I have MS and have been waiting for a very promising drug to become available. It really looks far better than what is currently used. It has been through phase III trials already, and looks great. It was supposed to be out by the end of last year, but it was delayed. Maybe it will be available at the end of March, though it appears that we will be lucky if we get it by the end of this year. Really frustrating, as we see irreversible declines as we wait for the drug. And all the current drugs are injections, while this is oral. Oh, and the drug has been in use for another condition (a skin disorder) for 15 years in Europe, so safety is not really an issue. Can you say, “off label?”
Archive for the ‘Drugs’ Category
weed lowers your IQ. Permanently.
Kind of a double whammy. Pot-heads are dumber when they are in school (and you are dumb to be a pot-head in the first place) and then you are permanently dumber even when you leave the dope-head life! No wonder there seems to be an emerging lower class that spans generations…
Thanks, hippies. Thanks a lot.
This pretty much puts “paid” to the whole controversy if it pans out. Do you want it for medicine, or do you want it to get high? If it is really the same but for a “high,” we’ll certainly find out. Time to separate the real sufferers from the poseurs.
My bet? If this pans out, there will still be those who say that they get medicinal value from “real” pot and not the new stuff. Look, there is a reason there is no drug based on THC. Why? It don’t work worth crap. Well, not enough to get approved, anyway (there may be some occasional effects and bona fide usages, but that is quite rare). If it did, there would be TONS of inhalers around–there would be money to make. As it is, there REALLY is one basic reason to use pot. And it ain’t medical, it’s recreational.
Now you may buy the Libertarian line that it is OK to use drugs. I’m sorry, I don’t pray that way. I think it is the height of illogical thinking. It’s just an excuse to use drugs, plain and simple. Two words for you to consider: “drunk driving.” Can you just imagine the carnage on the highways? Just hope it isn’t one of your loved ones…
Talk about anti-social behavior! It’s pathological.
is a foolish, hare-brained idea. There are lots of reasons.
But lest you get sucked into that paranoid vortex of libertarianism, I have two words for you:
How will you feel when YOUR loved one is killed on the freeway by a guy doing meth? We don’t need this. No I don’t really care that a pot-head sits in his stripped apartment and gets high. I care when he gets behind the wheel. I care when he contaminates his apartment making meth and the owner has to pay thousands to clean it up. And when I built my house about five years ago thieves broke in (they literally tore off a door frame, resulting in hundreds if dollars of damage) and stole copper wire in order to buy drugs. Don’t tell ME that this is “victimless.” You’re talking through a hole in your head. I agree that drug laws are not cheap or easy to enforce. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t enforce them.
I can hear you say, “That stuff is already illegal.” Oh, and there are NO drunk drivers, right? It’s already illegal. And my home didn’t get stripped of copper wire, right? I mean, it’s illegal after all… And you want to have enough police intervention to detect and punish those who use drugs and put others at risk, yet you think it is too much police intervention to proscribe drugs altogether? Huh? Hello, Mcfly! And here I thought that Libertarians were against government intervention! This is totally contradictory, and it betrays either a) a foolish fantasy or b) a desire to use drugs.
There are TONS of reasons not to legalize drugs. I’d be happy to argue with anyone on that issue.
The Libertarians are dang good on domestic fiscal policy, and I certainly lean toward Libertarianism in a lot of ways. But we part ways on their nonsense about drug legalization (as well as their naive and stupid foreign policy–though that is a post for another day).
much to bring a new drug to market? The generally accepted figure in $43 million, but it is in actuality much higher than that. Much higher. Here is a quote:
Now along comes a new method, from Matthew Herper at Forbes. It uses only public, audited data, and it’s breathtakingly simple: over a 15-year period, they divided each company’s R&D spend by the number of drugs they got approved. The result: DiMasi is also way too low. For every approved drug, pharma spent between $4 billion and $11 billion on R&D. Yes, there’s probably some wiggle room on the accounting, but not that much–your auditor is not going to let you reclassify your new delivery trucks, or a Human Resources SVP, as a research expense.
Here is the whole article. But it’s fashionable to whine about the cost of drugs, and I personally am not happy about the cost. But we need to understand that the cost is basically tied to government regulation. It’s not that I’m saying that there should be no regulation at all, but really? So next time you bemoan the fact that drugs are so expensive, remember that most of that cost is due to government intervention. You have to decide if that cost is worth it.
very mild asthma (exercise-induced). I’ve never had him use Primatene Mist. I guess I never will.
It’s really too bad, and the hypocrisy is just stifling.
of recreational drugs. I mean, there is a lot of chatter from the conservative side (more the Libertarians, for whom this is an article of faith).
But already we have utter carnage on the roads because of drunk drivers. You want to add stoned drivers, too? Are you joking?
I really don’t care if someone toasts themselves with drugs (as long as any rehabilitation is on their own dime), but the fact is that there are costs borne by others. Ask family members whether drug use is a “victimless crime.” Ask those who have loved ones killed in auto accidents. Ask taxpayers who fund “rehabilitation” for these folks. Ask parents grieving about a child’s lost potential. No, this is far from “victimless.”
I fully understand that there are real problems with drug enforcement. But let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater!