "For a 40 pound kid, that would mean almost seven grams of the stuff."

Now, the LD50 level for acetaminophen is also very high, around 1944 mg/kg in animal models. But, it causes irreparable liver damage at much lower chronic doses. Yet @ the normal 5mg hydrocodone / 500 mg acetaminophen in vicodin, you're still dying from acetaminophen poisoning first.

Adding acetaminophen to an arguably addictive substance simply so the government can "schedule it lower" (the actual effect of this being that doctors can refill prescriptions with just a phone call, not a office visit, thus the 'wheels of business' are greased), and then having the government claiming they doing it to _prevent_ harm (abuse) reeks of hypocrisy.

[AFK]

Dude, words have definitions. They have meanings. And as someone who tries to explain and impress the potential dangers of things upon the most impressionable and vulnerable members of society (or, indirectly, to those who are tasked with that directly), you have a duty to remember the power of those words and their meanings. you might know that "medicines are poison by definition" is inaccurate hyperbole, and you might convince me that you know that, but saying some shit like that to a kid is gonna leave an impression and probably not a helpful or useful one. At the very least, it gives the impression that you're more concerned with defending your position than you are with examining or refining it.

Conversations on internet message boards =/= conversations in a professional setting

The larger point I was making was pretty clear.  You and I both know you are just trying to "get me", which is fine.  It clearly is a thing with you and Nigel, a need to discredit me.  I hope that this exercise is bringing you two some peace of mind. 

I mean, let's be real, even when a medicine does address the symptoms for which it was prescribed, it still will generate some unpleasant side effects.  The drug with the pretty butterfly, Lunesta, will help you sleep.  But it will also make someone have suicidal thoughts.  I was prescribed some medicine for a really nasty bug I had a couple of years ago.  It relieved my cough and allowed me to sleep, but I was in a cloudy fog for days.  There are not many medicines out there that will solely target the symptom and not generate some other unpleasant side effects.  And that is when they are taken in proper dosages.  And even when taken in proper dosages, they can have some very adverse effects on some people and will have to be discontinued.  So I think a very general use of the word "poison", as I was using, is certainly appropriate for a conversation on the internet about the dangerous potential of prescription medicines. 

[Cain]

Once in a while you guys amaze me.

You are astounded that our government would do something like this?

Like deliberately infecting poor black people with syphilis?
Like telling soldiers that dirt would protect them from radiation poisoning?
Well, the list is endless, but you get the idea.

Cynicism isn't a substitute for actual knowledge.

[East Coast Hustle]

Dude, words have definitions. They have meanings. And as someone who tries to explain and impress the potential dangers of things upon the most impressionable and vulnerable members of society (or, indirectly, to those who are tasked with that directly), you have a duty to remember the power of those words and their meanings. you might know that "medicines are poison by definition" is inaccurate hyperbole, and you might convince me that you know that, but saying some shit like that to a kid is gonna leave an impression and probably not a helpful or useful one. At the very least, it gives the impression that you're more concerned with defending your position than you are with examining or refining it.

Conversations on internet message boards =/= conversations in a professional setting

The larger point I was making was pretty clear.  You and I both know you are just trying to "get me", which is fine.  It clearly is a thing with you and Nigel, a need to discredit me.  I hope that this exercise is bringing you two some peace of mind. 

I mean, let's be real, even when a medicine does address the symptoms for which it was prescribed, it still will generate some unpleasant side effects.  The drug with the pretty butterfly, Lunesta, will help you sleep.  But it will also make someone have suicidal thoughts.  I was prescribed some medicine for a really nasty bug I had a couple of years ago.  It relieved my cough and allowed me to sleep, but I was in a cloudy fog for days.  There are not many medicines out there that will solely target the symptom and not generate some other unpleasant side effects.  And that is when they are taken in proper dosages.  And even when taken in proper dosages, they can have some very adverse effects on some people and will have to be discontinued.  So I think a very general use of the word "poison", as I was using, is certainly appropriate for a conversation on the internet about the dangerous potential of prescription medicines. 

1) You've given no indication that you make a distinction between how you approach the subject here and how you approach it in a professional setting.

2) Ah yes, we're back to this. Some people vehemently disagree with your position on a certain subject and are willing to have (and expecting in return) a reasoned an eloquent debate on the matter. Since you seem unwilling or unable to provide that from your side of the argument, we must be "out to get you".

PROTIP: There's only one person ITT who is discrediting you. It's you.