By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Trump Declares the Opioid Crisis a ‘Public Health Emergency’

StarOcean said:
vivster said:

Opioids don't kill people, people do. A ban on opioids wouldn't be effective so it's best not to enforce any control whatsoever. Forbidding people to take opioids is against freedom and the constitution. Less government intervention! Donald is coming to take our opioids away!

Did I get everything?

Oh wait. The only way to stop a bad guy with opioids is a good guy with opioids!

It's disrespectful to talk about opioids right now. Now is not the time for discussion while everyone is still in mourning

Damn that's perfect. Missed the best one. I tip my trilby to you.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Around the Network

Americans consume vast majority of the world's opioids

Approximately 80 percent of the global opioid supply is consumed in the United States..There was about 300 million pain prescriptions written in 2015

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/27/americans-consume-almost-all-of-the-global-opioid-supply.html

 



vivster said:

If anything the government should regulate the fucking corruption of doctors by pharma bribes.

You tried (and failed) to make a logical connection between the 2nd amendment and prescription drugs - makes no sense. The later ones are being pushed through the government-medical-complex without much choice by the citizens.



Quick! Cut healthcare support! That will do the trick! :P



Well it is a cause for concern. It certainly is not the biggest cause of death. 610,000 people die of heart disease in the United States every year–that's 1 in every 4 deaths. Heart disease is the leading cause of death for both men and women.



Around the Network
Nem said:
Quick! Cut healthcare support! That will do the trick! :P

This is where I think the 2nd ammendment similarity comes in, because when there's a mass shooting politicians will always say that mental health is the problem, but then cut programs that would actually help such a problem. Here you have someone saying "this is a national crisis" with one side of his mouth while he cripples the organizations that would have helped deal with it with the other. 



...

Torillian said:
Nem said:
Quick! Cut healthcare support! That will do the trick! :P

This is where I think the 2nd ammendment similarity comes in, because when there's a mass shooting politicians will always say that mental health is the problem, but then cut programs that would actually help such a problem. Here you have someone saying "this is a national crisis" with one side of his mouth while he cripples the organizations that would have helped deal with it with the other. 

The problem cannot be fixed just by government healthcare or help programs for addicts though. What needs to happen is holding doctors to the same if not higher standard as politicians when it comes to corruption.

People are being made addicts against their will because they trusted doctors and doctors are giving out new prescriptions with both hands.

I understand that US politicians don't want to pass legislation against their own corruption but they could at least for the doctors. Oh wait. The pharma industry owns politicians too. Well nevermind then.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

numberwang said:
vivster said:

If anything the government should regulate the fucking corruption of doctors by pharma bribes.

You tried (and failed) to make a logical connection between the 2nd amendment and prescription drugs - makes no sense. The later ones are being pushed through the government-medical-complex without much choice by the citizens.

Yeah, that's probably why the US healthcare budget contains hundreds of millions worth of rehab programs to get the people off those highly addicting prescription drugs

Pinning it on governemental healthcare is just ludicrous. If they where behind this, then they certainly wouldn't have cracked down on the pill mills, they would have supported them. And for sure they wouldn't have installed a take-back program to get these prescription drugs off the streets again.



I can't even believe the people in this thread comparing gun rights to a f*cking health crisis!

Since people are too ignorant to realize *prevention* and openly support decriminalization of recreational dangerous drug use such as opiods, I sincerely hope that their health insurance premiums sharply rise so they won't be laughing then about who's in power when their f*cking up the healthcare system themselves too in the process!

Do people even realize how China lost power during the 19th century when they were trading with Britain at the time ?!



fatslob-:O said:

I can't even believe the people in this thread comparing gun rights to a f*cking health crisis!

Since people are too ignorant to realize *prevention* and openly support decriminalization of recreational dangerous drug use such as opiods, I sincerely hope that their health insurance premiums sharply rise so they won't be laughing then about who's in power when their f*cking up the healthcare system themselves too in the process!

Do people even realize how China lost power during the 19th century when they were trading with Britain at the time ?!

One public health crisis involved in roughly 30,000 deaths per years vs another public health crisis involved in roughly 30,000 deaths per year. Seems like a fair comparison to me. 

Also, decriminalization is largely an effort to improve treatment. All research in successful drug policy shows that treatment should be increased, and law enforcement decreased while abolishing mandatory minimum sentences. By treating drugs as a public health issue instead of a criminal issue we can get people the help they deserve instead of pumping them into the prison system which often does much more harm than good.