Are You Drugged?

[Irish Guy]

are you talking about radiation therapy or something else?

 

Nope, not cancer - more of the unnecessary "I think I'm not feeling well , so I'll get my doctor to prescribe me this medicine." Not that this is a medicine, but Olestra comes to mind where the side effects are worse than the benefit, IMHO.

[sk]

are you talking about radiation therapy or something else?

 

Nope, not cancer - more of the unnecessary "I think I'm not feeling well , so I'll get my doctor to prescribe me this medicine." Not that this is a medicine, but Olestra comes to mind where the side effects are worse than the benefit, IMHO.

 

I am not sure olestra qualifies as "Medicine" and i think i agree with you.

[tvashtarkatena]

Given that the "we bear the costs of your behavior, so we have the right to regulate it" argument has brought us compulsory seat-belt and helmet laws, it's not a stretch to imagine that there are those who would seek to use the same argument to grant the government the right to do the very things that you mention. Whether the government would actually do so is an open question, and it would be interesting to learn more about how other countries have managed to reconcile the imperative to cut costs with the necessity of maintaining personal freedoms that might be curtailed or regulated by the state - from what you eat to what you weigh.

 

I think the use of public roadways presents a special case in favor or regulated behaviour. The ubiquity of this public resource, and the inherent and immediate danger posed by moving vehicles and the very high monetary and human cost of accidents necessitates a higher standard safety regulation than do most other activities in life.

 

Most folks would not support allowing a government which turns a blind eye towards auto makers who make inherently unsafe cars. Much of this type of regulation aims to prevent injuries should an accident occur, but not necessarily accidents themselves. Similarly, seatbelts also do not prevent accidents, they mitigate injuries should an accident occur, yet there are many who object to drivers taking some of the regulatory burden that auto makers have shouldered from the beginning. If the state can (popularly) mandate automobile safety features, it seems fair that it may also require drivers to use those features.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 3, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[Buckaroo]

America has the worse diet in the developed world.

 

America takes the most pharmaceuticals in the developed world, there is a connection.

 

It all really started to go south in the early 90's when they deregulated drug commercials on the television.

 

That and the conventional doctors who know absolutely nothing about nutrition.

 

Always treating the symptoms, never the root cause which is usually poor diet.

 

allergies are amplified, aggravated by poor diet.

 

white sugar is in many processed food and now high fructose corn syrup is also, which is linked to the huge rise in diabetes.

 

aspartame----neurotoxin, especially when heated like during storage or in hot tea or coffee.

 

fluoride, neurotoxin, sedative

 

======================

 

the good

 

vitamin C is the best, from 4,000 to 8,000 mg/day, the MDR is way low.

 

greens are healing, like spirulina or spinach or wheat grass juice

 

 

[Dechristo]

 

vitamin C is the best, from 4,000 to 8,000 mg/day, the MDR is way low.

 

greens are healing, like spirulina or spinach or wheat grass juice

 

 

I'mma gonna cut back on my intake of these items as there is evidence their ingestion leads to surrealistic and paranoid mental paradigms and messianic complex.

[JayB]

Given that the "we bear the costs of your behavior, so we have the right to regulate it" argument has brought us compulsory seat-belt and helmet laws, it's not a stretch to imagine that there are those who would seek to use the same argument to grant the government the right to do the very things that you mention. Whether the government would actually do so is an open question, and it would be interesting to learn more about how other countries have managed to reconcile the imperative to cut costs with the necessity of maintaining personal freedoms that might be curtailed or regulated by the state - from what you eat to what you weigh.

 

I think the use of public roadways presents a special case in favor or regulated behaviour. The ubiquity of this public resource, and the inherent and immediate danger posed by moving vehicles and the very high monetary and human cost of accidents necessitates a higher standard safety regulation than do most other activities in life.

 

Most folks would not support allowing a government which turns a blind eye towards auto makers who make inherently unsafe cars. Much of this type of regulation aims to prevent injuries should an accident occur, but not necessarily accidents themselves. Similarly, seatbelts also do not prevent accidents, they mitigate injuries should an accident occur, yet there are many who object to drivers taking some of the regulatory burden that auto makers have shouldered from the beginning. If the state can (popularly) mandate automobile safety features, it seems fair that it may also require drivers to use those features.

 

 

I don't think that compulsory seatbelt or helmet laws are egregious enough abridgements of freedom to warrant a sustained outcry, and I think that the "public" can make a case that since "it" is bearing the costs associated with the exercise of the said freedoms, "it" has a right to impose constraints on the manner in which they are excercised.

 

It's not the weakness of the argument, but the strength that is a concern to me when it comes to "the public" applying the same reasoning to what is acceptable and what is not when it comes to the excercise of freedoms in a manner that has implications for an individual's personal health since these will by definition have implications for the costs borne by a health-care system owned, paid for, and financed by the public. These may not be insurmountable hazards, but they're worth considering, especially by a group of people who spend a great deal of time engaged in behaviors that most of "the public" view as frivolous at best, and unjustifiably reckless at worst.