Just say NO to Just say no

Status
Not open for further replies.

Magestorm

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Aug 8, 2009
84
0
Today's world is awash with the message "Just say no to ______" Whether it be drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, sex, or a bacon cheeseburger, it seems most of the anti _____ groups want this as the ONLY strategy in effect.

Back in the late 1700's and early 1800's, The Temperance movement was founded. It advocated restraint and responsible use of alcohol rather than total and outright abstinence. It was started by Dr Benjamin Rush's expressed views taken to heart by a group of aprox 200 farmers in Connecticut.

Over time, the idea of responsible use morphed and changed, and became outright intolerance of use at all. Members of the Temperance movement became rabidly hostile to any use of alcohol, which back then was seen as harmful to the public as smoking is today.

This temperance movement worked hard to get lawmakers to change their votes, and in 1917, a Senate pressured by this movement introduced Prohibition, which was brought into law on January 1919, and practiced on 1920.

The message was alcohol was evil, a sin, a public harm, and must be stopped at all costs. Does this sound similar to the anti smoking rhetoric? It does, as many of the messages and even the tactics are adopted from the temperance movement's drive to ban all alcohol in the United States.

But, most readers know what happened. Illegal bars, called speakeasies, sprang up all over the place, moonshiners made or brought in illegal booze, and people generally got their beer and whiskey anyways. It became so ineffective that in 1933, the Constitutional amendment known as the Volstead act, which prohibited alcohol, was repealed.

"Just Say No" resurfaced almost 50 years later, when the Los Angeles Police Department developed the DARE program. Their intent, to keep children from growing up and using drugs, was a laudable goal. But, using gross exagerations, such as marijuana being a gateway drug to other drugs, led children to dismiss other portions of the lesson, and do as they wanted. Some studies that were dismissed by DARE proponents actually showed drug acceptance and use INCREASED under DARE.

The message of "Just Say No" also found it's way into the schools under the guise of sexual education. Abstinence only education was something made popular by religious organizations, and made the ONLY sex education in several areas.

Again, did it work? In areas where "Just Say No" has been the only accepted standard, the rates of STD transmission and teen pregnancy has increased, not decreased. Why? Not only was abstinence touted as the only acceptable standard, reduced risk strategies, such as condoms, .........ion, and birth control were demonized, and made out to be worse for them than unprotected sex.

Now, we come to the main course. Groups like ASH. Campaign for tobacco Free Kids, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, and American Cancer Society all are in the "Just Say No" category. To them, smokers must quit or die, and any means of harm reduction, such as electronic cigarettes, are to be demonized and done away with.

These methods of harm reduction are not in their vocabulary. They are no different in thinking than the Temperance movement that made alcohol illegal.

JUST SAY NO DOES NOT WORK! There is scientific and historical proof it does not work. A responsible organization, truely aimed at helping the public and concerned for the public's welfare, will look at harm reduction strategies, and find them more acceptable than what they are fighting.

So, Anti Smoking organizations, how can you help the people quit smoking? Look into alternatives to smoking. Advocate items that reduce harm while also allowing users to get what they want or need.

Electronic cigarettes have been around for quite some time. The Chinese have been using them for long enough for any negative health effects to surface. they have been in the United States for almost 3 years, long enough for the FDA to have heard some kind of negative health effect.

But, at this time, no major health issues have arisen from the use of these Electronic cigarettes. The FDA even asked for people to report in their negative side effects or health issues arising from these, and so far, no word on them.

During all this, most Doctors asked about them have taken the harm reduction road, and applaud the use of these. They, like anyone responsible for other people's health look at the chemicals in these compared to an analog, and feel the electronic cigarette is much safer and better for their patients' health than a tobacco cigarette.

the logical conclusion of this writer is that any group that does not look into harm reduction as a way to reach their primary goal is NOT looking out for your health and welfare, and has another agenda they wish to use.

JUST SAY NO to "Just Say No"
 

jeffakamax

Unregistered Supplier
ECF Veteran
Jun 4, 2009
1,795
30
USA
www.ThagBuilt.com
You're not the boss of me!

Sorry, couldn't resist!

This has been proven over and over. As soon as you tell someone that they 'can't' they 'will' just to prove they can. Countries that do not have age restricted drinking do not have the teen alchohol problem we do. Or maybe they are just better at holding their liquor becasue they have more practice. At any rate it's an improvement.
 

Superstargoddess

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Jul 31, 2009
863
0
48
Ohio
I think that it depends on what you are "Just say NO"'ing about and what kind of person you are dealing with. I was able to quit drinking alcohol by myself cold turkey after having drank for a long time pretty heavily. No AA, no rehab, nothing like that- I just did it. As for illegal drugs, I am all about the Just say No when it comes to that.

I must admit though that things like smoking and caffeine and foods that are bad for you seems to be a lot different, perhaps a lot harder for more people to break the habit. In some ways, depending on who the person is, Just say No will work. However, it is not for everyone. If a person needs a hard reduction strategy, they should be allowed to have one. Like how people who are on certain illegal narcotics are given Methadone to help get them off of the original bad drug. (And I know that methadone is a very harmful and bad drug, especially if not used properly)

Really, I just depends on the person. My friend is deciding to give up smoking cold turkey without any help from a PV or patch or anything else. I'll let you know how that goes. He is a pretty stubborn fella, so it just may work for him.
 

Magestorm

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Aug 8, 2009
84
0
The problem is that Just Say No reduces it into a you made it or you fail. And we all know what society thinks of failure.

If you had the ability to quit drinking then that is great. But, having a realistic approach is more helpful than what most of the Just Say No people wish them to be.

These people will make things up and point to less harmful things, and try to say those are gateway items to more harmful things. Look in countries where harm reduction is the mainstay. Illicit drug use is lower, spread of diseases due to drug needle exchanges are lower, and the concept of gateways are laughed at.

In short:
A beer is not a gateway to hard liquor.
Marijuana is not a gateway to ....... or ......
Freely available birth control and condoms are not a gateway to unprotected sex
Electronic cigarettes are not a gateway to tobacco cigarettes.
 

Superstargoddess

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Jul 31, 2009
863
0
48
Ohio
The problem is that Just Say No reduces it into a you made it or you fail. And we all know what society thinks of failure.

If you had the ability to quit drinking then that is great. But, having a realistic approach is more helpful than what most of the Just Say No people wish them to be.

These people will make things up and point to less harmful things, and try to say those are gateway items to more harmful things. Look in countries where harm reduction is the mainstay. Illicit drug use is lower, spread of diseases due to drug needle exchanges are lower, and the concept of gateways are laughed at.

In short:
A beer is not a gateway to hard liquor.
Marijuana is not a gateway to ....... or ......
Freely available birth control and condoms are not a gateway to unprotected sex
Electronic cigarettes are not a gateway to tobacco cigarettes.

I'm very much going to have to disagree with the last part that you had to say about gateway stuff, respectfully. Well with the Marijuana part mostly, since I have some issues with that.

My Uncle died of an OD of ....... a couple years ago and the year before that my brother died of an OD of Xanax and Methadone. I know for a fact that neither of them started straight up with the drugs that killed them, they both started with Marijuana when they were younger. People who start with the lowest on the chain seem to start looking for "better" ways to get high, more intense ways, something that will be even "cooler" than what they were doing.

Not all people are like this, I'm sure. But I tell you that nobody can say with 100% certainty that Marijuana isn't a gateway drug at all to anyone. A lot of the things that you have been saying is something that really really has to do with the person as a person.

Also, I know that once I started going to Planned Parenthood when I was younger, I started to have a lot more sex than I was having since they gave me a big old honkin bagful of condoms for free. But once again, not everyone is like I am, everyone is different. Trying to say that something is absolute on a subjective matter just can't be done.

My friend does that to me all of the time, he hates the music that I listen to. One of my favorite bands is Linkin Park and he says that they SUCK. But as I always try to explain to him, music is a subjective thing, you can't just say that something sucks for a fact like he does, because that just isn't possible. I think that country music sucks and I don't like it, but I'm not going to say that FOR A FACT it sucks, since that's not something that anyone can say for a fact. I personally think most of it sucks, but that isn't the gospel word since it's subjective.

I don't mean to go against you or be disrespectful, I just think of things in a different way than most people and I like to share those views so that others will see what some people with different views see.

Basically, everyone is different and nothing like this can be stated as 100% either way since it's something that cannot be proven.
 

Magestorm

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Aug 8, 2009
84
0
The biggest issue with "Just Say No" is not just that they don't teach harm reduction, but they exaggerate their claims. Then, when someone does crumble and try it, and find it's nowhere near as bad as it was made out to be, they decide all the things they were told are rubbish, and some plunge headlong into things, and really harm themselves or others.

Yes, it would be quite lovely if kids waited to have sex till they were older. It would be great if they chose to not drink or drink responsibly. It would be wonderful if they never touched any drugs.

But this is the real world, and as you have said, NOT EVERYTHING WORKS FOR EVERYONE. For some, yes, "Just Say No" can work. But for a majority of people, Just Say No does not work, and even can cause the behavior they are trying to prevent.

At issue is the abstain or die method. This is a method of thinking that is absolute, rigid, and does not work. "They just have to die" does not work.
 

BigJimW

Moved On
ECF Veteran
May 17, 2009
2,058
7
62
Warwick, RI
www.moonport.org
Today's world is awash with the message "Just say no to ______" Whether it be drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, sex, or a bacon cheeseburger, it seems most of the anti _____ groups want this as the ONLY strategy in effect.

Back in the late 1700's and early 1800's, The Temperance movement was founded. It advocated restraint and responsible use of alcohol rather than total and outright abstinence. It was started by Dr Benjamin Rush's expressed views taken to heart by a group of aprox 200 farmers in Connecticut.

Over time, the idea of responsible use morphed and changed, and became outright intolerance of use at all. Members of the Temperance movement became rabidly hostile to any use of alcohol, which back then was seen as harmful to the public as smoking is today.

This temperance movement worked hard to get lawmakers to change their votes, and in 1917, a Senate pressured by this movement introduced Prohibition, which was brought into law on January 1919, and practiced on 1920.

The message was alcohol was evil, a sin, a public harm, and must be stopped at all costs. Does this sound similar to the anti smoking rhetoric? It does, as many of the messages and even the tactics are adopted from the temperance movement's drive to ban all alcohol in the United States.

But, most readers know what happened. Illegal bars, called speakeasies, sprang up all over the place, moonshiners made or brought in illegal booze, and people generally got their beer and whiskey anyways. It became so ineffective that in 1933, the Constitutional amendment known as the Volstead act, which prohibited alcohol, was repealed.

"Just Say No" resurfaced almost 50 years later, when the Los Angeles Police Department developed the DARE program. Their intent, to keep children from growing up and using drugs, was a laudable goal. But, using gross exagerations, such as marijuana being a gateway drug to other drugs, led children to dismiss other portions of the lesson, and do as they wanted. Some studies that were dismissed by DARE proponents actually showed drug acceptance and use INCREASED under DARE.

The message of "Just Say No" also found it's way into the schools under the guise of sexual education. Abstinence only education was something made popular by religious organizations, and made the ONLY sex education in several areas.

Again, did it work? In areas where "Just Say No" has been the only accepted standard, the rates of STD transmission and teen pregnancy has increased, not decreased. Why? Not only was abstinence touted as the only acceptable standard, reduced risk strategies, such as condoms, .........ion, and birth control were demonized, and made out to be worse for them than unprotected sex.

Now, we come to the main course. Groups like ASH. Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, and American Cancer Society all are in the "Just Say No" category. To them, smokers must quit or die, and any means of harm reduction, such as electronic cigarettes, are to be demonized and done away with.

These methods of harm reduction are not in their vocabulary. They are no different in thinking than the Temperance movement that made alcohol illegal.

JUST SAY NO DOES NOT WORK! There is scientific and historical proof it does not work. A responsible organization, truely aimed at helping the public and concerned for the public's welfare, will look at harm reduction strategies, and find them more acceptable than what they are fighting.

So, Anti Smoking organizations, how can you help the people quit smoking? Look into alternatives to smoking. Advocate items that reduce harm while also allowing users to get what they want or need.

Electronic cigarettes have been around for quite some time. The Chinese have been using them for long enough for any negative health effects to surface. they have been in the United States for almost 3 years, long enough for the FDA to have heard some kind of negative health effect.

But, at this time, no major health issues have arisen from the use of these Electronic cigarettes. The FDA even asked for people to report in their negative side effects or health issues arising from these, and so far, no word on them.

During all this, most Doctors asked about them have taken the harm reduction road, and applaud the use of these. They, like anyone responsible for other people's health look at the chemicals in these compared to an analog, and feel the electronic cigarette is much safer and better for their patients' health than a tobacco cigarette.

the logical conclusion of this writer is that any group that does not look into harm reduction as a way to reach their primary goal is NOT looking out for your health and welfare, and has another agenda they wish to use.

JUST SAY NO to "Just Say No"

Magestorm, with your permission, I'd like to post this in the Pressroom and release it to PRLog. It's fabulous.
 

markarich159

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Jun 30, 2009
1,169
45
PA, USA
(And I know that methadone is a very harmful and bad drug, especially if not used properly)

As is sugar, cholesterol, indiscriminant antibiotic usage, sharp objects, etc...

The OP is absolutely right. Behaviors, activities etc.. that do not directly harm others are nobody elses business. However, having said that, this requires that the person engaging in said activities, behaviors etc... act responsibly, know the consequences, and accept the personal consequences of said behaviors. I would much rather it be me choosing what to put into my body rather then some government bureaucrat bowing to the ideals of some special interest group. To me, this is the essence of living in a free society as a free individual. If you want to shoot 20 bags of ...... a day, feel free, as long as you pay for it yourself, pay your own way, take care of yourself, don't bother children, me or anybody else while your doing it. As long as you can use responsibly, nothing(that doesn't directly harm anyone else) should be prohibited.
Prohibition in America has been nothing but a long, sad trail of misery and despair for everyone. Wherever prohibition occurs, Crime, gangs, Mafia, death will inevitably fill in the black market void.

But this is a topic for another forum altogether.
 

Magestorm

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Aug 8, 2009
84
0
BigJimW, You don't have to ask at all. You have Carte Blanche permission to repost on your site. Just make sure to give the credit like you usually do.

And personally, I am against drugs. In my neighborhood, the demon known as .... has taken over, and i can't go down the street without a loaded sidearm. But, had someone back when they were doing DARE had been honest and not exaggerated some things, then we would not see people laughing at the real dangers thinking it's all overstatements and bullcrap.
 

Superstargoddess

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Jul 31, 2009
863
0
48
Ohio
The biggest issue with "Just Say No" is not just that they don't teach harm reduction, but they exaggerate their claims. Then, when someone does crumble and try it, and find it's nowhere near as bad as it was made out to be, they decide all the things they were told are rubbish, and some plunge headlong into things, and really harm themselves or others.

Yes, it would be quite lovely if kids waited to have sex till they were older. It would be great if they chose to not drink or drink responsibly. It would be wonderful if they never touched any drugs.

But this is the real world, and as you have said, NOT EVERYTHING WORKS FOR EVERYONE. For some, yes, "Just Say No" can work. But for a majority of people, Just Say No does not work, and even can cause the behavior they are trying to prevent.

At issue is the abstain or die method. This is a method of thinking that is absolute, rigid, and does not work. "They just have to die" does not work.

I agree that there should be some alternative methods to quitting some things, but there are just certain things that people need to own up for and go with the whole "Quit or go to jail until you are done with it for good". I think that there needs to be more harsh penalties for drug sellers in this country, and I think that everyone can agree on that. But as far as "Quit or die", yes that's not good. However, the "Just say no" at least as it was back in Nancy Reagans days, isn't a bad thing. I've done "Just say no" when someone has offered me some kind of drug or alcohol, many many times. I think that we are getting a little separated on what "Just say no" means, really.

Really, for some things, "Quit or die" is all that some people can do. There are so many people out there, and I am talking about the harsh drugs, that don't want help and don't need help (so they think). What are you going to do about people like that? I'm all about trying to save people, but you sometimes can't save people that don't want to be saved. I guess that we could try to throw them all in rehab or jail, but I don't know how that is going to work out.

As far as DARE goes and them exaggerating, don't underestimate that when it comes to younger children. When I was younger and we had programs like that, some of that stuff scared the crap out of me. Heck, even before my uncle and brother died, I was convinced that trying drugs would probably instantly kill me or something. Young children can be very impressionable! Heck, I took a caffeine pill (yellow jacket, available in gas stations) several years ago and when my heart beat started to get so much more rapid, I ended up having a freakin real panic attack (thought that I was going to faint, not sure how I was able to drive myself to the hospital in that condition since I was already out and about) and going to the emergency room because I thought that I was going to have a heart attack! (Also before my uncle and brother died)

westcoast2- Still wouldn't do them, I have no need to. I take my legal prescription that I need just as my doctor tells me, to the letter. It's the only thing that I am able to utilize in a positive way for my illness. But even with it, I check and double check to make sure that I am spacing it far enough apart like I am supposed to. Even though it is a small dosage since I have just started it, I want to make sure that I am super careful, once again very paranoid about any type of drug- even the legal ones.

markarich159- I am not sure exactly how much 20 bags of ...... is, or what that means really, but it sounds like a lot by the context that you used it in. I haven't ever even seen ...... in my lifetime. However, if it's as much as I am led to believe, it doesn't seem like anyone could do a ton of it and be the type of person that you mentioned. And just because someone is fine when they do it the first million times, it doesn't mean that they will always be fine. I'm sure that when my uncle and brother OD'd (Sorry to keep bringing that up, but I want to try to put their senseless deaths to good use somewhere!) that it wasn't the first time that they had used those drugs. They were fine the first million times, but NOT those times. Kind of like Michael Jackson, he was fine the first million times or whatever that he did that drug, but it finally killed him. And who DOES that hurt? That hurts the family, the friends, everyone.

I agree that e-cigs are a totally different case than most of the things that we are talking about, but since we got onto the subject of illegal drugs, figured that I would talk about that a little bit. Point is, some stuff is illegal for good reasons, while some stuff like e-cigs (if banned) will be all about the money that the government wants. As for some of the things that you mentioned, I can see where it would be easier to OD on the things that I have mentioned, rather than the things that you have mentioned.

Once again, just a viewpoint from someone who has lost two family members to drugs, people who did not seek help and did not want help for their problem. People who did not even think that they had a problem. My mother is never going to recover from her son and her brother dying of drug overdoses. I speculate on certain things that make it even more tragic to her.
 

TheLizinator

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 21, 2009
307
18
Indianapolis, IN
Just say "no" to drugs--and why don't we tell the homeless "just get a house"? So very simple, so very black-and-white. Marijuana a gateway drug? There are people who have addictive personalities; you cannot blame that on any one substance. In the absence of marijuana, I guarantee an addictive personality will find many alternatives. One common trait of drug abusers (and I do include alcohol as a drug because it is a very powerful drug) is that they are like heat-seeking missiles to any substance that will give them an escape from feeling "normal". Normal is not a pleasant feeling to a substance abuser. A person gets a huge reward (feeling "good") when they find a substance that will allow them relief, however momentary.

Addiction technically comes when a tolerance is developed where increasing levels of the substance are required to achieve the same "high" or "low" as the case may be. Marijuana not only does NOT create a state of tolerance; a good deal of research has even supported that marijuana has a reverse tolerance--less is needed over time to achieve a high. Why our society decided ethanol is acceptable and marijuana is not falls within the realm of politics, not scientific "facts" (this had much to do with the end of prohibition). I also guarantee you that there is a much greater percentage of pot smokers who do not "graduate" to harder drugs than those who do.

Any scientific research is only as good as the results of the last study--regardless of the focus of the study. Anyone who's ever done empirical research sees this very early on. Consider the years we were told to get off that harmful saturated fat (butter) and switch to margarine. Whoo boy, eat that hydrogenated fat, sit back and watch that waxy substance buidling in your arteries! This is a prime example of the need to be very cautious and discriminating when taking research to heart and adjusting habits/behaviors accordingly.

Ethanol typically ups the ante for a drinker until they reach a state of comfort, then moves the bar after a time. Nicotine seems to be somewhat similar, but nicotine addicts do reach a sustained level where all they need is "X" amount of nicotine to maintain a level of comfort. Smokers don't plot or plan the amount they use; their body gives feedback when they've reached the comfort zone and urges subside. Many a smoker has inhaled a pack a day for many years without inching up to 1.5 or 2 packs. I would never argue against the addictive properties of nicotine, but trying to lump all substances into the "drug" category is an exercise in futility. It is comparing apples to oranges. The label of "gateway" drug seems a very lazy explanation for why some people simply abuse substances and it matters not what they are as much as how the abuser can use them to achieve a comfort level.

Why would we label marijuana a gateway drug and turn a blind eye to the role alcohol plays in turning to harder substances? Our culture is closer today to legalizing pot than it has ever been in history. We will have to look elsewhere for that notorious gateway drug when it takes its place alongside alcohol as a socially acceptable substance. For many decades we were complacent while drinkers became violent, abused and neglected their families, and killed innocent people under the influence. There is no good or bad drug; it always depends on how it is used--moderately or excessively, medicinally or recreationally. Prescription drugs are no less harmful or insidious than any illicit drug; society simply accepts one as good, the other as evil and this changes as the law changes.
 

SLDS181

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Aug 11, 2009
1,325
1
Western NJ
Really, for some things, "Quit or die" is all that some people can do. There are so many people out there, and I am talking about the harsh drugs, that don't want help and don't need help (so they think). What are you going to do about people like that? I'm all about trying to save people, but you sometimes can't save people that don't want to be saved. I guess that we could try to throw them all in rehab or jail, but I don't know how that is going to work out.

So if someone gets addicted to ......, and wants to clean up..... your response is quit or die?

If they just quit..... they would die. This is why there are methadone clinics.

People get addicted to things of all levels. When they decide to quit, they need something to get them there - quitting straight off generally doesn't work, and can be hazardous to their health.

Also, as was stated, "Just say no" tends to create more addicts, due to human nature.

So no - quit or die isn't appropriate for anything. And this is a statement from someone who knows many former drug users, some of which died, more that lived.
 

Superstargoddess

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Jul 31, 2009
863
0
48
Ohio
So if someone gets addicted to ......, and wants to clean up..... your response is quit or die?

If they just quit..... they would die. This is why there are methadone clinics.

People get addicted to things of all levels. When they decide to quit, they need something to get them there - quitting straight off generally doesn't work, and can be hazardous to their health.

Also, as was stated, "Just say no" tends to create more addicts, due to human nature.

So no - quit or die isn't appropriate for anything. And this is a statement from someone who knows many former drug users, some of which died, more that lived.

So you are saying that if they quit cold turkey in a prison, they will literally die? I have heard that they supposedly go through a lot of "pain" from withdrawl, but I do not believe that I have seen a documented case where they just "die". (Unless you count suicide, but I don't count that) However, I am open to the suggestion, and if you have an article of this actually happening- I would love to see it.

But Methadone... come on, there has to be something better than that. That itself is a very dangerous thing, and also something that is addictive. I mean really I guess that everything can be addictive to some point to different types of people, but there has to be something better.

But no, I have compassion for those who want help and want to quit. I just saw a guy on a rerun of taxicab confessions that had a drug problem and he seemed genuine that he wanted to quit and realized how bad it was an all of the problems that it causes. I really hope that guy got some help, it was one of their episodes in NYC back in 1995. But as sad as it is to say, some people can't be saved. I wish that they all could, but some people just won't get help and then it's too late.

Nobody should have to die for something like that, especially when typically the drug addiction is because of a much bigger issue in their lives. However, on the other side of it, I know people that abuse the system and abuse their own lives. My deceased uncles wife and her ..... daughters do drugs and milk the system for all its worth. Do they want help? Heck no! Do they think that they have a problem? No! I don't give 2 craps about what happens to them, and I don't care what their issues were, even though I don't know of anything that would cause them to be that way.

But I enjoy the banter and debate with you and everyone else here, great discussion this has become, even though it has amped up from PVs to drugs.

As for the person that said something about vitamins, I was thinking about something like that the other day and maybe someone here could shed some light on it for me. Why in the world can you not get Cipro (very popular and effective antibiotic) over the counter? Every time I go to the doctor for anything from a urinary tract infection to pneumonia, they always send me to get Cipro! (From the time I was a baby I have supposedly been allergic to Penecillin so I can't ever get that) I can't even see what would make it be so dangerous that you need a script for it!
 

LaceyUnderall

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Dec 4, 2008
2,568
5
USA and Canada
Magestorm - Have you been over to Right To Vape - Index

I know they are getting re-organized over there and it seems to me that the group moving forward would benefit from someone like you.

I completely agree with your OP, and must say it is beautifully written. What we have lost in this country is freedom of choice and one way to quietly remove someones freedom of choice, is to give them only enough info for them to believe that they do not have a choice... so why try? It is setting someone up to fail.
 

TheLizinator

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 21, 2009
307
18
Indianapolis, IN
As for the person that said something about vitamins, I was thinking about something like that the other day and maybe someone here could shed some light on it for me. Why in the world can you not get Cipro (very popular and effective antibiotic) over the counter? Every time I go to the doctor for anything from a urinary tract infection to pneumonia, they always send me to get Cipro! (From the time I was a baby I have supposedly been allergic to Penecillin so I can't ever get that) I can't even see what would make it be so dangerous that you need a script for it!

Antibiotic use has been subject to overuse and misuse. Overuse because people want to take antibiotics for all infections, when it is only effective against bacterial infection (not virus). Misuse because patients will take it until their symptoms subside, then neglect to take the entire prescription. Bad move because lingering bacteria develop into "super strains" which are antibiotic resistant. It's adapting to a hostile environment in order to survive. Taking antibiotic for a short time will subdue the infection, but doesn't wipe it out. It's essential to take the entire 'script to prevent this. Antibiotic resistant superstrains kill people because they can't be eradicated with known antibiotics. Overuse can also cause an overgrowth of yeast as antibiotics don't selectively kill bacteria, they take the good and the bad. A severe yeast infection can also be life-threatening.
 

Superstargoddess

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Jul 31, 2009
863
0
48
Ohio
Antibiotic use has been subject to overuse and misuse. Overuse because people want to take antibiotics for all infections, when it is only effective against bacterial infection (not virus). Misuse because patients will take it until their symptoms subside, then neglect to take the entire prescription. Bad move because lingering bacteria develop into "super strains" which are antibiotic resistant. It's adapting to a hostile environment in order to survive. Taking antibiotic for a short time will subdue the infection, but doesn't wipe it out. It's essential to take the entire 'script to prevent this. Antibiotic resistant superstrains kill people because they can't be eradicated with known antibiotics. Overuse can also cause an overgrowth of yeast as antibiotics don't selectively kill bacteria, they take the good and the bad. A severe yeast infection can also be life-threatening.

That is true, though for people who get them from a doctor, they could still not take the whole thing that they are supposed to. I see what you mean about overuse though, I didn't know that.

So you are saying that if they were over the counter and people took them for everything because they didn't know better, if would for sure make them sick? Seems like the same thing could be said for other over the counter things, but from what you say, something like Cipro could have a more devastating effect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread