Shotgun

Quote

So now, if Schedule I drugs are legalized, would those against the war on drugs also seek to legalize schedule 2,3,4 and 5 prescription drugs without a doctor's approval?

My simple answer is yes; I think all of the currently "scheduled" drugs should be legal (not a crime for most adults to possess any of them, even without a prescription). But my realistic answer? I have no f'n clue how that would actually work.

The war on drugs has gone on for so long and gotten so complicated that I don't how we could get ourselves out of such a mess. Though I think we're generally headed in a better direction with marijuana slowly becoming legal.

As for who benefits from the "war," no doubt Big Pharm and Big Alcohol are somewhere on the long list. Organized crime is probably at the top of the list.

Edit to add: As much as I am against the "War on Drugs," because I believe it does more harm than good, I'm sure there are some real people out there who are benefiting from it. Potential addicts who don't have an affinity for the current legal drugs and who are deterred enough by the illegality of the illegal drugs. I'm sure it is protecting some people, as it advertises, but ultimately I do believe it's at an unacceptable price (the old freedom vs. safety issue).

billvon

>People who are court ordered to treatment are usually there because their drug use is
>contributing factor to some other problem . . . .

But is most alcoholism treatment court-ordered?

I don't think so. But most court-ordered treatment is probably due to drunk driving.

Edit to add: Which is in line with what he was saying - court-ordered because of a behavior while using the drug but not because of the drug use itself.

Southern_Man

Probably not. People who are court ordered to treatment are usually there because their drug use is contributing factor to some other problem (e.g. bar fights, or poor parenting) and not usually an outcome of the drug use itself (although that sometimes happens too).

Yeah, you're probably right about that.

RonD1120

Substance use disorder treatment facilities, think about the liberal counselors specializing in drug treatment. NIDA supports a lot of jobs.

Ending the "War on Drugs" isn't likely to hurt the treatment industry. Addiction will still be around. I mean, alcohol is probably the top substance that people seek treatment for right now, and it's legal. More legal drugs would likely mean more people seeking treatment, though possibly(?) less who would be court-ordered to treatment.

I'm sure my perception is skewed from reading this forum too much, but I get the impression that a lot of people are way more concerned about guns than they are about driving, which makes no sense to me. I go through most of my days without any thought/fear of guns, yet I have to deal with driving almost every day, and I know that statistically that is where I and my loved ones are most likely to get injured or killed. (Well, some exceptions there for other dangerous activities.)

Of course I wish that there was less violence in our country (and in the world), but I don't think guns are the reason for the violence. The worst school massacre in our history was mostly carried out with bombs. And just in the last couple of weeks there has been a murder/suicide carried out with an ax and another carried out with a chainsaw. And countless other violent acts every day that do not involve a gun . . . Yes, guns are often used in violent attacks, but looking at the big picture, it seems to me that we have more of a violence problem than a gun problem. Heck, even traffic accidents - many are caused by aggressive driving and/or a general disregard for others, which seems to be approaching violent behavior.

Quote

Medical privacy issues were put in place for a specific disease/issue

Do you happen to know what disease this is? The one that pushed HIPPA laws being put into place?

I don't know. Which disease was it?

RonD1120

The first sinner to go to paradise with Jesus was a convicted death row prisoner.

The second sinner to recognize Jesus as the Son of God and presumably also went to paradise was a Roman Soldier.

The ground at the foot of the cross is level. Everyone has an equal opportunity for eternal salvation.

Just curious, what do you believe happened to the souls of all the people who lived before Jesus?

Corey, from what little attention I've paid to this story, I'd probably agree with you. It did seem more like the media looking for a story rather than this particular business looking to make a statement.

As for the issue, I think it's really hard to have a law that is fair for everyone. For the most part, I think that private (especially non-necessity-type) businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone. Unfortunately, I don't see how to allow that without ending up with certain groups of people being heavily discriminated against.

Of course, one of the risks involved when choosing a career or choosing to start a certain kind of business is that things change, and you either need to evolve with the changes or move on. Same-sex marriage is quickly becoming legal throughout our country, and maybe it's time for anyone in a wedding-related business (excluding churches) to realize that they are going to have to provide services without discrimination or get into a different type of business.

rehmwa

******
Looks like the nice people who own that pizzeria will have to cater the gay wedding after all.

Ya, in pizza boxes with bible quotes on them.....

I wonder if there's a law against that....

In-N-Out Burger puts bible references on some of their containers. I don't see a problem with it.

But I'm still wondering why a pizza joint would be concerned about having to cater a gay wedding - probably not a scenario that comes up too often.

Quote

. . . is that skydiverly?

The term "skydiverly" conjures up an image of someone who drinks a lot of beer and moons planes. I'm trying to figure out how that fits into the context of any of these posts.

Driver1

. . . we'll throw Lubitz back in your faces.

And I'll just leave this meme here.

Well, at least the guy is getting his wish of having his name remembered.

jakee

***Don't get me wrong, she obviously doesn't understand the subtle nature and repercussions of being a government official and making a joke, but let's not get carried away. She didn't propose a law to the effect.

No, it's not a real proposal but only because she understands that it "would never be allowed".

I think her comments in this video indicate that the 'proposal' really is in line with what she actually thinks.

That kind of reporting drives me nuts. I'd rather hear what the woman is actually saying rather than hearing snippets of what she says mixed in with the reporter's paraphrasing, which gives the impression that they are twisting it for effect.

From what little I could find of her actual transcript, it sounds like it was a comment that has been taken out of context. It seems that the context was something to do with "guns don't kill people; people kill people." And she was talking about how there is a corruption of the soul that is leading to a lot of the violence in our country. And (perhaps with different wording), I think most of us would agree that there is a deep issue with violence in our country and that it goes way beyond the simple fact that a lot of people have guns.

I don't believe that she actually wants to make church mandatory. I do believe that she thinks religion may be the answer, and I would disagree with her there (though I don't have an answer of my own), but I do think it was just a comment to emphasize her point about guns/violence and that it's been taken out of context and blown out of proportion.

While I'm sure that some people live at home that long, I got the impression that jclalor was making a joke.

And, while AZ may be looking at mandatory church attendance, we've got the "Sodomite Suppression Act" going for us here in CA:
http://news.yahoo.com/california-acts-against-poll-measure-execute-gays-231339865.html;_ylt=AwrSyCM2zRVVNn8AiYDQtDMD


On facebook, I often mistake the real news in my feed for The Onion, and vice versa.

kallend

"Don't ascribe to terrorism that which can be adequately explained by mental illness"; me.

Yeah, with the news that's coming out, it does sound like mental illness may have been the cause. So far they are reporting that there are no religious/political motivations that would make this a terrorist act.

I have a lot of questions, but I'll wait to see what happens with the investigation. No point in speculating about the unknown.

yoink

***

What a shitty way to commit suicide if thats true...

And here I thought people jumping in front of passenger trains, buses or deliberately going in while skydiving were some fucked up ways to off yourself.

Taking out 150+ people while you're at it though... that takes the biscuit.

Yes, that puts it into the category of mass murder via "suicide attack."

If it does turn out to be certain that it was intentional, I doubt that suicide was his only intention.

Coreeece

This whole thing started by the American Medical Association creating policy that encouraged doctors to inquire about the presence of firearms in homes with children - we want to protect them...it's all about the children, right?

I'm not surprised that many people found it a bit peculiar that this policy singled out guns given that children who are accidentally killed by guns represents less than 1% of all unintentional childhood deaths.

Futhermore, many people just aren't comfortable with this type of information in their medical records, and then having that information shared with the government, let alone having their children being used as snitches...

Many of these people have been accused of wearing tinfoil hats, but I'd argue that it's those who trust the government with their privacy whose minds may have already been seized.

Now obviously, the greater of these two evils is the silencing of a doctors opinion...but shame on the AMA for making a spectacle and creating peculiar policy to empower doctors with a freedom they already had - as if doctors didn't already know what was best for their patients. It wreaks of liberal gun control tactics...

Wow, I pretty much agree with everything that you wrote. And I'm even (mostly) a bleeding-heart liberal.


__

Quote

. . . I have no idea what any of you guys are even trying to accomplish right now.

Wait, I was posting in SC; was I supposed to be trying to accomplish something?

This thread has made me curious, so I have a question for those of you who have young children. (I have no children.) It seems that there are an awful lot of things that pose a danger to kids. Do pediatricians actually attempt to go over all of this stuff? Or do they give you some sort of pamphlet that covers the most common dangers? Or recommend parenting classes which would allow more time to thoroughly cover this stuff?

From the experience I have with doctors, they seem to be pretty limited on time, so I am wondering how much parents rely on doctors (rather than other sources) as a source of safety information for their children?

Quote

Does your family doctor know you skydive? If so, has that physician apprised you of the various risks of skydiving?

If so, how correct was it? You think a whuffo doctor would know as much about skydiving risks as an anti-gun doctor knows about firearm safety?

Hey, even a whuffo doctor would know that the most effective way to prevent skydiving accidents is to not skydive.

That's funny; I was just thinking that dz.com should have an "ignore user" feature.

There is another forum I use a lot that has that feature. I didn't even know about it until recently, because I had never had a problem. Then this one user started being super annoying. Seems like it should be easy enough to simply not read a certain user's posts - which I tried, but someone pointed out the "ignore user" feature to me, and that makes it so much easier.

normiss

Interesting.
I've always thought of them as Legos.

I think it's "Legos" for most of us American heathens. But then we were never known for our proper use of the English language.

From the American Academy of Pediatrics:

Quote

AAP Policy
In 2012, the Academy reaffirmed its commitment to advocating for the strongest possible firearm regulations. The absence of guns in homes and communities is the most reliable and effective measure to prevent firearm-related injuries in children and adolescents. The AAP supports a number of specific measures to reduce the destructive effects of guns in the lives of children and adolescents, including the regulation of the manufacture, sale, purchase, ownership, and use of firearms; a ban assault weapons; and expanded regulations of handguns for civilian use. To prevent gun-related death and injuries, the AAP recommends that pediatricians provide firearm safety counseling to patients and their parents.

I think this sheds some light on part of the problem. It's more than just a simple/innocent question from physicians intended to protect children. Well, maybe that is the individual physician's intent. But when these medical associations are getting into gun politics - making statements about the "absence of guns in homes and communities" being the best way to protect children and then recommending that pediatricians provide counseling with this in mind - it's bound to turn into an issue.

https://www.aap.org/en-us/advocacy-and-policy/state-advocacy/Documents/firearms_slr.pdf

billvon

>Well, I think there would be a problem if the doctor didn't want to treat, for example, a
>homosexual patient (based only on the fact that the patient is homosexual.

Agreed. However, by the same measure, he should be able to ask if he is sexually active, and if he is, recommend condom usage. (Similarly, the patient should be free to refuse to answer.)

Do you think that the patient's refusal to answer the question should be a legitimate reason for the doctor to give him 30 days notice to have to find a new doctor?

kallend

******************>You have a solution?

Sure. Let doctors ask. Let patients refuse to answer. Problem solved.

From the link you posted, one patient was told she would have to find another doctor when she refused to answer her doctor's question about guns. Do you agree with a doctor being able to refuse treatment if a patient refuses to answer?

AFAIK, a doctor can ask a patient to find another doctor any time for pretty much any reason except prohibited discrimination. The doctor has to continue to provide treatment for another 30 days before termination.

Fair enough. If that's the case, then I have to admit there is no problem here. It did say that she was given 30 days to find another doctor.

No-one should be forced to work for someone they don't wish to work for, whether the worker is a physician, secretary or construction worker.

Well, I think there would be a problem if the doctor didn't want to treat, for example, a homosexual patient (based only on the fact that the patient is homosexual).

Actually, there are probably a lot of scenarios where refusal of treatment is not ethical, even with 30 days notice.

See the words in RED in my previous response.

OK. And I guess this Act has also made it illegal for a doctor to refuse treatment to a patient who refuses to answer irrelevant questions about gun ownership.

kallend

************>You have a solution?

Sure. Let doctors ask. Let patients refuse to answer. Problem solved.

From the link you posted, one patient was told she would have to find another doctor when she refused to answer her doctor's question about guns. Do you agree with a doctor being able to refuse treatment if a patient refuses to answer?

AFAIK, a doctor can ask a patient to find another doctor any time for pretty much any reason except prohibited discrimination. The doctor has to continue to provide treatment for another 30 days before termination.

Fair enough. If that's the case, then I have to admit there is no problem here. It did say that she was given 30 days to find another doctor.

No-one should be forced to work for someone they don't wish to work for, whether the worker is a physician, secretary or construction worker.

Well, I think there would be a problem if the doctor didn't want to treat, for example, a homosexual patient (based only on the fact that the patient is homosexual).

Actually, there are probably a lot of scenarios where refusal of treatment is not ethical, even with 30 days notice.