Members of the American Lung Association should lose their medical licenses...

[GGT]

For the most part we know caffeine to be a fairly safe substance with few (if ANY) long-term adverse effects. People can, for the most part, make safe and informed choices regarding caffeine. You can't make an informed choice about a substance that hasn't been studied.

Cain seems to have returned to serving his usual flavour of crazy after having tried to play at medicine.

Caffeine an be "abused" and be potentially dangerous, though. Just to nit-pick a bit.

(Add a shot of concentrated caffeine with a shot of booze, it's the reason cocktails came to be in the first place. Mixing a stimulant with a depressant to get the maximum high, they called them Highballs.)

Anyway, since you asked about libertarianism in another thread, I thought it might be interesting to apply that school of thought to medicine. Or at least patient education. Libertarianism is more acceptable as a subset in other fields than pure politics.

[CitizenCain]

look dummy,

Don't get all pissy at me. You're the retard who suggested banning everything we can't prove is safe. You strike me as one of those morons whose signed a petition to ban dihydrogen oxide because it causes thousands of deaths every year. And, by the way, why don't we get the government to ban it? It's clearly unsafe, and God knows, we need the government to control us, for our own good.

Caffeine an be "abused" and be potentially dangerous, though.

And, as it is a stimulant, it's probably as damaging to the cardiovascular system as nicotine is. Clearly, the government should step in and ban it until more research is done.

[']['ear]

Riveting tale chap!

Beware of karma. Besides, I didn't even tell a story, so you weren't emotionally overburdened, were you?

BOOOM HEADSHOT

Did you really just type that?

Vaping's probably better for the heart and circulatory system than cigarettes, too... none of those nasty artery-hardening chemicals you get from inhaling smoke.

Absolutely true. But since very little is worse, have you proved anything? Nicotine is still a dangerous drug, and it's much more so without the limits on intake imposed by one having to smoke it out of a nasty plant. The plant uses it as a chemical defense against predators, after all. It poisons them with nicotine. There's a reason that one of the major groups of neurotransmitter receptors are called nicotinic neurotransmitter receptors.

Again, the ALA probably went too far. But clearly you are pissed that they haven't advocated your little toy, and no, they're not going to do so. Nor should they. A medical advocacy group should never advocate an abusable and dangerous drug. That would be unconscionable, nor matter how much hysterical hyperbole you want to spam us with.

Just another example of politics trumping facts.

Actually, it's an example of good medical practice. What we're looking at in this thread is your ideology trumping both facts and common sense.

[Aimless]

Don't get all pissy at me. You're the retard who suggested banning everything we can't prove is safe. You strike me as one of those morons whose signed a petition to ban dihydrogen oxide because it causes thousands of deaths every year.

Look, now you're just grasping at straws. You're the retard who thought doctors should lose their licenses for acting like responsible doctors

And, by the way, why don't we get the government to ban it? It's clearly unsafe, and God knows, we need the government to control us, for our own good.

And now you're just trying to muddy the waters

And, as it is a stimulant, it's probably as damaging to the cardiovascular system as nicotine is. Clearly, the government should step in and ban it until more research is done.

There you go again with that making shit up business. There's been a lot of research done on the long-term effects of caffeine, and, at present, that research has shown caffeine eg. in coffee to be fairly safe if not down-right beneficial in many respects. That's not even close to being true of nicotine. Don't be a dumbass

"... probably as damaging..." oh for crying out loud it's like LD trying to disprove evolution all over again.

[Aimless]

Caffeine an be "abused" and be potentially dangerous, though. Just to nit-pick a bit.

once again, not even close to nicotine

[']['ear]

Homo rationalicus

[GGT]

once again, not even close to nicotine

I don't really know, since I don't follow medical studies the way you do. But as a neurochemical (without any stigma from its traditional use, as in tobacco use) why couldn't nicotine be used as an adjunct to certain pharmaceuticals, just as caffeine is used to enhance the circulation of pain meds?

There's a lot of fluff flying around lately, with all the new research on brain disorders and neural pathways. Some even speculate that certain individuals self-medicate with tobacco because the nicotine HELPS their brain (not that their brain is fucked up and that's why they smoke). Folks with Parkinsons and MS and Alzheimers could possibly benefit from nicotine, if used to activate or move dopamine around....

[']['ear]

"What if" fest.

[GGT]

"What if" fest.

What's wrong with that? Don't scientists ever ask What if.... when they create a hypothesis?

As in What if...THC has beneficial properties? What if...nicotine has beneficial properties? What if...we can harness the good with none of the bad?

What's wrong with that?

[CitizenCain]

Again, the ALA probably went too far. But clearly you are pissed that they haven't advocated your little toy, and no, they're not going to do so. Nor should they. A medical advocacy group should never advocate an abusable and dangerous drug.

No, I'm pissed that they're trying to get it banned... while ignoring the effect such a ban would have - current users going back to the undisputedly much more toxic nicotine delivery system, commonly known as "cigarettes." And incidentally, while they're quick to call for a ban of nicotine vaporizers, they're not calling for a ban of analogue smokes, which would at least allow them to be consistent on the "it's a dangerous drug" angle.

<snip>

Not that you'd let a little reality interfere with your arguments... or claims of who you are... <coughContracough> but it's the forcible compulsion libertarians object to, not the offer of a service.

Look, now you're just grasping at straws. You're the retard who thought doctors should lose their licenses for acting like responsible doctors

No, you're the retard who conflates silence with advocacy and seems to believe that things should be illegal until proven safe.

This is like so-called doctors who want proper sex-ed banned in public schools "because condoms are only effective 97% of the time" (but really because of their dumbass politics) while ignoring the fact that without condoms, kids are gonna be knocking each other up and spreading STDs, much more than 3% of the time. I *know* I've heard you bash the retard doctors who advocate that position... and how is that any different than what the ALA is doing here? Banning the "safer" solution while ignoring the effect that this will have - driving people to the much more dangerous one.

And now you're just trying to muddy the waters

No, I'm pointing out how fucking moronic it is to believe that things should be illegal until deemed safe.

There you go again with that making shit up business. There's been a lot of research done on the long-term effects of caffeine, and, at present, that research has shown caffeine eg. in coffee to be fairly safe if not down-right beneficial in many respects.

She wasn't talking about coffee. She was talking about a drink with 50% more caffeine. And there haven't been any studies on what 50% more caffeine does, so, just like e-cigarettes, it must be banned, until the research deems it safe enough for use on government property citizens.

There's a lot of fluff flying around lately, with all the new research on brain disorders and neural pathways. Some even speculate that certain individuals self-medicate with tobacco because the nicotine HELPS their brain (not that their brain is fucked up and that's why they smoke). Folks with Parkinsons and MS and Alzheimers could possibly benefit from nicotine, if used to activate or move dopamine around....

Schizophrenics too. There were a couple studies out of the UK on the effects of nicotene on mild Schizophrenia that got shut down by the government because of the anti-smoking stigma (that we're also seeing here) that taints anything associated with tobacco.

God knows, if it's got a company name stamped on it, it's a good drug, but if it comes from a plant, it's evil and must be banned. Right, Minx?

[']['ear]

Not that you'd let a little reality interfere with your arguments... or claims of who you are... <coughContracough> but it's the forcible compulsion libertarians object to, not the offer of a service.

And here I thought it was pure greed and selfishness.

[Aimless]

No, you're the retard who conflates silence with advocacy and seems to believe that things should be illegal until proven safe.

At the very least I believe that substances we have every reason to believe are dangerous should be tightly regulated until we have a better understanding of their long-term effects. It's not my fault that you're an ignorant redneck

This is like so-called doctors who want proper sex-ed banned in public schools "because condoms are only effective 97% of the time" (but really because of their dumbass politics) while ignoring the fact that without condoms, kids are gonna be knocking each other up and spreading STDs, much more than 3% of the time.

See, comparing nicotine with condoms is even more retarded than comparing nicotine with caffeine. Don't be a dumbass. Decades of research has shown condoms to be beneficial products that should be made freely available. Not so with nicotine. Don't be a dumbass, stop grasping at straws, and stop trying to cloud up this thread with your bullshit and your fallacious reasoning please.

I *know* I've heard you bash the retard doctors who advocate that position... and how is that any different than what the ALA is doing here? Banning the "safer" solution while ignoring the effect that this will have - driving people to the much more dangerous one.

It's different because we have little reason to believe condoms are harmful, and every reason to believe they are largely beneficial. We have little reason to believe that chronic exposure to nicotine delivered through one of these devices is so safe that their unregulated use should be promoted. In the case of drugs such as nicotine a "guilty until proven innocent" approach is sensible and awesome

No, I'm pointing out how fucking moronic it is to believe that things should be illegal until deemed safe.

Okay everyone who wants to live in Cainland--where drugs are marketed before they've been studied--raise your hands

She wasn't talking about coffee. She was talking about a drink with 50% more caffeine. And there haven't been any studies on what 50% more caffeine does

Okay so basically a drink that's equivalent to one and a half mugs of coffee? Yeah, such high doses have never been investigated, because no-one ever drinks that much coffee. Come on, let's stick to the real world here

[Aimless]

I don't really know, since I don't follow medical studies the way you do. But as a neurochemical (without any stigma from its traditional use, as in tobacco use) why couldn't nicotine be used as an adjunct to certain pharmaceuticals, just as caffeine is used to enhance the circulation of pain meds?

There's a lot of fluff flying around lately, with all the new research on brain disorders and neural pathways. Some even speculate that certain individuals self-medicate with tobacco because the nicotine HELPS their brain (not that their brain is fucked up and that's why they smoke). Folks with Parkinsons and MS and Alzheimers could possibly benefit from nicotine, if used to activate or move dopamine around....

No-one's saying nicotine can't be used for therapeutic purposes, but if you're going to use nicotine for therapeutic purposes then you should subject it to the same rigorous (haha ) testing to which you subject any other drug.

[CitizenCain]

And here I thought it was pure greed and selfishness.

Easy mistake to make when your brain is mush from years of cocaine use in the Nicaraguan jungle.

At the very least I believe that substances we have every reason to believe are dangerous should be tightly regulated until we have a better understanding of their long-term effects. It's not my fault that you're an ignorant redneck

I know, and don't give a fuck. As is the general sentiment among e-cigarette users. See, unlike you (apparently), many people do what they want to, even if it's unhealthy, because we don't see ourselves as government property.

See, comparing nicotine with condoms is even more retarded than comparing nicotine with caffeine. Don't be a dumbass. Decades of research has shown condoms to be beneficial products that should be made freely available. Not so with nicotine. Don't be a dumbass, stop grasping at straws, and stop trying to cloud up this thread with your bullshit and your fallacious reasoning please.

No. Fuck you.

Explain how it's different to **advocate** one safer, but still "dangerous" product, while calling for a different safer product to be banned. You know, other than your politics. (Sex good, [recreational] drugs bad.)

It's different because we have little reason to believe condoms are harmful, and every reason to believe they are largely beneficial. We have little reason to believe that chronic exposure to nicotine delivered through one of these devices is so safe that their unregulated use should be promoted. In the case of drugs such as nicotine a "guilty until proven innocent" approach is sensible and awesome

Only if you accept that individuals don't actually have the right to make their own decisions. But, yeah, I can see where you'd come to that conclusion. My computer, as a piece of my property has no rights... just like people, as property of the state, also don't have rights.

Okay everyone who wants to live in Cainland--where drugs are marketed before they've been studied--raise your hands

And why stop with drugs? A plastic bag could kill someone faster than a cigarette... why didn't the government safety test them before allowing evil companies to suffocate defenseless children with polystyrene????

[GGT]

At the very least I believe that substances we have every reason to believe are dangerous should be tightly regulated until we have a better understanding of their long-term effects. It's not my fault that you're an ignorant redneck

A noble goal for a physician who thinks only physicians hold the keys to nirvana? Nah. People have been experimenting with roots, herbs, leaves and teas forever. Chewing, smoking, drinking, eating. Some of that is ancient medicine dating back to Chinese dynasties. They may not have known the chemistry, but they knew what worked.

We now have groups of homeopathic people who use bee stings to treat maladies, what're you gonna do---outlaw bees, or bee-keeping, or homeopathy?

Okay so basically a drink that's equivalent to one and a half mugs of coffee? Yeah, such high doses have never been investigated, because no-one ever drinks that much coffee. Come on, let's stick to the real world here

Nope, we're talking a whole pot of coffee, in circulation within minutes, without the need to drink a whole pot. You've never been on a caffeine binge or high? Maybe that explains a lot here....

No-one's saying nicotine can't be used for therapeutic purposes, but if you're going to use nicotine for therapeutic purposes then you should subject it to the same rigorous (haha ) testing to which you subject any other drug.

Right. In reality that means "regular people" find ways to use "regular substances", or even abuse them, because it feels good or serves a purpose. Fermented fruits, caffeine, cocaine, sugar, nicotine, mushrooms, peyote, marijuana.....gingko biloba, oysters, fish oil, bee pollen....we could go on and on.

It's only later that scientists and physicians want to understand it, and use it in certain ways, and call it therapeutic medication? Kind of like anti-oxidants and pro-biotics?

[Aimless]

I know, and don't give a fuck. As is the general sentiment among e-cigarette users. See, unlike you (apparently), many people do what they want to, even if it's unhealthy, because we don't see ourselves as government property.

no, because you suffer from schizophrenia. there's a subtle but significant difference

No. Fuck you.

Explain how it's different to **advocate** one safer, but still "dangerous" product, while calling for a different safer product to be banned. You know, other than your politics. (Sex good, [recreational] drugs bad.)

Now you're just being stupid. We know condoms to be extremely safe, and, when properly used, extremely effective. We don't know e-cigs to be extremely safe, let alone beneficial. In fact, we don't know anything at all about e-cigs except what we already know about nicotine: nicotine seems to have a host of harmful effects on various tissues in the human body.

Only if you accept that individuals don't actually have the right to make their own decisions. But, yeah, I can see where you'd come to that conclusion. My computer, as a piece of my property has no rights... just like people, as property of the state, also don't have rights.

See now you're just being crazy again. People can't make informed decisions if there is no information. I understand that you want to turn back time a couple of thousand years and leave everyone at the mercy of quacks and charlatans and con-artists and sadists but you're insane

And why stop with drugs? A plastic bag could kill someone faster than a cigarette... why didn't the government safety test them before allowing evil companies to suffocate defenseless children with polystyrene????

And now you're just being stupid this is the kind of shoddy debating I'd expect to see in a very mediocre eighth grade class get a grip already.

[Aimless]

A noble goal for a physician who thinks only physicians hold the keys to nirvana? Nah. People have been experimenting with roots, herbs, leaves and teas forever. Chewing, smoking, drinking, eating. Some of that is ancient medicine dating back to Chinese dynasties. They may not have known the chemistry, but they knew what worked.

We now have groups of homeopathic people who use bee stings to treat maladies, what're you gonna do---outlaw bees, or bee-keeping, or homeopathy?

What the hell? Are you comparing homeopathy with the systematic scientific study of medicine? That's even more insane than comparing it with the limited semi-systematic study of medicine we had before modern medical science. Your brand of crazy is almost as distressing to me as Cain's

Nope, we're talking a whole pot of coffee, in circulation within minutes, without the need to drink a whole pot. You've never been on a caffeine binge or high? Maybe that explains a lot here....

Oh I've felt the effects of high doses of caffeine. A whole pot of strong coffee in one go? Well, we know that might be dangerous so at the very least we should require a warning label of some sort.

Right. In reality that means "regular people" find ways to use "regular substances", or even abuse them, because it feels good or serves a purpose. Fermented fruits, caffeine, cocaine, sugar, nicotine, mushrooms, peyote, marijuana.....gingko biloba, oysters, fish oil, bee pollen....we could go on and on.

Look, I've tried for five minutes now to figure out exactly how the above relates to the part of my post quoted, and I've failed. Can you write it in another way so I can understand what you're getting at?

It's only later that scientists and physicians want to understand it, and use it in certain ways, and call it therapeutic medication? Kind of like anti-oxidants and pro-biotics?

I don't get this bit either, please elaborate.

[GGT]

Apparently I can't post in between the black and white of cain vs minx and speak to the gray areas, without both of you calling me crazy or stupid?

*sigh*

You both seem to be taking an "extreme" stance, on opposite sides.

minx: As scientists and physicians, it's our duty to protect people from themselves.
cain: People need protection from do-gooders in government who deny us liberty.
minx: I'm not the government. Also, I'm smarter.
cain: I'm smarter than any government AND any physician.
minx: We need to conduct a study to proove that.
cain: Fuck your studies.
minx: But medicine is based on science and studies! I'm trying to help!
cain: I don't need your kind of help, leave me alone.
minx: I'll start a new thread about libertarianism.
cain: Guns 'n drugs. Also...TAXES.
minx: Guns and drugs are bad, they hurt people. Unless it's a medication that can help.
cain: <sticks gun up minx's ass and shoots>
minx: But did it have a condom on it? Was it lubricated?
cain: Lights a smoke and laughs.


GGT:

[Aimless]

There is nothing extreme about requiring drugs to undergo testing before being marketed I honestly have no idea what's going on inside your head right now.

[GGT]

There is nothing extreme about requiring drugs to undergo testing before being marketed I honestly have no idea what's going on inside your head right now.

Of course you don't, why would you? Why would you expect to? Because you want to be a physician?

You dissed homeopathy in one broad stroke. tsk. Physicians are supposed to be smarter than that.

My "brand of crazy" is often proven to be safer and more effective than intervention from fancy-pants mainstream academic medicine. At least for problems that effect millions (or billions) or people, like allergies, insomnia, mild dysphoria, lethargy, and itchy scalp.

But I can't buy a blunt to help me sleep. Because pot is baad. Because smoking is baad. But I can't vape either, because that's baad, too. But I can't buy THC either, because it's baad.

No, far better to undergo months of "therapies" and buy expensive "approved" pharmaceuticals. Never mind that those things cause liver damage, or balance disturbances, which causes machinery operational problems, which means I can sleep ONLY if I don't want to walk or drive....or any number of unintended side effects. Because everything has to be tested, in every circumstance, and can ONLY be beneficial (with no use for abuse) before it can be used. And only things physicians prescribe should be used, or seen as therapeutical. Then they can be marketed for the masses.

For God's sake, minx. Little old ladies have been "taking the cure" for centuries. If you don't know what that means, then what you need to learn will not come from your academic professors.

[']['ear]

Easy mistake to make when your brain is mush from years of cocaine use in the Nicaraguan jungle.

Dear hard partying fearless reckless armed to the teeth permatrolling macho Canadian who's uninterested in hockey online poker professional computer systems and networks monster studly US military hero non-stop crazed criminal sexer of many different chicks,

Let me know when you have the stones to actually debate. Because you front FAR more than anybody in CC or TWF ever has, yet you sure do bug out and avoid key questions when the chips are down, instead relying on your cruel humor and snide ad hominems. Why don't you try to taunt another depressed tween into suicide, you corrupted fuck? You've whined quite a lot about how poor wittle Cain has been oppressed, oppressed, I tell you! by everybody from the US government on down, but you still haven't done shit to support the central thesis of your whiny, self-pitying thread. So how about you shut the fuck up until you've got something of substance to say, you snivelling pussy? Go take your guns to some African country where you can throw your weight around like the evil, self-centered narcissistic bully that you are, and spare us your perma-cunt snivelling? I think I speak for a lot of us when I say that I am heartily tired of the self-pitying tirades from somebody who, by his own testimony, contributes virtually nothing to American society or the world, and furthermore has no desire to do so. You're a self-condemned useless parasite.

Or, I could be wrong, and all your fronting is pure horse shit. Choose.

[Aimless]

You dissed homeopathy in one broad stroke. tsk. Physicians are supposed to be smarter than that.

That's because homeopathy, on the whole, goes against most of modern science. This isn't me being arrogant, this is me saying that homeopathy is patently bunk.

[GGT]

Whoa. What happened here? Is it going to be a full moon or something? Should we check the runes (thrown stones)? Or does everyone have shaken marbles (the crazies)?



I feel a bit of The Force at play here. But then, I'm one of the loonies. With a vagina. With so few females here, and Cat being pregnant, I wonder---can we all synch our cycles if we just keep posting? ooohhhmmm

[Aimless]

look, what the hell are you talking about? I thought you were endorsing homeopathy and criticising me for dismissing it. That struck me as crazy, but you've been saying strange things so I thought maybe that's what you really meant

[GGT]

That's because homeopathy, on the whole, goes against most of modern science. This isn't me being arrogant, this is me saying that homeopathy is patently bunk.

You're wrong then.

"Scientific studies have proven" that allergy shots, anti-histamines, decongestants, and antibiotics do NOTHING MORE for chronic allergic sinusitis than regular sinus irrigation. With saline douche (salt water). ie, the Netti pot.

"Scientific studies have proven" that most folks wouldn't need aspirin or acetominophen for headaches, if they just keep properly hydrated and get enough sleep.

"Scientific studies have proven" that patients in pain require less pain medication, if they have a loved one holding their hand.

"Scientific studies have proven" that your mom was right--eat your vegetables.

"Scientific studies have proven" that chicken soup is indeed good therapy for the common cold, the flu, diarrhea, and hangovers.

This is all homeopathic medicine, minx. It's stuff we've used for centuries, before "scientific studies" proved they worked.

[Aimless]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy

[GGT]

Wow, you pulled a wikifist?

I know what you aim to say about homeopathy, but it's a semantic parsing that doesn't translate well.

Homeo, as in Homeostasis. Should we start a new word? HOMOtherapy? Self treatment?

If I fall and twist my ankle really bad, and decide to use ice and elevation, not put pressure on the limb, watch the skin color and swelling, and if I can still wiggle my toes or feel touch on the skin (no bones poking out or blood spurting everywhere)---that's homeopathic medicine, in my mind.

If I panic and call 911, or get someone to drop everything and drive me to the orthopedic specialist, so he can take x-rays or do ultrasounds, just to tell me I sprained my ankle, go home and use ice and elevation and rest the limb, watch for swelling or numbness.....that's "medicine"?

[Young Mage]

Beware of karma. Besides, I didn't even tell a story, so you weren't emotionally overburdened, were you?

I recall someone lighting up this forest fire in my MUN thread.

If a liver is failing in a forest and no one is in the forest. Can anyone hear the liver failing?

[Aimless]

Wow, you pulled a wikifist?

and it's a damned good thing I did, too, because you were obviously using a bizarre and very broad definition of the term "homeopathy" I am not sure why you brought it up. Elevating your leg is not a drug.

[GGT]

Hey minx! While we're on the topic of words, titles, and blanket statements......

What do you know about D.O.s? (Doctors of osteopathic medicine.) And what do you think about "them"? Does your academic program in Sveden dissect and talk about "them"? What do you think of midwives, Nurse Practitioners, or Doctors of Nursing?

How about Chiropractors, or Opticians, for that matter?