Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In what way? What, in my pee, would tell you I shouldn't get pain relief prescribed to me?
Again, I had a great pain management doc who I told on the first visit that I smoke MJ, and never held that against me or changed how he dealt with me due to that (I asked him what happens when the pee test comes back positive, and he laughed and said "I'm supposed to give you a lecture on the evils of pot" but it never affected my prescription access (which again I used very responsibly for 8-10 months). With another doctor, it probably would have prevented me from getting the medicine I needed, but why in your opinion is that a good thing?
WHY should people have to allow themselves be searched from the inside out who have no history of prescription drug abuse?
Why is there no test I have to take to determine my abuse potential before I buy a bottle of booze??
MJ has its own problems, the chief being that it is still a schedule 1 illegal substance according to the Feds and on a whim (especially if you have lots of money and property) they can use the excuse you are using an illicit drug--remember, state decriminalization doesn't protect you from Federal laws--to seize all or most of your assets under the "assets forfeiture" clause of drug law. I wouldn't want to take chances like that with MJ and a conservative Republican president. Frankly, I would have worried about using it even under Obama.
Quote:
No one wants to deny people medicine who legitimately need it,
Yes, someone does: the FDA. They are the ones responsible for the crackdown that is dragging responsible users down with the addicts. Their "one size fits all" approach to restriction has hamstrung legitimate people in pain from getting the drugs they desperately need to lead half-decent lives. Read again about one poster whose friend could function just fine on them but now without them he is just a "vegetable" sitting in a chair all day unable to move. The tunnel vision and blindsightedness of some of the posters here is truly jawdropping.
Last edited by thrillobyte; 05-07-2017 at 12:05 PM..
So the answer to the opioid epidemic is to make pain medication hard to get for everyone regardless of need?
Wouldn't prohibiting Social Security Disability (SSD) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) to drug addicts and alcoholics make more sense?
The rules are somewhat complex but the bottom line is Social Security can't refuse payments to someone just because they are abusing drugs or alcohol. Addicts and their lawyers are astute at how to apply so that they meet the definition of 'disabled.' Then they can spend their money anyway they want.
lol yeah sure let's see you define drug addict and alcoholic for the purposes of denying them SSI or SSDI. Is Grandma an alcoholic because she drinks in order to fall asleep at night? Is a guy an alcoholic because he drinks a 12 pack every weekend? What about someone who smokes weed, are they a drug addict if they do it once a week..or what about once a day?
So the answer to the opioid epidemic is to make pain medication hard to get for everyone regardless of need?
Wouldn't prohibiting Social Security Disability (SSD) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) to drug addicts and alcoholics make more sense?
The rules are somewhat complex but the bottom line is Social Security can't refuse payments to someone just because they are abusing drugs or alcohol. Addicts and their lawyers are astute at how to apply so that they meet the definition of 'disabled.' Then they can spend their money anyway they want.
Addiction is an illness that should be treated, not a crime. Aside from that, your bias is showing, because it reaches across all classes of people not just those on SSDI.
MJ has its own problems, the chief being that it is still a schedule 1 illegal substance according to the Feds and on a whim (especially if you have lots of money and property) they can use the excuse you are using an illicit drug--remember, state decriminalization doesn't protect you from Federal laws--to seize all or most of your assets under the "assets forfeiture" clause of drug law. I wouldn't want to take chances like that with MJ and a conservative Republican president. Frankly, I would have worried about using it even under Obama.
Yes, someone does: the FDA. They are the ones responsible for the crackdown that is dragging responsible users down with the addicts. Their "one size fits all" approach to restriction has hamstrung legitimate people in pain from getting the drugs they desperately need to lead half-decent lives. Read again about one poster whose friend could function just fine on them but now without them he is just a "vegetable" sitting in a chair all day unable to move. The tunnel vision and blindsightedness of some of the posters here is truly jawdropping.
I'm not arguing for or against MJ use, simply asking what it has to do with my fitness to be prescribed medicine for pain?
No one is going to "seize my assets" because I have a little vial of pot and a vape on my bureau. Who is coming to my home to search for it, and why??
lol yeah sure let's see you define drug addict and alcoholic for the purposes of denying them SSI or SSDI. Is Grandma an alcoholic because she drinks in order to fall asleep at night? Is a guy an alcoholic because he drinks a 12 pack every weekend? What about someone who smokes weed, are they a drug addict if they do it once a week..or what about once a day?
Exactly. Since 1996 you can't get SSI or SSDI based only on being a drug addict or alcoholic.
this is troublesome: "WASHINGTON — When he was running for office, Donald J. Trump promised to rid America of the scourge of drugs, vowing to crack down on dealers and invest heavily in programs to get heroin and other opioids off the streets. But on Friday, President Trump’s administration revealed plans to gut the 2018 budget of his Office of National Drug Control Policy. According to an Office of Management and Budget document obtained by The New York Times, the White House is proposing to slash the drug policy office budget by about 95 percent, to just $24 million from $388 million. The cuts would mean the office could lose up to 33 employees. The budget would also eliminate grant programs it administers, including the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program and the Drug-Free Communities Support Program. According to the document, the Trump administration thinks the programs are duplicative of other federal and state initiatives. The proposal was rebuked by Republicans and Democrats as a potentially reckless move. Rich Baum, the acting drug czar appointed by Mr. Trump, expressed anguish about the cuts in an email sent to the office’s staff on Friday. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/05/u...ing-by-95.html
I hope that their "policy" of fighting opioid addiction involves more than denying prescriptions to people who have a legitimate reason for them, and putting more addicted people in prison
this is troublesome: "WASHINGTON — When he was running for office, Donald J. Trump promised to rid America of the scourge of drugs, vowing to crack down on dealers and invest heavily in programs to get heroin and other opioids off the streets. But on Friday, President Trump’s administration revealed plans to gut the 2018 budget of his Office of National Drug Control Policy. According to an Office of Management and Budget document obtained by The New York Times, the White House is proposing to slash the drug policy office budget by about 95 percent, to just $24 million from $388 million. The cuts would mean the office could lose up to 33 employees. The budget would also eliminate grant programs it administers, including the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program and the Drug-Free Communities Support Program. According to the document, the Trump administration thinks the programs are duplicative of other federal and state initiatives. The proposal was rebuked by Republicans and Democrats as a potentially reckless move. Rich Baum, the acting drug czar appointed by Mr. Trump, expressed anguish about the cuts in an email sent to the office’s staff on Friday. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/05/u...ing-by-95.html
I hope that their "policy" of fighting opioid addiction involves more than denying prescriptions to people who have a legitimate reason for them, and putting more addicted people in prison
Also the new health care bill reverses the Obamacare rule requiring policies to cover drug addiction treatment, so just like pre-ACA, it'll go back to something only the wealthy can afford. Hopefully the Senate will scrap it and rebuild, but if they put that back in, it'll fail when it goes back to Congress
I want to add, I think lack of health care plays a role here. If I didn't have the $14,000 I spent on medical copays (and that is with a $650/month insurance policy) I would not have been able to get treated except by pain meds. I think a lot of doctors in poor and rural areas are faced with patients in pain who cannot afford PT or epidurals or surgery, and all the dr can do to help them is give them meds, resulting in higher rates of addiction among the poor.
I really disagree with this. Just because something is available to everyone, doesn't mean everyone will abuse it.
Alcohol and now marijuana is available wherever it is legal, with no restrictions on how much can be purchased or consumed. Laws only give consequences to any behavior/actions that may or may not be related to consumption. For instance a DUI. And anyone who ends up with an addiction problem can get help for it. But the alcohol industry, for example, is a thriving business all over the world, with millions of consumers consuming as much as they want, and all of those millions of consumers are not skid row alcoholics living under bridges.
But, to say that simply because something is available means that everyone who gets access to it, and the ability to freely choose how much they want to or need to consume for their own needs - is simply wrong.
Addiction is not caused by the substance. So, something else is going on in society that is creating more addicts.
But, for those who are not addictive types of people, who are able to manage their lives without hurting anyone else or not meeting their responsibilities, etc., should not be punished in some ineffective attempt to stop any and all addictive behavior in the entire population.
Potential for severe addiction and related problems is much worse with hardcore narcotics than booze.
Also the new health care bill reverses the Obamacare rule requiring policies to cover drug addiction treatment, so just like pre-ACA, it'll go back to something only the wealthy can afford. Hopefully the Senate will scrap it and rebuild, but if they put that back in, it'll fail when it goes back to Congress
I want to add, I think lack of health care plays a role here. If I didn't have the $14,000 I spent on medical copays (and that is with a $650/month insurance policy) I would not have been able to get treated except by pain meds. I think a lot of doctors in poor and rural areas are faced with patients in pain who cannot afford PT or epidurals or surgery, and all the dr can do to help them is give them meds, resulting in higher rates of addiction among the poor.
Thats because insurance writers know money cannot fix the problem.
Lack of health care has nothing to do with the root cause for addicts.
Addiction is Primary, not caused by nor a symptom of something else.
I think a lot of doctors in poor and rural areas are faced with patients in pain who cannot afford PT or epidurals or surgery, and all the dr can do to help them is give them meds, resulting in higher rates of addiction among the poor.
That's very true. Several years ago my step-son who was uninsured, had severe back pain so he went to a free clinic, where he was 'diagnosed' with a muscle strain and treated with a prescription for vicodin, when it didn't improve he went back 3 or 4 more times and the prescription was refilled. He finally told his dad (my husband) that he didn't know what to do because the pain kept getting worse. My husband took him to his doctor who ordered a CT scan and diagnosed him with metastasized testicular cancer, he died three weeks later at the age of 25.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
