Why Do We Regulate Pain Killers But Not Antibiotics?

Two points: I just finished watching the PBS|Frontline documentary Chasing The Nightmare Bacteria; I also just read about a massive study showing that access to pain killers is poor. You can watch the documentary below.

The takeaway from the documentary is that we are charging headlong into a massive, global, health crisis the likes of which the post-war era has not seen. We are overusing antibiotics in our food supply, and even with that not taken into account, fifty-percent of antibiotics are unnecessary. We should be regulating antibiotics like crazy, and yet we aren't.

What are we regulating? Pain killers. The study to which I linked above says that the regulations applied to pain killers had good intentions, but now they are causing harm.

No. They never had good intentions, and the intentions that we actually had all but guaranteed the negative outcomes that we now face.

We regulated pain killing drugs because they are "fun" drugs. Any and all fun drugs are bad, because fun is bad. Semi-legal fun drugs are even worse, because we cannot call those who use them necessarily scum. We regulate it because doctors judge their patients and disregard their pain.

My father has diabetic neuropathy in his legs, a type of pain that is known to be resistant to opioid analgesics. He is also opioid-resistent, making the problem worse.. (I am also opioid-resistant, but I'm not in pain, so it doesn't much matter to me.) This means that very few pain killers work for him. He actually had a doctor tell him "this dose works for me, so it will work for you."

Along with that stunning, stunning, display of arrogance, my dad has had to face judgmental stares, questions, and disapproving tisks from nurses and doctors. It took months of pain before a doctor finally listened to him. Months of pain.

I have felt it, especially now that I have to present an ID to get simple pseudoephedrine: guilt. I have been trained by society to feel bad about using particular drugs. This mindset extends into the medical world, but the coin is flipped. Whereas I feel guilty about using the drugs, the person in a position of power, the doctor, feels judgmental about my using and asking for the drugs.

If I am in pain, then I must suffer nobly, otherwise I am a bad person. No fun drugs for me! Because having fun is bad.As I mentioned, semi-legal fun drugs are the worst for a judgmental society, because we cannot automatically label those who use them as deviant. As such, we must put those who do use them through a rubicon of pain, judgment, scorn, and red tape to ensure they feel correctly bad about using them. You may not be scum, but you are almost scum.

We regulate pain killers for the same reason we regulate marijuana, cocaine, and heroin — for the same reason we imprison huge numbers of people every year for victimless crimes. We do it out of sheer, unmitigated stupidity driven by a history of conservative, Christian judgment and racism. And as I said, the problems we now face of unaddressed pain in patients: almost inevitable.

When we base decisions on blind dogma, the outcomes are always going to be bad. Dogma is almost never right, because if it were right, then it wouldn't be dogma. It would simply be knowledge.

If I smoke marijuana (which I do not do, never have done, and never will do) I hurt no one. I barely hurt myself. But if I take an antibiotic, I could theoretically create the germ that kills us all.

So tell me again, why is marijuana the one that gets me thrown into jail?

Our Drug Laws Are Stupid (A Documentary)

Hooked: Illegal Drugs And How They Got That Way was a documentary that aired on the History Channel some years back--around the same time that the History Channel was still primarily the World War II Channel.

One thing that can be said of The History Channel, now simply called History, is that they are an incredibly timid, conservative channel. They want to insult no one, and worse still, have recently started catering to the lower common denominator in their show selection. While the LCD programming is a relatively new characteristic, they have always been conservative. That said, the fact that they were willing to air a series of shows that all but directly call our drug laws stupid is amazing. It should tell you how truly idiotic the laws actually are.

I Still Support Lance Armstrong

I assume that I am not the only person out there who still supports Lance Armstrong, but I'm going to say this anyhow. For one thing, I accept that the procedure by which the case against him was developed is one-sided. Cases that would never in a million years pass successfully through a court trial are held up as fact. The USADA is a sham organization.

That said, even if the USADA was as pure as the driven snow and Lance Armstrong was a creature of pure pitch straight from the pit of Sheol, my opinion wouldn't change. I may not like Armstrong as I now do, but I would still stand in support of his activity.

Likewise, I stand in support of every single major cyclist who was nailed for doping. I stand with any athlete who uses performance enhancing drugs. I see nothing wrong with it because there is nothing wrong with it. People get up in arms about it, but when forced to try to explain why they are up in arms, the explanations all  fail to pass even the most rudimentary analysis.

Not only do I support the principle of using drugs, but I also support Armstrong's wins as legitimate. The only way we can assume that they are not legitimate is if we likewise assume that no one else was using this special mojo that Armstrong was using. We now know that this is not true. All of the major players were using drugs, and in all likelihood, most of them are currently using drugs. If everyone was using drugs, and Armstrong still won, in my book that makes his wins legitimate.

But I feel that is beside the point. Armstrong (to say nothing of Ulrich, Basso, and others) did nothing wrong by taking the drugs. For me, a better case cannot be made than the documentary Bigger Stronger Faster: The Side Effects of Being American, the entirety of which is available on YouTube.

And if you don't choose to watch it, I'll leave you with a couple of questions. Why are hypobaric chambers and chemically engineered nutrient bars legal, but drugs not? Why were Oscar Pistorius' artificial limbs legal, but drugs not?

Is The Uncontacted Amazon Tribe Dead?

If so, perhaps this will make us finally, FINALLY, FINALLY, realize that our drug laws are mind-meltingly stupid.

Do you want to know who killed that tribe? We did. Because we're trying to stop something that will never be stopped, and in doing so have created a massive, multi-billion-dollar market for drugs that makes these barbarous monsters unbelievably wealthy. We make the game so profitable for them that we have whole towns being wiped out in Mexico, and people who aren't even aware of the outside world are being killed for something that they can't possibly understand.

WE KILLED THEM. Legalize drugs! Legalize all of them! Pull the rug out from under this ridiculous industry! Don't do it for taxes, or because you simply can't afford the police anymore. Legalize the drugs because it's everyone's right to ingest whatever they damn well feel like! The pursuit of happiness does not restrict chemical happiness! And it never will, whether we try to do that or not.

People do drugs. We love nicotine, and caffeine, and alcohol just as we love cocaine, meth, and heroin. People will always do them whether we want them to or not. We will not stop them. Ever. Are the people that do drugs stupid? You're darn-tootin' they are! But that doesn't matter. I think people who drink are stupid, and smoke, and eat McDonalds. But that doesn't stop them from having every right to continue on drinkin', smokin', and gettin' fat.

Legalize drugs. Stop the bloodshed that is happening on our streets between drug gangs. Stop the wholesale slaughter of people in Mexico, and stop the deaths of people who are about as innocent as can be found on planet Earth. This is in the power of the Western World. No one else.

Abilify WTF?!

Just Below and to The Side of The Influence.

A new study out of Temple University has shown that teenagers don't actually need peer pressure to do dumb shit. In fact, the mere presence of peers makes teens act in ways they otherwise would not. These peers were not saying anything, doing anything, truly, the peers in the experiment were not even visible to the experimental subject.

Anyone who actually remembers being a teenager will not find this study surprising. I did a number of very stupid things with friends with absolutely no goading on their parts. And what I hope this study helps people understand is that those god-awful, ridiculous, absolutely pointless Above the Influence PSA's that litter television and print DO NOTHING. They are addressing an imaginary problem!

I was asked if I wanted to smoke pot on precisely two occasions in my high school career. Both times, it was done in a friendly, social manner. This person was inviting me in as a show of friendship. There was no pressure. Never in the HISTORY OF TIME has the line "All the cool kids are doing it" been uttered by anyone but stand-up comics. Above the Influence fails for the same reason that Nancy Reagan and her retarded Just Say No campaign failed: it imagines an American child that doesn't exist.

P.S. The Just Say No campaign reached a point of hilarity by the mid 1990's. I have come across urinal cake holders with "Winners Don't Do Drugs" printed on them. I really don't know what demographic they were hoping to reach with that one.

Bayer Beyaz Commercial is Shockingly Straightforward (UPDATED)

Bayer has released a new birth control pill called Beyaz, which isn't notable in and of itself; it's the commercial that's amazing.



This is the most frank and truthful ad I have seen in a long time, especially in the world of prescription drugs. Most of them seem to imply that the drugs allow you to do things that you were never stopped from doing anyhow. For example, ads for herpes drugs show people in hot tubs, horseback riding, swinging from trees, sailing, and other weird shit that herpes wouldn't actually stop you from doing. They could at least use euphemisms for sex. But no. It was like the first ad for Claritin, where they had to legally avoid mentioning what the drug did, instead showing some guy windsurfing through a field of wheat, which eventually spelled out the logo. WTF? How does that convey allergy relief?!

But back to Beyaz. I actually find this ad refreshing. It's saying what lots of people are already thinking. Take this pill to prevent pregnancy, because babies ruin your life. TRUTH! Obviously, that's not only true for women, but they have the most to risk. Indeed, it is true for anyone who wants to be a parent, man or woman alike. Having a kid ruins your life for at least ten years. You can't do shit. You can't go to movies, you can't go to nice restaurants, you can't go on two-week trips to exotic locales. You need a baby sitter for everything.

I've read some commentary online where people are taking offense to the ad, saying that the ad implies that women can't have a kid and do fun stuff. They can't! Nor should they! If you aren't ready to focus your life on that kid, you shouldn't be having it. It's that simple. Having a child is a massive obligation. Possibly the greatest obligation that a human can accept. And frankly, the fact that the commercial doesn't sugarcoat the idea that having a kid isn't nearly as fun as visiting other countries, owning things, and finding love isn't at all offensive.

In fact, it is my opinion that life offers so many great things, having a kid borders on insane. If you have a child, you should have one for a wide array of emotional and philosophical reasons. If you can't articulate those reasons, you're not ready to have a kid. So take this pill.

UPDATE:

A recent study has come out seemingly indicating that people who report how satisfying having kids is might be lying just a wee bit. Basically, people talk up the joys of parenting to gloss over the massive financial burden of children.

Me thinks they doth protest too much.

Well Doc, I'm Afraid Herpes Will Hurt my Wind Surfing.

Honestly, what IS it with drug ads?

Many of you may know this, but I'm saying it anyhow. In the US, there's this odd little law that says that, in a drug ad, if you say what the drug does, you have to then list the side-effects. I don't have a clue what this is supposed to do, but there it is. A really dumb law that results in ads that make no sense whatsoever.

Do you remember the old Claritin ads? The ones that showed some woman wind surfing through a field of wheat, culminating in an aerial shot showing that she has written the word Claritin in the field. What the hell?! All it said was to "see your doctor." Why? Why should I see my doctor? How would that line of questioning go?

You: Well Doc, my leg hurts. Does Claritin help that?
Doc: Nope.

It's beyond stupid. I remember the Crestor ads from not too long ago. They were narrated by Patrick Stewart and had a Dr. Seuess-like cadence to them. They all finished with a statement about how Crestor would help you find your way. What the fuck does that mean? Does it mean it helps people who are bad with maps? Is it a new service from TomTom?

It's even stupider when they actually tell you what the drug does, which opens the flood gates of side-effects. May cause death. And the videos that play during the ads are at times amazingly confusing. Ads for herpes medications are my favorites.

Woman: I have genital herpes.
Man: And I don't because I'm not a two-bit whore like her.

They then go into a spiel about how they won't let herpes affect their life together. Considering herpes is an STD, this means it won't affect their sex, right? Wrong, apparently. Sex was never a problem. It was their picnics, barbecues, movie-watching, and water skiing that was affected. I can understand that. I can only imagine how fucked my water sports would be if I had herpes. Herpes eats the finish on surfboards, I've heard.

Come on! At least film euphemisms for sex! Film them wrestling, or driving very fast, or eating seafood. But no, they film them doing what bizarre, sexless people in these ads do, windsurf through wheat because they're no longer hampered in this endeavor by some ridiculous affliction, like Restless Leg Thrombosis.

I would take this time to mention that the US is the only western country that allows direct drug advertising to patients. While I don't actually support regulating the advertising, it's the right of a manufacturer of a product to advertise it, there are some pretty damned good reasons why it's regulated in other countries. Our other option is the absurd circumstances we're in, now. And things are getting worse since drug makers can invent problems and then push the "cure" onto a gullible and arguably hypochondriacal public. This silly regulation about side-effects does nothing but give us puzzling ads.

Blade Runner Was Pretty Good, Though.

I was just watching Minority Report. Well, I should say I was just watching a preview for Minority Report on Starz or something. Two things come to mind about the movie, aside from the insipid final voice-over, being the cool, future-y Lexus he drives and the drug Neuroin to which he, and apparently everyone in the world, is addicted. I've been doing a lot of study about the drug war in America, and the thoughts came bubbling up in full force with a recent, long-ass article in Rolling Stone, How American Lost the War on Drugs.

The Lexus came to mind after hearing about the fall of the Moller Skycar, which got me thinking about cars of the future. And then the recent revealing of the Lamborghini Reventon and the new Nissan Skyline GT-R got me thinking about car design, and how the Lexus was a big point in the behind-the-scenes stuff since they consulted with futurists and car designers as they tried to figure out how cars would look then by tracing car design trajectories. Now, five years into the future, the car looks almost quaint.

But before that, back to the drugs. It's supposed to be the year 2054 and drugs are a major problem. At the time, that prospect was rather depressing for me. I felt that we'd surely wise up by the year 20-friggin-54 and legalize drugs. It looks like we're on that trajectory, thankfully, and that within the next decade, drugs could very well be widely legalized. Marijuana especially. Laws against a friggin' weed are stupid almost beyond description. I really recommend that anyone who disagrees with me to read the Rolling Stone article. Then, if you still disagree with me, you should take a long walk off a short... Actually, if you still disagree, I ask that you really, really think about WHY you disagree.

And back to the cars, that poor Lexus. It looks so silly, now. At least it looks much better than the "futuristic" cars from sci-fi movies in the 80's. Still, I think it shows how futile futurism is, since the acceleration of technology itself accelerates. I also think the greatest leap of futurism in the movie, the personal transit system that goes from building to building, is a hell of a lot farther off than 48 years. I actually think the technology to "record" someone's brain a la The Sixth Day is closer.

Still, I stand in awe of the speed at which we reach the "future." Even affordable cars like the new Mazda 6 looked like CARS OF THE FUTURE not too long ago. And boy howdy have we come a long way in the world of robotics. We already have small robots cleaning our floors, one that cleans your windows is apparently not too far off, and fully articulated models that look like tiny Asimos promise a future of humanoid robots doing things like building houses at high speeds 24/7 for a fraction of the cost of current building. It keeps reminding me that the future really isn't coming, it's here, and as time goes on it just keeps getting here faster and faster.

No, Seriously. I Didn't.

And furthermore! The most important aspect of all this is overlooked. We've fallen into this ridiculous position about arguing whether drugs are safe or dangerous or have "legitimate" uses. Using marijuana to get high IS a legitimate use.

The whole planet is somehow missing the point that it's not of if drugs are safe or not. I'm here to tell you right now, they're not. But that's just it. It's my right to ingest anything I damn well please, dangerous or not. That's the way freedom works.

Hell, I'm free to drink paint thinner. Alcoholics do that. There's no laws stopping me. And don't even get me started on the mind-blowing stupidity of arguing that sniffing glue is somehow illegal, and that Wal*Mart won't sell most of its model-making supplies to people under 18. Actually, Wal*Mart is on the forefront of retarded practices meant to satiate idiot parents seem to prefer to have major corporations parent for them. Wally World now requires ID for lithium batteries. Yep. Batteries.

Or something that nearly made me choke on my own spit, when I was asked for ID to prove I was 18 for NON-ALCOHOLIC BEER. If the drinking age is 21, and the beer is non-alcoholic, where the hell did they get 18?!

Now, If Wal*Mart wants to be stupid, that's fine. Free country. Free company. It's an entirely different ball of wax when the government gets involved in the same game with the same idiot people. IT'S MY RIGHT. I can do whatever I please. That is the only argument that needs to be discussed since anything else is beyond that point. The safety, the logic, the drug-war. Everything is rendered moot because regardless of it all, it's my right.

I also want to point out that I have never done any drugs in my entire life. I also think people who do drugs are morons and should be mocked and berated by those intelligent enough to not do drugs. But it is not my right to tell them they can't. It's one of the founding principles of this country, and one that seems sorely forgotten.

P.S.
I was drunk once as anesthetic during a poorly planned self-performed surgery on an in-grown toenail. Yes. It was as disgusting as it sounds.

I Didn't Inhale.

In the pantheon of drugs, marijuana gets a lot of coverage because of its popularity. In fact, in some anti-drug circles, a drug's danger is directly related to how popular it is. So for them, mary-jane is the work of Satan.

Pro-drug people like to point out how harmless marijuana is. I always knew that was a load of crap. Any substance that alters your neurochemistry can be dangerous, no matter how little it does so. And anyone who has had a friend who's done a LOT of pot knows the full effects of "burn out."

I've also been loathe to talk about how marijuana is still dangerous because the last thing I want to do is give any kind of credence to the drug-hating, alarmist twits that usually make up the anti-drug movement. But I think it's time people started laying some scientific smack down on the drug-loving, hippy twits who make up the pro-drug movement.

Marijuana's New Reality: More Potent, More Risky (Via LiveScience.com)