They just offered to sell Munipharma... But feels too small to me. I won't believe justice is done until every penny is recovered from them personally as they've already syphoned out billions in profit. And ideally face criminal consequences if litigators can prove they broke laws - whether false marketing, bribes, RICO, whatever it takes.
As you can see (if you have 'showdead' enabled), the offending comment is already flagged and dead after only 15 minutes. The mods do pay attention to these flags and will take it from there.
We've banned the account above, for obvious reasons.
I wish articles didn't use life expectancy which is always misleading and confusing since it's severely affected by infant mortality. What would be more interesting would be 2 numbers, infant mortality and life expectancy at age 5.
Regardless, in an article, saying that the life expectancy is 39 years old will make people think that people die at an extremely young age when often it's mostly due to infant/child mortality. Which is why separating it would make things clearer.
There is a guy I met in gym who was asking me why I take protein shakes when they are so expensive.
He told me he takes some protein injected into bloodstream which is more effective and produces better results than fake optimum nutrition protein I get from Amazon.
So I asked him to show that protein, guess what, it was anabolic steroids. Sure did it produce amazing results and he thinks side effects are because Rahu in his Kundali.
> “Tramadol information would come to every single clinician,” said Dr. Bobby John, a Delhi-based health expert. “Why? Because there is some drug salesperson sitting outside your door saying, ‘Hey, there’s a new drug. It’s non-addictive.’ Standard playbook.”
It's really important that people have easy access to opioids at the end of their life.
Tramadol is a terrible medication and is almost always the wrong choice of med.
But calling it non-addictive is criminal. It should be, at least. This thing very much is.
It wouldn't really surprise me as it looks like a damn tough life that they have.
I’m not saying addiction is good or whatever, but opiates taken properly are safer than Tylenol and without money being an issue I think would help a lot of people. People on heroin look kind of shitty not because the drug is hurting them, but because the cost is hurting them.
Of course what really happens is that a rich person takes more and more, gets more and more addicted and thus must take more for the same effect, until they take enough heroin to literally turn off their heart and they die, usually in their bathtub. How many people die from a tylenol overdose.
If you make heroin legal you just ensure the same fate reaches many more people. Perhaps we can make heroin legal for people already addicted but lets not kid ourselves that is just kind of a prolonged assisted suicide.
I have no doubt that you feel miserable and you felt much better on heroin, but that is a product of your addiction rather than anything else. Healthy people can feel mental and physical clarity without drugs.
This is true.
> opiates taken properly are safer than Tylenol
This is ridiculous.
It's somewhat true. The amount of paracetamol needed to reduce severe pain can cause many health problems, while a low dose of opiates would manage the pain. With opiates, prolonged use is more of an issue.
So an opiate would be the safer option while getting a tooth pulled, but Tylenol would be safer for the recovery period.
(Saying that one of them might be one of the two Kurtzgesagt videos that they decided to remove afterwards).
Coke is both better and worse. Not quite as addictive, but it seems to damage people more than heroin does (particularly mentally).
Unlike cocaine, opiates would hurt productivity in general.
There was a time when many people were addicted in China to opium...
Wars were and are fought over best growing grounds of many drugs.
Is that gone as part of some stupid war on drugs or other?
> If you're dependent on heroin or another opioid drug, you may be offered a substitute drug, such as methadone.
It's also used legally in the UK in paliative care for cases where it's easier to administer than morphine.
Somehow it didn't turn out so well. (Google 'opiate epidemic'.)
Then I convinced her to give it up after I did so myself. Now it's long time, and we are clean.
Why did we stop? I always knew drugs are bad for us, they promote neurotoxicity and damage brain. I tried to make her understand this many times but one time she nearly died with drug overdose after that she changed and we quit.
Few changes I noticed is that I became lot less combative in my arguments, became less concerned about my political and religious beliefs.
And more or less, I lost the anexity issue I used to have.
Bad see effects? I do not know of any, I've good long term memory and I do not notice any change in that either.
I understand drugs are mind altering substance and possibly neurotoxic which could be fatal for our brain.
Worst thing is that, many people get addicted to these and are never able to walk out of addiction. Luckily, that was not our fate.
So I think not all people are addicted to drugs and many can quit it at will whenever they want.
Legalisation would be better, although you can buy any drug in Europe but problem is that if you are caught with it or you overdose then how do you call ambulance? Many would be terrified if they overdosed and will die.
Talking with my doctor friend in EU, he says you can deny that you took drugs and claim that someone else put that in your drink or something and the case ends there but how many know it?
Those motor ones are called Vikram or Auto, and only manual one is called Riskshaw but now electric one is also called Rickshaw.
It's like people who haven't done sky diving trying to make laws againt sky diving.
Rich people do drugs too but it's always when poor people do it it's somehow bad.
This is an absurd argument, obviously. This would be like saying that pedestrians hit by a car don't really have the right to talk about regulating cars because they can't understand the power that you feel when you drove your car. Drugs do not affect only to people doing drugs.
Yes, cars should be banned. People who have sex make loud noises ... so sex should be banned.
A few lines above, when you put as example "would be like trying to make laws against sky diving without experiencing sky diving". Making laws = regulating
I never talked about banning sex, or cars, I said that even people that do not drive can (and will) have a word about regulating car use, in their own interest, and also for the public interest. Same for drug use.
Regulating is not the same as banning, so please don't put words in my mouth trying to reduce the conversation to absurd. Is a cheap trick.
Drugs are not regulated but are illegal. If you don't understand the difference between regulating and illegality ... you are so intelligent.
illegal ∈ regulated
> Drugs are not regulated but are illegal
Drugs are strongly regulated (ask your pharmacist) AND some of them are strongly regulated AND are also illegal
Illegal by definition means that there was a regulation that created this status. Those drugs would be alegal otherwise.
Regulated means that for some special cases the use is allowed, even if is not ok for a recreational uses. A physicist can have solid reasons to give a morphine derivative to somebody in a perfectly legal situation
So they're not exactly illegal.
Some other classes of drugs are totally illegal for use in humans. (Limited to research only with extra hoops.) Not opiates.
Examples include: LSD, MDMA (changing), PCP, Psylocybin, Psilocin, Muscarine, a bunch of chemically similar drugs and a few other hallucinogens.
THC and CBD were in this class and are now legal in some countries and states of USA.