FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


One thing.





CompDude
Name one thing that you would want Obama to do for the country.
ocalhoun
Push for FairTax as much as he's been pushing for health care 'reform'.
Afaceinthematrix
Legalize all drugs... It would improve the economy and I see no reason why the government should be able to ban them... That's just unwanted government regulation in our personal lives...
lagoon
Get a National Health Service almost equivalent to ours in Britain.
ocalhoun
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Legalize all drugs... It would improve the economy and I see no reason why the government should be able to ban them... That's just unwanted government regulation in our personal lives...

Well, legalize marijuana, because there's no overdose...
But the rest are dangerous... I'd prefer that those be available by prescription only.
deanhills
Make it easier for people who are well educated and have skills to offer to emigrate to the United States. Currently it is almost impossible unless you are totally brilliant, gifted, lucky or just plain beautiful.
Afaceinthematrix
ocalhoun wrote:
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Legalize all drugs... It would improve the economy and I see no reason why the government should be able to ban them... That's just unwanted government regulation in our personal lives...

Well, legalize marijuana, because there's no overdose...
But the rest are dangerous... I'd prefer that those be available by prescription only.


Really? I thought you would be all for the right to screw up your life and use dangerous drugs. Of course drugs like heroin are extremely dangerous. But you should have a right to use them and risk OD. The government not allowing you to do so is just unwanted government regulation in our personal lives. I believe that you should be able to do anything you want as long as it doesn't affect anyone else. So as long as you're not driving (or doing something similar) under the influence, you should be able to be under the influence...
ocalhoun
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Legalize all drugs... It would improve the economy and I see no reason why the government should be able to ban them... That's just unwanted government regulation in our personal lives...

Well, legalize marijuana, because there's no overdose...
But the rest are dangerous... I'd prefer that those be available by prescription only.


Really? I thought you would be all for the right to screw up your life and use dangerous drugs. Of course drugs like heroin are extremely dangerous. But you should have a right to use them and risk OD. The government not allowing you to do so is just unwanted government regulation in our personal lives. I believe that you should be able to do anything you want as long as it doesn't affect anyone else. So as long as you're not driving (or doing something similar) under the influence, you should be able to be under the influence...

Well, I would also make prescription laws more lenient.
Basically, you could get prescribed any drug (or medicine) by simply telling a doctor you want it, even if you're perfectly healthy. The doctor would then have to explain to you a prepared list of side effects, risks of addiction, risks of overdose, and risks of long term use. He or she would then give you a prescription for a month's supply of measured doses. When that runs out, you'd need to see the doctor again to get more, and the doctor would refer you to a rehab clinic if you showed signs of extreme addiction or dramatically worsening health conditions caused by drug abuse.

Basically, allow people to take whatever they want, but make sure they're aware of the risks, and make sure they get help if they're hopelessly addicted. (And also make unintentional overdose unlikely by giving it out in pre-measured doses.) It would also help make sure all the drugs go through legal (taxed) channels, the taxes from them being used to help pay for those rehab clinics.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Basically, you could get prescribed any drug (or medicine) by simply telling a doctor you want it, even if you're perfectly healthy. The doctor would then have to explain to you a prepared list of side effects, risks of addiction, risks of overdose, and risks of long term use. He or she would then give you a prescription for a month's supply of measured doses. When that runs out, you'd need to see the doctor again to get more, and the doctor would refer you to a rehab clinic if you showed signs of extreme addiction or dramatically worsening health conditions caused by drug abuse.
I would go one step further, and allow pharmacists to fulfill this role in certain classes of prescriptions such as Voltaren for muscle pain, and anti-biotics, with similar limitations, i.e. use for only a month, etc. It would definitely be a savings in medical costs, as I find it a tremendous waste to go to a doctor for a prescription, apart from being in total pain and all the torture one has to go through when you need the muscle relaxant immediately.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Basically, you could get prescribed any drug (or medicine) by simply telling a doctor you want it, even if you're perfectly healthy. The doctor would then have to explain to you a prepared list of side effects, risks of addiction, risks of overdose, and risks of long term use. He or she would then give you a prescription for a month's supply of measured doses. When that runs out, you'd need to see the doctor again to get more, and the doctor would refer you to a rehab clinic if you showed signs of extreme addiction or dramatically worsening health conditions caused by drug abuse.
I would go one step further, and allow pharmacists to fulfill this role in certain classes of prescriptions such as Voltaren for muscle pain, and anti-biotics, with similar limitations, i.e. use for only a month, etc. It would definitely be a savings in medical costs, as I find it a tremendous waste to go to a doctor for a prescription, apart from being in total pain and all the torture one has to go through when you need the muscle relaxant immediately.

Well, I figure a given drug/medicine should be over-the-counter or prescription-only based on how dangerous it is if misused.

Hopefully you could find an OTC muscle relaxer, but if you can't, it should be because all the ones that exist are relatively dangerous, and could lead to much worse problems if used improperly or used when not needed.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Hopefully you could find an OTC muscle relaxer, but if you can't, it should be because all the ones that exist are relatively dangerous, and could lead to much worse problems if used improperly or used when not needed.
Agreed. Pharmacists, however are probably sometimes even better trained than doctors to pick up on limitations as they have perhaps more than a direct stake in the legality of things. A doctor may even forget why he has described a medicine in that if he does not refer back to his notes, it may slip his mind. Whereas a Pharmacist would have the record straight in front of him. Presumably there would be a central database that can be consulted by all Pharmacists for prescriptions for any given patient.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Hopefully you could find an OTC muscle relaxer, but if you can't, it should be because all the ones that exist are relatively dangerous, and could lead to much worse problems if used improperly or used when not needed.
Agreed. Pharmacists, however are probably sometimes even better trained than doctors to pick up on limitations as they have perhaps more than a direct stake in the legality of things. A doctor may even forget why he has described a medicine in that if he does not refer back to his notes, it may slip his mind. Whereas a Pharmacist would have the record straight in front of him. Presumably there would be a central database that can be consulted by all Pharmacists for prescriptions for any given patient.

But there's also somewhat of a conflict of interest for the pharmacist. The doctor's goal is to keep the patient healthy... the pharmacist's goal is to sell drugs. Occasionally, these two goals could work against each other, and in cases like that, I'd rather have the doctor making the decision.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
But there's also somewhat of a conflict of interest for the pharmacist. The doctor's goal is to keep the patient healthy... the pharmacist's goal is to sell drugs. Occasionally, these two goals could work against each other, and in cases like that, I'd rather have the doctor making the decision.
I don't completely believe the latter, not with the pharmacists I know however, but if the argument is true, how different would it be for doctors though, because in my experience most of them only write prescriptions and very rarely refer back to them for testing. They don't even point out the pros and cons of the medication to you. So in effect one is really paying for the prescription, for the sake of a prescription.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
in my experience most of them only write prescriptions and very rarely refer back to them for testing. They don't even point out the pros and cons of the medication to you.

Well, under the new prescription scheme, that would also change. They would be required to point out the pros and cons, and you'd have to come back for 'testing' (at least a general look-over to make sure the drug isn't harming you) every time you wanted a refill.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Well, under the new prescription scheme, that would also change. They would be required to point out the pros and cons, and you'd have to come back for 'testing' (at least a general look-over to make sure the drug isn't harming you) every time you wanted a refill.
I'll be all for that. Anything to be able to trust these guys as both doctors and pharmacists are there to make money, so there are always those among them who may not really care, or are just plain idiots with the presumption of being professional and being primarily focussed on cashing in at the end of the day. The least the doctor who is writing the prescription should do is ask the patient to read through the fine print of the drugs he is prescribing.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Well, under the new prescription scheme, that would also change. They would be required to point out the pros and cons, and you'd have to come back for 'testing' (at least a general look-over to make sure the drug isn't harming you) every time you wanted a refill.
I'll be all for that. Anything to be able to trust these guys as both doctors and pharmacists are there to make money, so there are always those among them who may not really care, or are just plain idiots with the presumption of being professional and being primarily focussed on cashing in at the end of the day. The least the doctor who is writing the prescription should do is ask the patient to read through the fine print of the drugs he is prescribing.
liljp617
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
in my experience most of them only write prescriptions and very rarely refer back to them for testing. They don't even point out the pros and cons of the medication to you.

Well, under the new prescription scheme, that would also change. They would be required to point out the pros and cons, and you'd have to come back for 'testing' (at least a general look-over to make sure the drug isn't harming you) every time you wanted a refill.


Who's paying for these (what I gather are mandatory) "tests?"
Vrythramax
Abdicate and name me as his successor...well that's actually 2 things, but what the hell it's the holiday season. Smile
ocalhoun
liljp617 wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
in my experience most of them only write prescriptions and very rarely refer back to them for testing. They don't even point out the pros and cons of the medication to you.

Well, under the new prescription scheme, that would also change. They would be required to point out the pros and cons, and you'd have to come back for 'testing' (at least a general look-over to make sure the drug isn't harming you) every time you wanted a refill.


Who's paying for these (what I gather are mandatory) "tests?"

The patient, of course.
Doesn't the patient (or the patient's insurance) always pay for doctor's visits?
Alaskacameradude
Follow through on his 'paygo' promise in which he said he would NOT increase our national debt....
but instead have a source of money for all spending increases. I think the most dangerous
thing to our nations future is our ENORMOUS national debt. Oh yeah, and do something about
the crappy economy while you are at it! (I realize that these two goals may be mutually
exclusive.....but if he does those two things, he will get a lot of independents back on his
side).
Afaceinthematrix
ocalhoun wrote:
Well, I would also make prescription laws more lenient.
Basically, you could get prescribed any drug (or medicine) by simply telling a doctor you want it, even if you're perfectly healthy. The doctor would then have to explain to you a prepared list of side effects, risks of addiction, risks of overdose, and risks of long term use. He or she would then give you a prescription for a month's supply of measured doses. When that runs out, you'd need to see the doctor again to get more, and the doctor would refer you to a rehab clinic if you showed signs of extreme addiction or dramatically worsening health conditions caused by drug abuse.

Basically, allow people to take whatever they want, but make sure they're aware of the risks, and make sure they get help if they're hopelessly addicted. (And also make unintentional overdose unlikely by giving it out in pre-measured doses.) It would also help make sure all the drugs go through legal (taxed) channels, the taxes from them being used to help pay for those rehab clinics.


Ummmm... Well drug education is shoved down our throats on the television and in school constantly so I do not think there is a single person left in this country who doesn't know the risks of using drugs. So I think that having to go to the doctor just to get your drugs is a pain in the ass.

However, I don't see too much as a problem with it as long as you're allowed to get your prescription no matter what. The doctor should not be able to tell you, "No. You cannot have your heroin prescription."

I believe in personal freedom and you should be allowed to use as many (and as much) drugs as you wish. Of course, I think that drugs should be heavily taxed and the tax revenue should go to free rehabilitation programs for any who wishes to get clean. If you wish to go to rehab, you'll have probably paid for it in the taxes that you used to buy those drugs (marijuana tax would raise a bunch of money - I seem to know more people who have smoked marijuana than who have not).
deanhills
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Ummmm... Well drug education is shoved down our throats on the television and in school constantly so I do not think there is a single person left in this country who doesn't know the risks of using drugs. So I think that having to go to the doctor just to get your drugs is a pain in the ass.

However, I don't see too much as a problem with it as long as you're allowed to get your prescription no matter what. The doctor should not be able to tell you, "No. You cannot have your heroin prescription."
I agree completely with you. There is so much information available everywhere on the Internet that one can basically even research the drugs that are available for any given condition and what to look out for. Yet doctors still have this very old and traditional attitude of knowing better, and treating people as ignorant. So possibly they should be trained better to recognize the difference and to treat patients with more respect, including giving them what they need provided of course the patient can demonstrate why it is needed. I'm almost certain that more often than not patients are so well read in whatever condition they have, including the details of medications that are available that doctors can't keep up with patients. So possibly it is also up to the patients to find doctors who are more on their level and will give them what they need.
Afaceinthematrix
deanhills wrote:
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Ummmm... Well drug education is shoved down our throats on the television and in school constantly so I do not think there is a single person left in this country who doesn't know the risks of using drugs. So I think that having to go to the doctor just to get your drugs is a pain in the ass.

However, I don't see too much as a problem with it as long as you're allowed to get your prescription no matter what. The doctor should not be able to tell you, "No. You cannot have your heroin prescription."
I agree completely with you. There is so much information available everywhere on the Internet that one can basically even research the drugs that are available for any given condition and what to look out for. Yet doctors still have this very old and traditional attitude of knowing better, and treating people as ignorant. So possibly they should be trained better to recognize the difference and to treat patients with more respect, including giving them what they need provided of course the patient can demonstrate why it is needed. I'm almost certain that more often than not patients are so well read in whatever condition they have, including the details of medications that are available that doctors can't keep up with patients. So possibly it is also up to the patients to find doctors who are more on their level and will give them what they need.


i thnk uyo may have competely missed my whoel point. it has nothin to do with doctors knowing or not noing better. it has everthing to do with having to go to doxtor to get permission to do smething that should be legal being a waste of time when you learn it in school and on tv anyways. sorry for not making myself cleearer befor.
deanhills
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
i thnk uyo may have competely missed my whoel point. it has nothin to do with doctors knowing or not noing better. it has everthing to do with having to go to doxtor to get permission to do smething that should be legal being a waste of time when you learn it in school and on tv anyways. sorry for not making myself cleearer befor.
I did get the point, sorry, and you made your point very well. I did not mean to distract from what you said! I completely understood where you were coming from. I just found something in your posting that caught my attention and that I felt pretty strongly about. I agree with your point that it is a waste of time to go to the doctor for something you already have researched. In fact it is totally irritating for something like a really bad back and knowing you need Voltaren for it and you having to go through the hoops and agony of getting to a doctor's office, waiting for him with other very sick patients while you are almost dying with pain, and him then writing a piece of paper, then finding your way to the pharmacy, and paying lots of money for it on top of it all. Perhaps the layers of medical bureacracy may also be part of the price of that medication.
toasterintheoven
smoking marijuana makes you want to do tha right things, but tha bad man wanna make marijuana a bad thing to do, or to smoke, and tha why we have problem when we no need problem
ocalhoun
toasterintheoven wrote:
smoking marijuana makes you want to do tha right things, but tha bad man wanna make marijuana a bad thing to do, or to smoke, and tha why we have problem when we no need problem

Is it just me, or was that post made under the influence of marijuana?
Barmij
Reduce militarian expenses and get back soldiers to the country
Zsupermassive
Do something about the country's economic consolidation.
Dennise
Get us out of the Middle East! This from a 4-year veteran of the U.S.A.F.
handfleisch
Dennise wrote:
Get us out of the Middle East! This from a 4-year veteran of the U.S.A.F.


I second the notion, but the military corporations and their billion$ of profit first have to find a new place and excuse for a war that will ensure them of tax dollars for another decade.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
I second the notion, but the military corporations and their billion$ of profit first have to find a new place and excuse for a war that will ensure them of tax dollars for another decade.
I've just seen a very really long video (a whopping 3.5 hours of it) last night called the "Money Masters", and have to agree with you on the latter part of your point Handfleisch. What an eye opener the show was. Looks as though there is a huge plutocracy (the money masters) who seem to be the real decision makers and will exploit any situation they can find to make their billions. I previously thought theories like that were just conspiracy theories, but there were quite a few facts over 3.5 hours of viewing that seem to substantiate what they were saying.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
I previously thought theories like that were just conspiracy theories, but there were quite a few facts over 3.5 hours of viewing that seem to substantiate what they were saying.


A- Always fact-check conspiracy theories before believing them... with different sources, no matter how convincing the first source is.

B- Some conspiracy theories are true.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I previously thought theories like that were just conspiracy theories, but there were quite a few facts over 3.5 hours of viewing that seem to substantiate what they were saying.


A- Always fact-check conspiracy theories before believing them... with different sources, no matter how convincing the first source is.

B- Some conspiracy theories are true.
Have you viewed the documentary? It was full of factual evidence. Does not mean that I believe it though, but I have an open mind on it. Probably have to find someone who has reproduced a critique of the DVD with factual evidence to check the facts, but in the meanwhile found it a very interesting show.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Have you viewed the documentary?

I much prefer books... and there are plenty of books out there exposing corruption.
(I mainly prefer books because then I don't have to look at human faces or hear human voices... so distasteful.)
Quote:
It was full of factual evidence. Does not mean that I believe it though, but I have an open mind on it. Probably have to find someone who has reproduced a critique of the DVD with factual evidence to check the facts,

Why depend on others?
Pick a few random facts from it that should be public knowledge and simply google them.
Not the most thorough check-up, but if they are outrageously lying to you, it will show up easily.
The more different sources you find, the better informed you will be, even if -- especially if -- all of them are lying.

Now, defense contractors and the politicians that hire them have an obvious moral hazard at play when the contractors start supporting political campaigns and giving 'gifts'. And given how suceptible politicians are to such things, it would be extremely surprising if horrible things weren't happening. And this particular type of corruption may have some of the worst side-effects of any.

That said, I think we need to attack the root of the problem (corruption) rather than one of the branches (greed of defense industry).
If we could instill politicians with integrity, the greed of the defense industry would be ineffectual and futile (and relatively harmless).
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Have you viewed the documentary?

I much prefer books... and there are plenty of books out there exposing corruption.
(I mainly prefer books because then I don't have to look at human faces or hear human voices... so distasteful.)
Quote:
It was full of factual evidence. Does not mean that I believe it though, but I have an open mind on it. Probably have to find someone who has reproduced a critique of the DVD with factual evidence to check the facts,

Why depend on others?
Pick a few random facts from it that should be public knowledge and simply google them.
Not the most thorough check-up, but if they are outrageously lying to you, it will show up easily.
The more different sources you find, the better informed you will be, even if -- especially if -- all of them are lying.
I Google all the time. But thanks for the advice anyway. Smile
Related topics
look at this
W00t! Something that finally fixes IE.
I want my own website desgin not PHP just my own thing 150f$
I realise the irrelivance..
Google Talk 1.0.0.66 Beta
Not a real problem, just a funny thing about Fantastico...
Oh Gods please stop it!
How do you keep the CD-Drive from making too much noise.
My quiz thing ;)
The next BIG THING --- Thomas
Crazy things you have done
Scalable (in size) Forums - Is there such a thing?
Damn what a great thing !
add some thing like ebay
Anti-Saddam tendancy of our president is a good thing.
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.