: This is your brain on .... some drugs, anyway...



JimHare
03-16-06, 01:04 PM
Is it just me, or is anyone bothered by this:

The Partnership for a Drug Free America
- has its commercial air time and print space donated to it by media
- has its product (commercials, PSAs, et al) donated by Ad & PR agencies

And has, as it's major contributors, the following organizations:

Bristol-Myers Squibb
Johnson & Johnson
Schering-Plough
Phillip-Morris
RJR Reynolds
Anheuser-Busch
American Brands
Hoffman-LaRoche
Wyeth Pharmaceuticals
Purdue Pharma LP
Bayer HealthCare
Glaxo-SmithKline
McNeil Consumer Healthcare
Perrigo Company
Pfizer
Abbott Laboratories


"Don't you dare smoke that weed, but here, try this little blue pill if the old hammer ain't pounding as many nails as it used to...."

Is it just me????

----

Oh, and here's another little tidbit I just found out: In 2002, the combined profits of the top 10 Pharmaceutical companies in the Fortune 500 were greater than the profits of THE OTHER 490 FIRMS COMBINED!

OffThaHorseCEO
03-16-06, 01:14 PM
well not really cause its not drug abuse unless it used for a purpose other than originally created for

also its to show that the companies creating legitimate drugs (aka medicines) care about gettin the word out to stop abuse

DopeStar 156
03-16-06, 01:35 PM
Marijuanna is a seditave though, When people smoke it that's how they're using it. Is that drug abuse by definition?

DopeStar 156
03-16-06, 01:36 PM
Double post...

OffThaHorseCEO
03-16-06, 02:09 PM
Marijuanna is a seditave though, When people smoke it that's how they're using it. Is that drug abuse by definition?

good point

people use viagra cause they cant get it up

people use tylenol because (among other things) their head hurts

people relieve heartburns with medicines such as tums rolaids etc

those drugs serve a purpose, if a guy can get it up just fine, but uses viagra anyways, i believe thats drug abuse

marijuana, is used to relieve some of the symptoms associated with glaucoma (i wont even act like i kno wat the symptoms are or what exactly glaucoma is) but in that case its serving a purpose, not drug abuse

marijuana,cocaine,meth etc are recreational drugs taken (usually) solely for the side effects they produce, they (usually) arent taken to relieve a certain ailment, and in my opinion that constitutes drug abuse

Jonas McFeely
03-16-06, 02:28 PM
I do agree with the first post.I think that is kind of hypocritical of The Partnership for a Drug Free America.To say hey,its cool to eat these pain killers and take all this crap for whatever it is that you have,but its not ok to smoke a bowl every once in awhile.Yes,smoking weed habitually is considered drug abuse,and i wont disagree.But what the hell is drinking caffinated coffee or soda everyday.Its a drug,it stimulates you(i know weed is a depressant),you dont need it,you are abusing it,and in my opinion soda is worse for you than smoking weed.Now dont get me wrong,im not a big pot head,i never have been.

These drug prevention things usually fail,who remembers DARE?It was deemed a total failure by the person who ran it! Im say having drug and alcohol companies fund your cause,and your cause being to stop the abuse of the latter,is rediculous,and sends horrible message to kids.Granted,most kids dont and will never know who funds all that crap,but still,its bad for the few that do.I think it sends conflicting message.A beer company is funding this program thats trying to prevent me from using that product and telling me that its bad?Huh?

DopeStar 156
03-16-06, 02:33 PM
In reality, who's to say that Pfizer won't accidentally create the next crystal meth? Mistakes happen and information leaks. It's completely possible. Ritalin is pretty close to marijuanna. It's a seditative used to calm down hyperactive kids. A kid on ritalin and a pothead next to each other don't look too different, one's just laughing the whole time.

OffThaHorseCEO
03-16-06, 02:49 PM
not necessarily, it all comes down to education and responsibility

Drug Abuse Resistance Education, sure he/she may have deemed it a failure, but i never have done any drugs, alot of my friends smoke daily and i get on them more about the mess they leave (wrappers, ashes, roaches etc) than the shit they smoke. i never used any of the "tactics" they taught in dare, that shit was useless, i learned more from the effects standpoint of it, where they say it affects hygiene brain and body etc, not to mention the first hand experience of the people i lived around.

i drink every once in a while and did so before the legal age, but i did so responsibly meaning if i was drunk off my ass i didnt drive or do anything that affected anyones well being. the point is, theres nothin wrong with any of the drugs or alcohol out there if they are used responsibly and not abused.

which brings up another contradiction, alcohol is created for the sole purpose of gettin you ****ed up, so why isnt it illegal, or why isnt weed legal?

i think i may have contradicted myself here, im not an expert on anything, just staint my opinions and im human so they arent perfect

Jonas McFeely
03-16-06, 03:01 PM
not necessarily, it all comes down to education and responsibility

Drug Abuse Resistance Education, sure he/she may have deemed it a failure, but i never have done any drugs, alot of my friends smoke daily and i get on them more about the mess they leave (wrappers, ashes, roaches etc) than the shit they smoke. i never used any of the "tactics" they taught in dare, that shit was useless, i learned more from the effects standpoint of it, where they say it affects hygiene brain and body etc, not to mention the first hand experience of the people i lived around.

i drink every once in a while and did so before the legal age, but i did so responsibly meaning if i was drunk off my ass i didnt drive or do anything that affected anyones well being. the point is, theres nothin wrong with any of the drugs or alcohol out there if they are used responsibly and not abused.

which brings up another contradiction, alcohol is created for the sole purpose of gettin you ****ed up, so why isnt it illegal, or why isnt weed legal?

i think i may have contradicted myself here, im not an expert on anything, just staint my opinions and im human so they arent perfect

Now i wouldnt go as far to say that ANY of the drugs out there is ok to use responsibly.Meth,cocaine and heroine mainly.No way,Horrible drugs,ive never done meth or heroine,but i have used cocaine before and would never recommend doing it in any dose.It is a horrible drug and ruins peoples lives.That is a drug that should NEVER be used for anything.I regret doing it at all.Marijuana on the other hand actually serves a medical purpose and can help more than harm,and is reasonably priced. J/K

Spyder
03-16-06, 04:16 PM
Meth, heroin and cocaine were all pharmaceutical (sp) drugs at one point, until people began to take advantage of them. PCP was even used on people, legally and responsibily, for a time, as was freaking ACID! All drugs have SOME use, but many of them the downsides are worse than the positives and there are alternatives...I'm anti-drug for what I've seen them do to family and friends, but occasional use of things such as cocaine or heroin, as a tool rather than a drug, I have no problem with. Shot of meth to help ya study the night before an exam, ok, if you fully understand what it can likely do to you, go for it. I never have done that myself, because I DO know and I don't want to get involved with it, not to mention the illegality of it. I am currently applying for the Masters program at Sacramento State, and afterwards plan on working for the DEA, so I'm not advocating drug use at all...but they do have their purposes. Disorganized thoughts here, I know, but I'm on my way out the door to go finish putting brakes on the Challenger, so I didn't put a whole lot of thought into it...sorry.

JimHare
03-16-06, 05:07 PM
well not really cause its not drug abuse unless it used for a purpose other than originally created for

also its to show that the companies creating legitimate drugs (aka medicines) care about gettin the word out to stop abuse


Well, it's only drug abuse as defined by the LAW, not medicinal efficacy.

Smoking pot wasn't considered drug abuse until 1935 when it was outlawed. Interesting story there, too..

What concerned me is the inordinate amount of money spent on pushing drugs on the public by the Pharmy's, when it's THEIR drugs they're pushing. And the fact that (up until 2004) the PFADFA took millions of dollars from alcohol and tobacco companies, purveyors of the drugs (legal) that cause orders of magnitude more harm than the couple ounces of Mexican mellow that owning will get you tossed in the clink for LIFE in some places.

Reading some of the BS coming from the Pharmy's has really started to tick me off - how they can now pay the FDA to "fast track" a drug approval process, how most of their "R&D" is performed on the public nickel at universities and public health institutes, how their advertising and PR expenses are two to three times their R&D budgets (which, I guess since WE'RE paying their R&D, is not so suprising) and other chicanery surrounding these Bimmer-driving pimps and pushers is very aggravating...

But, as Chris Rock says, "There ain't no money in a CURE.."


'

Zorb750
03-16-06, 08:50 PM
Smokinthepot???

DopeStar 156
03-16-06, 08:59 PM
Drug Abuse Resistance Education

http://www.wwjjd.com/NewStuff/imag0008.JPG
http://www.wwjjd.com/NewStuff/imag0007.JPG
http://www.wwjjd.com/NewStuff/imag0009.JPG

My all time favorite shirt. I love the reactions I get when wearing this thing. :lildevil:

Jonas McFeely
03-16-06, 09:00 PM
Pretty sweet shirt.

Spyder
03-16-06, 10:37 PM
Haha, I bet it DOES get some great ones! :)

DopeStar 156
03-16-06, 11:11 PM
haha I love how at first glance people think it's a DARE shirt. The usual reaction is a stop, squint, then a laugh.

70eldo
03-17-06, 04:08 AM
Gee, am I happy weed is legal in Holland. And I never had a problem with it. Also, in the US too, there's lot's of drugs that you can buy over the counter that can get you pretty high too. People just want to get high some times and they experiment... You know what I mean... :)

hardrockcamaro@mac.c
03-17-06, 04:28 AM
I have to admit I don't agree with any recreational drug use.
But I don't go around preaching about it.
And no I don't think it's appropriate that medicinal drug companies are supporting this cause.

But I do have a problem with the strange double standard that the governments of the world are happy to let you buy cigarettes (with a hefty tax for them) which will kill you and put a strain on medical services but they don't mind because they make a fortune in tax.

Also, how many lives have been lost due to people being drunk?
Domestic violence, fights in the street, property damage and so on.

But again, the government gets tax from it so they're happy to let it continue.


If they ever legalise weed you can be assured it will come with a hefty tax.

Spyder
03-17-06, 05:54 AM
Alcohol isn't so much about the tax money, althought The Man does make a killing off of it. Do you think this country would stand for the criminilization of having a drink? It was tried. Prohibition. Kicked out, because booze in this country is just too damned popular. Not NEARLY enough people would stand for it. Marijuana, crack, coke, opium based drugs...there's not a user base large enough to support legalizing any of them, so its not gonna happen soon. It's not about the taxes, its about the support for making it a criminal action. Prohibition didn't work, obviously, and it never will, but not because the gub'ment wasn't making money off of alcohol.

JimHare
03-17-06, 06:56 AM
Prohibition didn't work, because it was a lifestyle change forced on a sizeable segment of the adult population by a relatively much smaller, but vocal segment of the population. It was made into law due to politicians unwillingness to be seen to be "in favor" of "sin". It led to the rise and power of organized crime, who stepped in to deliver a want that a large segment of the population was willing to pay for.

The "war on drugs" is inordinately waged on young, poor, non-white citizens who's recreational drug of choice is seen as a threat to society. The Rush Limbaugh's and William Bennett's of the world don't do jail time for their admitted 'drug habits', even in the face of their despicable hypocrisy on the subject.

My point in the original post was the dichotomy apparent in the pharmaceutical companies support of a program using scare tactics, questionable statistical evidence, and public resources to urge non-use of drugs they don't market, while being perfectly happy to urge, using the same methods, use (if not dependence!) on drugs they DO market.

Daily, we are bombarded by advertisements pushing medications on us that a) in many cases are not needed, b) have side effects worse than the symptoms they purport to cure, and c) are priced far beyond the reasonable cost to maintain a viable enterprise.

The health care problem in this country is in many ways exacerabated by the rise in prescription medicine costs, most of which are borne by taxpayers. As America ages, and we grasp at any straw promised to keep our hair, maintain our libido, soothe our grumbly gut, and overcome the ravages of time in general, we face the prospect of a medication-clouded future provided and propped up by a small cadre of powerful, politically connected organizations whose focus is not on eliminating or alleviating the symptoms of a disease or other malady, but on growing and maintaining a base of subjects dependent on their product.

Tailfin
03-17-06, 08:21 AM
Prohibition also had idiot holes in it... There was no getting caught if you put out a product that says "Do not mix x, y, z, etc. with this or it will make alcohol" lol...

I personally don't believe in recreational drug use. I do understand the caffiene pill to study and that sort of thing, in a fruitful manner...but the fact is, people should never be put in a position like that in the first place. College students are a great example (and not surprisingly, colleges are a breeding ground for drugs). Students are asked too much at one time, mostly because colleges are businesses, and the obscene amount of money causes some people to have to go while working full time.

I hardly ever drink soda... It's got phosphoric acid, which was once used as a when-all-else-fails in plumbing...caramel color - a carcinogen...high fructose corn syrup - concentrated sugar which is horrid for you, caffiene, and other junk too. But I still don't think it's worse for you than marijuana, since it has like 18 times the amount of tar as a cigarette, even without the nicotene issue. Any kind of smoking will one day have you wanting to put an aeresol can of GM TEC up your nose.

The legality of a drug is often financial...along with the mad costs for testing for FDA approval, but that stuff has been said here for the most part. However, there were probably also other factors. I don't know the facts from the 30s...but perhaps marijuana was causing people to be injured or something like that when working...social problems, etc... Alcohol is also a depressant, and I agree that it makes more sense for either both to be legal or illegal.

I kind of lean towards illegal on that though. Actually, I don't think it's that easily resolved. Some people handle being inebriated well, others cackle, throw and destroy stuff, get violent, and a plethora of other imbecile-like characteristics. I don't say that one-sided though. I don't wanna make my tomato sauce without red wine... I guess it's just a matter of how responsible you are and how capable you are of regulating yourself and your inner hick if you get drunk. The larger problem is when some college kid starts running around drunk, screaming and throwing a basketball against the bathroom mirror which everyone then has to pay for, as well as waking the people up who studied responsibly, they don't have to answer for it. People get away with being real *#&$#*. I know that can't be fixed by simple regulation...but it would be nice if some ghost came up and clotheslined some of these people once in a while :sneaky:.

I don't see the appeal of either though... Depressant is right on...it slows down thinking, and from my experience with people that do this...turns them into retards. Yes, there's having fun, but it's just a mental state that you can put yourself in without the help of some substance that your body's not going to thank you for.

davesdeville
03-17-06, 08:23 AM
and afterwards plan on working for the DEA, so I'm not advocating drug use at all...but they do have their purposes.

Any special reason you're planning on DEA?

Frankly I think the DEA and its war on drugs is the fourth or fifth biggest waste of tax money in the US today.

davesdeville
03-17-06, 08:27 AM
I don't know the facts from the 30s...but perhaps marijuana was causing people to be injured or something like that when working...social problems, etc... Alcohol is also a depressant, and I agree that it makes more sense for either both to be legal or illegal.

I kind of lean towards illegal on that though. Actually, I don't think it's that easily resolved. Some people handle being inebriated well, others cackle, throw and destroy stuff, get violent, and a plethora of other imbecile-like characteristics. I don't say that one-sided though. I don't wanna make my tomato sauce without red wine... I guess it's just a matter of how responsible you are and how capable you are of regulating yourself and your inner hick if you get drunk.

Mexicans smoked Marijuana. White people didn't like Mexicans. Therefore they said Marijuana was really bad, and made it illegal. As kind of an "F you" to Mexicans.

And it's not about how you're regulating yourself... it's about whether or not you and your government should be regulating others.

FSU_Noles
03-17-06, 11:42 AM
If you (all) remember that it used to be illegal for drug companies to advertise prescription drugs. Now that has been lifted - obviously - so it may just be that as part of that agreement with the goverment that they have to fund anti-drug abuse campaigns, just as casino's must fund programs for addicted gamblers and tobacco companies must fund anti-smoking campaigns.

Personally, if the government is going to create such programs I would rather the drug companies pay for it than my tax dollars paying for it.

DopeStar 156
03-17-06, 12:12 PM
If you think about it, Marijuanna and alcohol are extremely similar. The only difference is after a while alcohol will rot your liver. No one has ever died from anything marijuanna related unless maybe they were high as kites and did something dumb like drive whole they're stoned, but then again that happens all the time with people who are drunk. Marijuanna could be legal and done responsibly if it was regulated the way alcohol is.

Spyder
03-17-06, 12:29 PM
Any special reason you're planning on DEA?

Frankly I think the DEA and its war on drugs is the fourth or fifth biggest waste of tax money in the US today.

I don't care if its a waste of money...well, that sounds bad, I do, but since I can't change that, its a helluva job! I would LOVE to be the point man on a felony warrant entry team or any of their special tactical teams. I wouldn't mind getting on a local SWAT team either, as long as its in an active area with a lot of drugs and violent crime. I've talked to the Sac County DA, who was a DEA special agent for many years, and quite a few other law enforcement friends and professors in the last couple of years who have worked in various drug control programs and organizations, and its just what interests me. Drugs and their effects (or is it affects?:) ) have always intrigued me, as has why people do them and continue to do them even after realizing they've thrown their lives away.
DEA special agents, from all the law enforcement folks I've talked to, are the supreme Bad Ass mo-fo's in taking someone down that needs to be taken out. That's just what I want to do, and I'm shooting for the best program out there. Just hearing the stories from the DEA, ATF and SWAT guys I know, that's what I want to do. If you think about it, a good SWAT team is most likely more bad ass than most military special forces teams. The military gets live action once in a while...a friend/prfoessor of mine was the SWAT Captain in Stockton, which is a huge drug/crime area, for many years. His team averaged over six hundred felony house entries a YEAR. That's amazing. Live action, every single day, house entries with body armor and an MP-5, compared to military folks who do it once in a while. Not to take anything away from them, but the experience just wouldn't be there.

JimHare
03-17-06, 08:42 PM
If you (all) remember that it used to be illegal for drug companies to advertise prescription drugs. Now that has been lifted - obviously - so it may just be that as part of that agreement with the goverment that they have to fund anti-drug abuse campaigns, just as casino's must fund programs for addicted gamblers and tobacco companies must fund anti-smoking campaigns.

Nope. Totally industry driven. The ban on DTC ("Direct to Consumer") selling was lifted by the FDA after pharmys started sneaking direct ads into print publications around 1981 touting Ibuprofen to consumers. The FDA wiffled and waffled on the issue until finally in 1997 the ban on DTC advertising was completely lifted, with the Pharmys promising to be "fair and balanced" (where have I heard that before...?).