WENDY,What the HELL are you guys thinking?Posted by BGCPed on 6/30/03 at 15:59 (123218)
This has got to be one of the dumbest things I have ever read
Re: WENDY,What the HELL are you guys thinking?Ed Davis, DPM on 6/30/03 at 16:44 (123228)
I think that a number of locales have basically 'thrown in the towel' when it comes to IV drug abuse. Their rationale is to give addicts clean needles and a 'safe' place to shoot up. The clean needles would slow down the spread of HIV, hep B and C infections. Going a bit further along that 'slippery slope' if the addicts are provdied with the drugs, they won't be on the street robbing people for money to support their habit.
The concept basically goes against what many feel is right but amounts to a form of 'containment.'
Re: WENDY,What the HELL are you guys thinking?BGCPed on 6/30/03 at 17:41 (123237)
I am a form of libertarian/republican/conservative if there is such a thing. I believe people can ingest,inject,inhale anything they want, in fact I view it as a form of Darwinism mixed with individual freedom. What I dont agree with is the peoples money supporting a government dope house.
I understand the concept behind it. My view is if you can afford to pay your own way in society without robbing or bothering any other people in any way then inject away. The problem is that the majority of those idiots are not self-supporting,and in fact are a drain on society.
In my view you are encouraging the behavior and giving it a nod. I dont think they will tell these folks the people just got you high on their sweat equity now after this needle load you are required to go and clean up 2 city blocks and pick weeds in the neighborhood you helped ruin.
I know some will say, but you cant put degrading demands like that on them, they wont come to get high....just give it to them for free and leave them be. What we are doing is treating them like livestock or dogs being neutered by the humane society because they cant control their behavior.
Will they be let loose to go out into the streets to enjoy their buzz? will they be free to urinate in public, crap in a bus stop? break a car window for the change on the console? Or will the Gov make them sit in a medical recliner, eat cookies and listen to Gordon Lightfoot and Celine Dion? (canadian humor)
Will they be happy if the Gov makes them stay in the chair until the buzz is gone or will they share in the criminal and civil liability for getting them high and turning them loose on the very same citizens that paid ot get them stoned?
Finally and this may seem cold to many. What serves the greater good? The peoples money paying for the increased cost of their dope use as well as the resulting health care to deal with the complications over a lifetime. I would have a much different view if it was something like breast cancer or diabetes but a lifestyle choice by a free thinking, yet stupid adult should not be subsidized by the hard earned money of the average citizen
Re: WENDY,What the HELL are you guys thinking?marie on 6/30/03 at 18:35 (123243)
I can't disagree with much of what you said. I think that Ed is on the money as far as reducing the spread of aids and crimes that some drug addicted folks commit. I guess the real question is what is the worst evil and which one serves society best. It doesn't make it right just plain and simple 'it is what it is.'
By the way I am very anti drug....illegal ones that is. I am a very strong advocate that folks who are sick should get the medical and pharmacuetical care that they nedd at a reasonable price.
I have several close freinds who are die hard Libertarians....I once thought that might be the party for me....I voted for Anderson all those years ago. Some of the ideology of Libertaians is on the money but I can't help but feel it's a little idealistic. Not a slam to anyone that is a Liberatarian just my take on it.
Re: WENDY,What the HELL are you guys thinking?Ed Davis, DPM on 6/30/03 at 19:55 (123256)
I was listing the rationale for the action but I am not sure I am in agreement. At best, I would hope that the program would be coupled with a very agressive effort to reform those individuals, including having them provide some type of work program to help pay off the costs of the program.
Re: WENDY,What the HELL are you guys thinking?wendyn on 6/30/03 at 20:13 (123263)
BG - I cannot speak for the intelligence (or lack thereof) displayed by my government. I know that some parts of Vancouver have some real problems with drugs..but I don't know that this is the answer. I still can't get used the the needle drop boxes that I pass downtown.
I have been camping for 5 days, and I'm so relaxed that I may just fall asleep on my keyboard. Nothing for stress like 5 days of good weather in the mountains!
Re: WENDY,What the HELL are you guys thinking?Ed Davis, DPM on 6/30/03 at 20:14 (123264)
This issue has been debated recently in the Seattle area, where I live. Seattle does have a big problem with street people who are addicts. The idea was to 'clean up' the streets by providing those individuals with a safe, sequestered area.
Re: WENDY,What the HELL are you guys thinking?Ed Davis, DPM on 6/30/03 at 20:16 (123265)
See my prior post about Seattle. Vancouver has a lot of similarities to Seattle. I can only see this working if the program is combined with aggressive efforts to reform those individuals plus the expectation that some public work is performed as partial payment.
Re: WENDY,What the HELL are you guys thinking?Max K on 7/01/03 at 03:41 (123282)
I think actions speak louder than words in this case: if you provide a taxpayer-funded heroin house, then the message is: 'the general public approves of the drug abuse going on there, at least at some level.'
Perhaps the message should be a different one, such as: 'the general public does not approve of heroin abuse on any level.'
Should there be a taxpayer-funded safehouse for terrorists? A place that is exempt from anti-terror laws? A place where terrorists can go where they are welcome, where they can safely store their explosives without fear of a police raid?
No, I don't think so. The way to deal with terrorists is to hunt and kill them. A clear message must be sent that terrorists are not welcome in civilized society under any circumstances. The way to send that message is to hunt down and kill as many of them as possible.
As far as heroin, public policy must send a message that clearly says: 'heroin abuse is very bad for society and will be severely punished by the same society.' The mere existence of a taxpayer-funded heroin house is a way of showing acceptance of heroin abuse. No matter how many rules such a heroin house would have, the dominant message it sends would stay the same: 'heroin abuse is acceptable in our society.' I think the dominant message should perhaps be, instead: 'heroin abuse is unacceptable in our society.'
Re: WENDY,What the HELL are you guys thinking?wendyn on 7/01/03 at 09:06 (123306)
Max - while I don't really agree with the idea of the heroin house - I can't agree with your basis for thinking that it shouldn't be there.
There are many examples of tax payer supported activities...that cannot be seen as the general public's stamp of approval.
What about abortion clinics? Many people are opposed to abortion, but we have plenty of tax-payer supported clinics. What about schools for un-wed mom's...is this society's stamp of approval on teenage pregnancy? The same could be said for the aids hospice's - is this society's stamp of approval on sex with multiple partners or iv drug abuse?
Is there a big difference between a hospital for the mentally ill - and a medical facility for those with drug additictions? Once would have to first accept that addiction is a form of disease. If not - then you' won't be able to accept the need for medical help.
Is there a big difference between heroin abuse and alcohol abuse? Maybe we should pull all forms of funding to places like AADAC or detox centres. Perhaps doctors should stop helping those who abuse nicotine as well?
Like I said - I don't really support the drug houses anyway, I just think that you're off base with your assumption that a treatment facilitiy is some rare societal form of approving unwanted behavior.
The terrorist comment is cute...I like how you use 'civilized society' and 'hunt down and kill as many as possible' together in the same paragraph. What's your definition of a civilized society? Are there laws, and trials in your civilized society? What about a burden of proof?
Re: WENDY,What the HELL are you guys thinking?marie on 7/01/03 at 09:32 (123314)
Yes I understand your position....I know that you were not necesarily agreeing. I feel the same way.
Re: WENDY,What the HELL are you guys thinking?marie on 7/01/03 at 09:37 (123315)
In 1995 the drug laws changed in our country. We really cracked down...tougher that is. The problem was that this law made our prison population grow three-fold. We didn't really look at the big picture very well. The solutions always need to be thought out. I agree with what you said about government funding of drugs....it does make it appear ok.
Re: WENDY,What the HELL are you guys thinking?Max K on 7/01/03 at 13:15 (123342)
Wendy, when I said 'actions speak louder than words', I meant that whatever is government-funded, is government-approved, regardless of how it is explained. So yes, the existence of government-funded abortion clinics means that in some substantial way government approves of abortions. This insight can be gained without talking to any government officials and without reading any of the theory behind it.
I really learned this lesson when I used to loan money to people, and when it came time to pay me back, I would get a lot of theory and a lot of context but no money. Finally a good friend told me the secret: you have to evaluate people by their actions, not by their words.
So if I want to know whether a government is in some substantial way pro-abortion, I don't need to ask them, I merely have to look at whether they fund abortion clinics.
The question of whether addiction is a form of disease: I was able to quit both tobacco and alcohol years ago. The tobacco was clearly an addiction, the alcohol was at least turning into an addiction. I felt like I had to make a decision, a value decision. I had to label both of these substances as off-limits for me. (I don't mind if somebody smokes or drinks around me). I had to firmly commit myself to a new evaluation of tobacco and alcohol. When I think of them now, I think: 'hostile, danger, hostile, danger'. My mom is visiting me from Germany and brought me some 12-year old whiskey: I said thank you mom but I do not drink even a drop of alcohol since November 2001. She didn't know.
I know that my efforts are working to keep those sustances away from me. And I know that similar efforts can work for heroin addicts. It starts with a value judgment, or a commitment. I believe this talk of 'addiction is a disease' is an interpretation. It doesn't mean that the addiction runs its course on auto-pilot, and that we must think and act on those terms. I say that each heroin addict is personally responsible for his or her addiction, and nothing should be said or done that suggests otherwise. Maybe they didn't know any better when they got addicted, but they now they know better, now they can make a value judgment and a commitment to expell the drug from their lives, perhaps via a treatment program. If the success rate of the treatments programs is low, it is because people are reluctant to make value judgments and commit themselves to a new life based on those values, and they are instead looking for someone else or something else to do it for them.
About terrorists: I don't like 'em. I don't think there should be any negotiations with terrorists. I think that a different standard should be applied to terrorists: don't listen to their side of the story, don't try to understand them, don't accuse them of anything, don't arrest them, don't put them on trial, just kill them. Unfortunately, half the time you can't be sure who or where they are, that's why the war on terror is such a nasty and controversial business, but it's a necessary business nonetheless. The message it sends to the terrorists of the world is: 'The hunt is on, we are the hunters, you are the hunted, and we will hunt you to the end of the earth and, and when we get there, and you raise your hands in surrender, we will STILL kill you. Have a nice day.' This is the appropriate language and message to send to the terrorists. This is civilized, to proceed in this way, because it correctly identifies terrorism as a destabilizing and disintegrating force that does to civilization what cancer does to the body. You don't negotiate with cancer.
Re: WENDY,What the HELL are you guys thinking?BGCPed on 7/01/03 at 15:22 (123348)
Well said Max, I like your views
Re: WENDY,What the HELL are you guys thinking?wendyn on 7/01/03 at 16:57 (123362)
Max - I still think that with your line of thought..we should shut down all forms of government sponsored treatment programs...lest we appear to condone any form of abuse. We couldn't condone any treatment for the obese, lest we appear to condone over eating. No treatment for child abusers - we might appear to be condining child abuse.
I'm an ex smoker myself...and while I must say I was certainly addictied to nicotine, I'll agree with you that it requires a commited decision to quit. I don't feel sorry for people who won't fight their addictions...regardless of what those addictions are. Addictions may be a disease, but you have to take the first step in deciding to be well.
Max - how do you know who the terrorists are? And how do you define terrorists?
Re: WENDY,What the HELL are you guys thinking?Ed Davis, DPM on 7/01/03 at 20:46 (123381)
I agree with you in principle. One of the practical considerations is how we can have law enforcement which is of sufficient effectiveness to stop such drug usage. One dilemna we always face is that as we ratchet up enforcement efforts, that must also include surveillance and, as such there is some sacrifice of civil liberties. Considering the Patriot Act, I beleive that most citizens are willing to trade off some freedoms to stop terrrorists. But, how many freedoms are citizens willing to trade off to stop or reduce use of illegal drugs?
One of the more troubling aspects of this issue is that producers, sellers and distributors or illegal drugs show no legal income to report. As a consequence, those individuals are on the dole -- that is, getting welfare payments, Medicaid, etc. Sort of a double 'rape' on society. It seems that the agencies that administer those programs do too little to check up on those individuals.
Re: Legalize it !!BrianG on 7/01/03 at 21:47 (123388)
I don't know Dr Ed, about the drug dealers not working, but collecting welfare, etc. I have known a few dalers in my day, and none of them wanted anything to do with the govt. They didn't want to attract any attention to themselves. Welfare, and snooping case workers, was the last thing they needed!!!!
While I'm thinking about it, just how many years has the US been fighting this war on drugs? I don't know, but it's a lot!!!! And what do we have to show for it, not much. There is just as many drugs on the street as there ever was. I'm inclined to legalize drugs, which in turn would pretty much let the junkies kill themselves off quicker. I know there would be some carnage (auto accidents and such) but would it be any worse than now????? I think not.
Just my 2 cents
Re: Interesting point Dr EDBGCPed on 7/01/03 at 22:12 (123391)
I read today that here in Michigan, we have the dubious honor of having the the 2nd worst food stamp program. I believe they called it a 'mistake' rate? I am note sure if that was exact terminology but it was around 27%. The government being what they are I would assume this is mostly fraud and other mismanagement. I would like to know exactly what it means since the state is supposedly being fined around 20 million because of this.
Another interesting fact about heroin users is that when one O.D. on a certain brand it is considered a collectors item i.e. many users will want to cop some and do it themselves like a fine cigar to a, prove they can not O.D. and b, because it is pure and strong. I think the people that support this program should answer this. Since many of them have a death wish, and that is what they want. What if they just put a big cookie jar of it out and let them shoot away.
Most will die because of it anyway so why prolong a life of misery that they have no desire or ability to control. Let them expedite the process. Probably better to O.D. in a safe clean medical facility rather that in your own piss and vomit in an ally?
Just some thoughts on this
Re: WENDY,What the HELL are you guys thinking?Max K on 7/01/03 at 22:53 (123394)
Wendy, a government-sponsored heroin addiction treatment program does not support heroin abuse because it is a cessation program. But a government-sponsored needle-exchange, or a 'heroin house', like the one featured in the newspaper article, substantially and automatically condones heroin abuse. It seems to be saying: 'If you must inject heroin, go ahead and do it, but do it safely.' That sentence contains a dominant message and a subordinate message. The dominant message is: 'heroin abuse is acceptable behavior.' The subordinate message is: 'We urge you to do it safely.'
When I say terrorist, I mean people like the 9-11 attackers or the Bali bombers or the palestinian homicide bombers. Those people are the cancer cells of humanity, and it takes a good 'oncologist' with a comprehensive treatment plan to gain the upper hand: I guess the 'oncological team' consists of parts of the military and the CIA and whatever other agencies can offer their expertise and assistance. I think that the anti-terror operations are very complicated and involve thousands of highly trained people on many different levels. And even for them, it's probably very tough to correctly identify and kill the bad guys. I didn't mean to suggest that ordinary civilians should get in on this, because the task is much too complex and dangerous. The exception would be if you're on flight 93 and your name is Todd Beamer. Then you must do your part right then and there, and he did.
Re: Legalize it !!john h on 7/02/03 at 08:48 (123418)
Brian I have thought about legaliing drugs and really have no answer. I do know this, once you let the genie out of the bottle you cannot put it back in. If legalizing drugs in fact cause a great increase in addiction will we end up with a large segment of our nation hooked on drugs, non productive, and a drag on society. It is really no stretch of the immagination to see the consequences of such a move as the begining of the fall of western civilization in this country. Our war on drugs is much like our efforts to keep out illegal immigrants. Not effective. Violators of drug laws and illegal immigrants are shieled by interpretations of our constitution and by politicians who do not want to offend possible voters. I spent two years in Vietnam and never saw one guy use drugs. I was not a ground pounder and most of my associates were pilots so I was shielded. I know of none of my friends who use drugs although one told me I would be supprised about some of the people I know who use drugs. I have no idea what kind of feeling you must get by injecting something into your blood stream. My only experience is drugs injected for pain relief with something like a kidney stone. The only thing I felt was pain relief. Not nearly the high I would get from running a long race..
Re: Legalize it !!Sharon W on 7/02/03 at 10:31 (123429)
Doctors/researchers have known for quite some time, now, that if you are really in pain then painkilling drugs such as codeine or opiates will act to reduce the pain, not to really get you 'high'.
Re: Legalize it !!john h on 7/02/03 at 11:05 (123431)
Sharon I would not know what high was if it hit me in the face. Doing a roll or loop in your aircraft is a high for me. I have also read the same as you posted that people in pain who take narcotics are unlikely to get addicted or even 'high'. Maybe having a couple of martini's is like a shot of H? Can someone answer that?
Re: Legalize it !!Sharon W on 7/02/03 at 12:00 (123438)
A couple of times I've taken prescription painkillers because I was ABOUT to do something that I knew would be painful, not because I was already in pain. I did NOT find those effects to be pleasant at all... but I suppose some people would. They made me feel fatigued and a bit woozy or dizzy, and even more 'brain-fogged' or forgetful than Neurontin normally makes me... Not my idea of 'fun' at all!
Re: Legalize it !!BGCPed on 7/02/03 at 12:04 (123439)
I am not so sure about that. I worked for 2 years in a pain mangmt clinic. Ever monday am the answering machine was filled with messages. I leaned over the boat and my Vicodin fell out into the water. My kids flushed my oxycontin down the toilet. I know I just got a month refill but my abusive boyfriend took the bottle and sold them.
I had 2 occasions when a patient would steal my pedorthic script out of the room, fill it out for Vico and try to get it filled at meijers. After a while I asked the Dr dont you think its funny that NOBODY loses anti-inflamatories? We never get a call, Hey I opened my purse on the ferris wheel and my Celebrex flew out.
I am sure some of the Dr have heard some rather odd stories
Re: well...Carole C in NOLA on 7/02/03 at 12:39 (123441)
You said, 'We never get a call, Hey I opened my purse on the ferris wheel and my Celebrex flew out'. Untrue!! I just HAVE to tell you about it.
Once when I was traveling, my bottle of 30 Celebrex came open in my purse. My purse was cloth, and got soaked in a rainstorm (I had a small umbrella, but my purse was a shoulder bag and got really wet anyway). In the hotel room, I unpacked my purse and found that my Celebrex had turned into a gooey mess of glop on the bottom of my purse mixed with 'purse lint', and an empty bottle. It was disgusting and alarming.
When I got home, I went to my rheumatologist and told the nurse what happened. It was unnerving. I wondered, 'what if they think I sold the Celebrex on the side?' since my insurance had paid for it, and a lot of people's insurance doesn't. But the nurse did get the doctor to sign for a new prescription.
After that, I always saved the free samples for travel because they were not in bottles that could fall open.
Despite my story, I'm sure that probably you get many false statements from people wanting drugs that get people high. It's a genuine problem. I just thought you might get a laugh out of my tale.
Re: high as a kite!Carole C in NOLA on 7/02/03 at 12:51 (123443)
John, you should have had the drugs they injected in me in the hospital the day before they took my gall bladder out!
My gall bladder wasn't hurting at that time, but I told the nurse that I had a headache, and asked for a Tylenol. She wouldn't give me one, but instead insisted on giving me a shot because the doctor had written on my chart that I could have one for pain. I protested, since the shot was obviously for BIG pain like gall bladder pain, and not for a headache, but she was bigger than me.
That stuff was quite something, though I have no idea of what it was. My husband (then) and child visited during visiting hours and said I was high as a kite. 'Treasure Island' happened to be on TV, and according to them I was gurbling something about 'Oh, there's my ocean, so pretty' or some such thing. I don't remember them being there but remember the ocean sure looked great on TV. Four hours after the shot, the nurse wanted me to shower in preparation for surgery the next morning. I couldn't even stand or walk without her holding on to me, or I'd start to fall. LOL
Re: high as a kite!john h on 7/02/03 at 13:20 (123444)
Carole did they remove the gall bladder through a scope or with open surgery. When was this?
Re: Legalize it !!Sharon W on 7/02/03 at 13:24 (123447)
I know that if you you had prescribed it and my VIOXX fell out of my purse on the ferris wheel, I would be leaving a message on your answering machine in a hurry!!
Re: high as a kite!Sharon W on 7/02/03 at 13:37 (123448)
I wonder if that was the same drug they injected into ME after I had my first daughter by emergency C-section? I was so 'out of it' after they gave me that stuff, I could barely keep my eyes open -- but when I WAS awake I remember everything seeming really WEIRD... and I don't really mean that in a good way. The most bizarre thing was, this 'pain killer' they gave me, whatever it was, did NOT seem to actually reduce the pain, AT ALL... What it did, was make make so 'out of it' that I just didn't CARE that about my abdomen hurting like blazes!!
Re: WENDY,What the HELL are you guys thinking?Richard, C.Ped on 7/02/03 at 15:54 (123451)
BG is just jealous cause he didn't think of it first...:-P
(had to get you back for the glue comment)
Re: high as a kite!marie on 7/02/03 at 16:08 (123454)
When my docs told me I'd have to have a TEE (a tube stuck down my throat and into my stomach so the could take an ultra sound of my heart) I aked 'I am going to be out for this procedure aren't I?' His response 'No'.
But he said they'd give me a memory drug so I wouldn't remember anything. All I know is that I was talking to the doctor that was doing the procedure about what parties and such we were going to go to for New Years and the next thing I saw was a painting by vanGogh. The print was in the recovery room. I don't know what that drug was but I'm glad it worked.
How do they make a drug that doesn't knock you out but blocks your memories?
Re: Legalize it !!Ed Davis, DPM on 7/02/03 at 16:12 (123455)
Sounds like the typical stories we all hear. Bet the pharmacist got confused when he saw an Rx for Vicodin with an extra depth shoe with a plastazote inlay.
Re: high as a kite!Carole C in NOLA on 7/02/03 at 16:20 (123457)
Oh, asking someone about their surgery is REALLY opening the Pandora's Box! You're guaranteed to hear more than you wanted to know, but here goes.
They removed it through the scope, and this was about ten years ago. I about half died first. It took several days before they could get me stable enough so that they could operate. I had damage to my liver and several other organs because my common duct was blocked and pancreatic enzymes were pouring into my blood stream. However, everything seems to work all right by now.
When I went in to the emergency room on Sunday, they kept me there for 48 hours and then transferred me to some sort of critical care unit where I had nurses checking on me all the time. Then I had to have a lot of tests so it was another day before they would operate. I was on IV and all sorts of meds meanwhile and could not eat anything (not that I wanted to).
Re: Never been high, in a hospital....BrianG on 7/02/03 at 16:20 (123458)
Carole, when you think about it, it's pretty weird that we have so much trust in the doctors and nurses when we are in the hospital. Here they are injecting you with who knows what, directly into your vein, and then they don't even bother to tell you what it was that they gave you.
They must hate patients like me, who question every needle stick, and test!!! And I'm a 'clock watcher'. Every 4 hours I'm going to hit that nurses station button, for my pain shot :*)
Re: P.S., more tales of surgeryCarole C in NOLA on 7/02/03 at 16:22 (123459)
I forgot to say that the very minute that I woke up after the surgery, my first thought was 'My Gosh!!! I feel SO MUCH BETTER' than I did when I went under. Within two hours after surgery I had eaten, used the rest room, and was on my way home from the hospital. The following Monday, about four days later I guess, I was back at work for half a day.
Re: Never been high, in a hospital....Carole C in NOLA on 7/02/03 at 16:28 (123460)
I know. I was really intimidated by that nurse, who would have made Rosie Greer look like a wispy wimp. I wish you could have seen her. I mean, really! I had NO desire to get high at the time, and I knew full well that the shot was supposed to be for gall bladder pain, not for a little headache. But she just took over and I felt too weak and sick to do much about that.
I figured that I would just wait until I got home to find out what she injected me with; surely it would be in the billing! But with all that was done to/for me, even in 1993 this was $30,000+ and the billing was nearly the size of a book. And nowhere in it, did it say what I was given. They charged me for it but didn't say what it was.
Re: high as a kite!Sharon W on 7/02/03 at 17:39 (123464)
That drug is very popular for unpleasant 'procedures,' for exactly the reason you mentioned... and it's called 'Versed'. But most doctors would prefer you didn't know TOO much about it, because they want it to WORK for you!
Re: Never been high, in a hospital....Sharon W on 7/02/03 at 17:45 (123465)
I agree, that nurse handled the situation wrong. But I do know why she insisted you have the stronger drug...
Before she could give you a couple of Tylenol for your headache, the nurse would have had to call the doctor, and get him/her to give her a telephone 'prescription' it... and a lot of doctors tend to be grouchy about things like that. I know that Tylenol isn't a prescription drug, but believe it or not, even Tylenol requires a prescription when you're in the hospital!
Re: Never been high, in a hospital....Carole C in NOLA on 7/02/03 at 19:04 (123470)
That's probably why. You're right.
Re: WENDY,What the HELL are you guys thinking?wendyn on 7/02/03 at 21:39 (123483)
Max - I had typed out a response to you and was just about to hit the post button..and my power went out (I know - sounds as believable as my narcotics flew out the window).
Anyway - I have homework to do..will get back to you later!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Re: Never been high, in a hospital....john h on 7/03/03 at 09:28 (123498)
The hospital tylenol also cost from $3-$5 per tablet.
Re: Never been high, in a hospital....Carole C in NOLA on 7/03/03 at 11:50 (123504)
I should have asked relatives to smuggle a Tylenol into the hospital for me. Isn't that silly? Drug smuggling just to get something reasonably appropriate for a headache.
If I'd known all this at the time, I would have just kept my mouth shut.
Re: Never been high, in a hospital....Sharon W on 7/03/03 at 12:23 (123506)
That's probably what I would do, if I were the patient. But, don't mention it to your nurses if you do... They have to worry about people taking their own Tylenol (acetaminophen), because so many of the prescription painkillers given out in a hospital also contain acetaminophen, and they DON'T want you to be taking an overdose of the stuff. Too much acetaminophen is toxic to the liver. (Of course, Carole, I know that you are too careful and sensible to overdose yourself... but some people might not realize there is a problem.)
Re: well...BGCPed on 7/03/03 at 12:40 (123507)
I would doubt you if it was the 'good stuff'
Re: Legalize it !!BGCPed on 7/03/03 at 12:41 (123508)
And no DEA #
Re: well...Carole C in NOLA on 7/03/03 at 14:10 (123514)
Hey, Celebrex IS 'the good stuff'! Well, it is if you have arthritis, and if it works for you. :)
Re: WENDY,What the HELL are you guys thinking?ULTRA CONSERVATIVE on 7/04/03 at 07:37 (123550)
Great idea- maybe all the dopers here will go to Canada and hopefully die from an overdose.