Started By
Message

re: What's your take on prescription drug laws?

Posted on 12/24/14 at 10:54 pm to
Posted by TigersforEver
Alexandria, LA
Member since Aug 2008
1930 posts
Posted on 12/24/14 at 10:54 pm to
I agree with everything IB has said.

Also, when it comes to things like painkillers and ADD meds (my gf actually needs them and gets treated like a criminal trying to get her refills), this may sound heartless but I really don't care if people abuse them and die. That's their problem, and shouldn't inconvenience people the drugs would actually help.
Posted by tigerbait3488
River Ridge
Member since Dec 2007
10435 posts
Posted on 12/24/14 at 11:10 pm to
Do you ever think about the fact that all these people who are abusing pills are making it harder for the ones who need it to actually get it. Every Norco script I get and the patient has never been to me before, I am looking them up on the board. Its wasting my time as a pharmacist to look half of these abusers up only to see they just had it filled at another store. Makes me resentful. Pharmacist did not go to 6 yrs of school to be legal drug pushers. But thats where we are in this industry and its only getting alot worse.
Posted by TigersforEver
Alexandria, LA
Member since Aug 2008
1930 posts
Posted on 12/24/14 at 11:21 pm to
quote:

Do you ever think about the fact that all these people who are abusing pills are making it harder for the ones who need it to actually get it. Every Norco script I get and the patient has never been to me before, I am looking them up on the board. Its wasting my time as a pharmacist to look half of these abusers up only to see they just had it filled at another store. Makes me resentful. Pharmacist did not go to 6 yrs of school to be legal drug pushers. But thats where we are in this industry and its only getting alot worse.


So wouldn't you rather not have to worry about screening, and what people do with it is purely their business?
Posted by tigerbait3488
River Ridge
Member since Dec 2007
10435 posts
Posted on 12/24/14 at 11:29 pm to
Impossible. DEA and the state board would shut us down. I am just glad we have some monitoring. About 3-4 yrs ago, we had zero monitoring and had no idea what their history was. I had a guy today come in and tried to give me a story that he was early on his Norco script bc the pharmacist at the store he was getting it filled was stealing it. Junkie trying to get his xmas eve high.
This post was edited on 12/24/14 at 11:30 pm
Posted by tigerbait3488
River Ridge
Member since Dec 2007
10435 posts
Posted on 12/24/14 at 11:32 pm to
Just think about all these people (and they are ALOT) on the road and driving on the same roads as you on this stuff. Scary.
Posted by DrunkerThanThou
Unfortunately Mississippi
Member since Feb 2013
2846 posts
Posted on 12/24/14 at 11:39 pm to
Most people don't understand the difference between viral and bacterial infections and the ones who do often fail to take their rx antibiotics as they should. It only takes a small percentage of dumbshits to pave the way for the next epidemic
Posted by Dick Leverage
In The HizHouse
Member since Nov 2013
9000 posts
Posted on 12/25/14 at 1:28 am to
I read this entire thread. Your perspective is more persuasive and based in both fact and common sense. I declare you the victor.
Posted by TigersforEver
Alexandria, LA
Member since Aug 2008
1930 posts
Posted on 12/25/14 at 9:28 pm to
quote:

DEA


Shouldn't exist. Along with the EPA, DOTD, IRS, HUD, and so many more

ETA: how could I forget the ATF?!
This post was edited on 12/25/14 at 9:30 pm
Posted by Iosh
Bureau of Interstellar Immigration
Member since Dec 2012
18941 posts
Posted on 12/25/14 at 11:56 pm to
quote:

Penicillin was discovered in 1928 and it is still effective against a lot of bugs today. So much for the dangers of super bugs.
I'm literally agape at the terrible logic of this argument. "Not all bugs are superbugs yet, therefore superbugs aren't a danger."

And if you or anyone else want to accuse that of being a straw man I want you to explain how the first sentence in this "argument" could possibly be interpreted differently. Because the obvious implication is that until an antibiotic is totally ineffective against all bacteria, everywhere, you won't be convinced.

Which shows you don't understand mutation, epidemiology, or literally anything being discussed ITT

Like, the majority of staph isolated since the 1960s have produced penicillinase. Gonorrhea since the 1980s. Strep is mostly there now. But clearly since we can still use good old Penicillin V against shite like anthrax (which isn't prevalent enough to have ubiquitous resistance yet) this is all bullshite right?
This post was edited on 12/26/14 at 12:14 am
Posted by Tiguar
Montana
Member since Mar 2012
33131 posts
Posted on 12/26/14 at 12:19 am to


penicillin has such a narrow spectrum right now from mutations that we only use it for really specific infections or after cultures are back.

dude needs to stick to tax credits
first pageprev pagePage 5 of 5Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram