1. Dear Drugs-Forum readers: We are a small non-profit that runs one of the most read drug information & addiction help websites in the world. We serve over 4 million readers per month, and have costs like all popular websites: servers, hosting, licenses and software. To protect our independence we do not run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations which average $25. If everyone reading this would donate $5 then this fund raiser would be done in an hour. If Drugs-Forum is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online another year by donating whatever you can today. Donations are currently not sufficient to pay our bills and keep the site up. Your help is most welcome. Thank you.
    PLEASE HELP
  1. GDxCAT
    Scariest drugs are legal ones

    By Denis Hamill, New York Daily News

    January 9, 2004



    In 1969, as a hippie kid at Woodstock, I sat in the mud with a score of
    Brooklyn pilgrims from Prospect Park's Hippie Hill listening to
    festival organizers shouting over the loudspeakers to the 400,000
    zonked-out druggies, "Beware of the brown acid, man! If you've dropped
    the bad brown acid, report immediately to the medical tent, man!"



    And the stampede was on.



    Judging by recent events, you get more truth from drug culture than
    pharmaceutical companies and the Food and Drug Administration.



    On three separate holiday-related occasions, I was sitting around
    gabbing with friends in Brooklyn and Queens and one of the first topics
    to arise was the reluctant revelations by the FDA and the
    pharmaceutical companies that they are literally killing us by the tens
    of thousands with these deadly prescription drugs they are hawking with
    less conscience than streetcorner dope pushers.



    One young woman had taken Accutane, which we now learn may cause liver
    damage and birth defects as well as promoting suicide. But, hey, it
    gets rid of acne!



    I spoke with one guy who has been on Prozac for years for his
    depression, only to learn that Prozac promotes violence toward others
    and suicidal tendencies - an anti-depressant that sends people to roof
    ledges to ask, "To be or not to be?"



    Eli Lilly and Co. had data to this effect for 15 pill-pushing years,
    told the FDA, and they both kept it as secret as the books of a
    Colombian cocaine cartel.



    When the tsunami body count in Asia reached about 140,000, it was
    revealed that Vioxx had caused some 139,000 heart attacks. It also was
    revealed that Celebrex and Bextra might make the ticker stop, but hey,
    your corpse might have fewer colon polyps.



    Nice.



    We're trying to locate some 4,000 American missing in the aftermath of
    the tsunami, but we might find just as many in the parking lots of
    drugstores.



    When I hung out on Hippie Hill in the late 1960s, the drug dealers of
    that open-air pharmacy had more honor. Goofballs went for three for a
    buck. Last week, it cost me $50 to renew my prescription for 30
    anti-allergy Zyrtec pills. That's about a buck and a half a pill to
    keep me from sneezing around my cats. And I didn't even get a buzz out
    of it to ease the pain.



    And speaking of pain, if you've been gobbling painkillers to treat the
    headache all this deadly news is causing, be warned that more than 70%
    of patients who take painkillers such as ibuprofen damage their small
    intestines.



    And if this gives you insomnia, and you're taking Ambien, the most
    popular legal goofball on the market, fuhgeddaboudit! It causes
    amnesia. It's been reported that people who take Ambien at night can't
    remember their final waking hours the next morning, and so we've
    created a nation of zombies, like Ed Norton sleepwalking into Ralph
    Kramden's apartment at night to raid the fridge.



    I'm telling you, drug dealers like Tony Montana, as portrayed by Al
    Pacino in "Scarface," have more honor. It's not an unfair comparison.
    Listen, under pressure from the all-powerful pharmaceutical lobby that
    spends about $150 million a year in Washington, the FDA accelerated the
    crystal meth "speed" epidemic in the country by deregulating two
    chemicals - pseudoephedrine and ephedrine - that are crucial to brewing
    this poison.



    But what the hell do you expect when that lobby, called Pharmaceutical
    Research and Manufacturers of America, hires retiring Louisiana
    Republican U.S. Congressman Billy Tauzin as its new $2-million-a-year
    president? In his last election, this good ole boy took $91,500 in
    campaign contributions from drug companies, then authored the new
    Medicare bill that is a windfall to the pharmaceutical industry. A
    cynic might even suspect that the untold thousands of old people killed
    by these deadly prescription drugs under this plan might be just what
    the doctor ordered to save Social Security.



    Tauzin is barred from lobbying Congress for a year, but he can legally
    tell underlings who to see and what to say on Capitol Hill, and he can
    make campaign contributions, attend fund-raisers and schmooze with old
    congressional cronies. Part of his job is to push new and dangerous
    drugs for FDA approval and downplay the killer side effects of drugs
    like Vioxx, Accutane, Prozac, Celebrex. He also will be leading the
    charge in favor of tort reform so that the estates of people who are
    killed by these legal dope dealers in the pharmaceutical industry
    cannot sue.



    There is not yet a pill to correct these governmental ills. And this
    being Washington, not Woodstock, do not expect Tauzin to warn American
    citizens who took the brown acid to report to the medical tent.



    </font> http://www.nydailynews.com/boroughs/story/269362p-230748c.ht ml

Comments

  1. sunyata
    And that's one of the reasons I don't want drugs legalized, try to imagine what those motherfuckers would cut your shit with. I'm rarely nervous when I'm about to take an illegal drug I bought on the street, unless it's a psychedelic, but every time I'm going to take something that's legal and bought at a pharmacy I get nervous.I take look at the list of side effects anddiscover that one of the side effects is the very symptom I'm trying to ease. Like head-ache pills that may cause head-ache, anti-depressants that may cause depressionand sucidal tendencies. What the fuck is that about? I had a friend who got anti-depressivesfrom his shrink, when he came to schoolevry day he looked more stoned than me, and even worse, he seemed like he wasn't even there. After a month of use he tried to kill himself, ate30 of those pills andlay down in bed.The only reason I think he survived this was because he didn't really want to die, and somewhere beneath all the pills he knew this.Needless to say he stops using these pills(Xanor, I think they were called). One year later he decides to see a shrink again, this time he says he doesn't want drugs, he just wants therapy, he wants totalk to someone.He tells the shrink about how he's had problems with both legal and illegal drugs, and how he tried to kill himself while on anti-depressants. But the shrink keeps insisting, despite that he made it perfectly clear he won't under any circumstance do these drugs again, the shrink says "but we have this new product, it's much better than what you used to take".Luckily, my friend still had a decent number of braincells left and told the shrink to go fuck herself. I don't think he's been to a shrink since then.


    Realize that they are testing these products on us, they give them to rats to make sure they're not pure poison, but then they release them on the market. We probably won't knowall the side-effectsuntil a generation has passed, and by then it will be to late fora lot of people.


    I guess the moralof all this is don't trust your doctor, he doesn't necessarily have your health as a priority, he just wants to get paid like everyone else.
  2. Dualpower
    This article is, in short, crap.





    The point (pharmaceutical companies are out to make money,
    not safe drugs) is one I tentatively agree with, but the examples are
    ridiculous and over exaggerated.









    People will die by the tens of thousands without medications
    and research developed by big pharmaceutical companies.









    These effects were known of when it was introduced in the 50’s.
    They aren’t new or recently discovered as the author suggests (except for the
    suicide link which effects very very few people in a small way). They do
    extensive trials of drugs before they’re released on the market. I’ve used Accutane,
    and was warned of all of these possibilities. If any of a list of symptoms
    appeared, I was to discontinue use immediately and contact my doctor. I
    experienced no bad symptoms, and got rid of acne that didn’t respond to any
    other treatment. Do some people experience bad effects? Yes. Is injury from
    this drug likely if you use it as directed by a physician? No. How is it bad?









    Millions of people take Prozac. Some people do have an
    elevated risk of suicide as assessed by certain studies. Millions of people
    aren’t committing suicide because of it, the incidence is very low, meaning it
    is safe. This is especially the case when you consider how many people are
    helped by the drug.









    This is a pointless jab in developing his argument. Sure, drugs
    cost a lot. But no one is forcing this guy to take said allergy medication.
    Without big pharmacy, new products wouldn’t exist.











    Any money says most people exceed the recommended dosage, or
    other usage instructions on painkiller packaging. How is this the fault of the
    drug, or drug policy makers?









    Ambien is prescribed as a short term solution to
    sleeplessness. (i.e. 7-10 days) If it is prescribed for longer, this is an
    issue with doctors, not the drug developers. Ambien has less next-day
    side-effects compared to benzodiazepines, and thus is a better drug for certain
    types of use. If people are walking around like zombies for extended periods of
    time it is because doctors are mis-prescribing it.





    This article is full of ridiculous exaggerations. The author
    seems to feel that the facts aren’t exciting enough on their own, and require extensive
    elabouration in order to make a convincing point.





    Drug makers are inherently limited to understanding the
    short-term effects of drugs. They do a lot of work to attempt to tease out
    likely long-term effects through animal studies (since animals share many
    physiological features to people, but have shorter lifespans). Sometimes,
    however, the translation from simulations and animal studies does not pan out,
    and there are negative long-term side effects of drugs in humans. This does
    happen, but whose fault is it? If you are dieing from cancer and there is a new
    experimental drug that could help you, you demand to have access to it! People
    want these things, and fast! The only way to know for sure what the long term
    effects of a drug are is to give them to people. It is an unavoidable necessity
    in the advancement of medical science, and human wellbeing.





    It doesn’t seem like the author has any idea how much
    science goes into developing new drugs. Between the lines, he seems to advance
    the idea that drug companies are releasing products en mass to make money,
    ignoring or hiding the side effects. Despite the commercial nature of the pharmaceutical
    industry, there are still stringent scientific guidelines and ethical
    procedures that have to be followed to minimize the possibility of a bad drug
    being released.









    This is silly.


    When you take a drug from a pharmacy in <st1:State><st1:place>New
    York</st1:place></st1:State>, or <st1:country-region><st1:place>Thailand</st1:place></st1:country-region>,
    it’s the same thing. Because of that, you have access to a wealth of
    information about the risks involved in taking it, as well as professionally
    assessed statistics for negative side effects.


    The same cannot be said for street drugs. Where the pharmaceutical
    industry is held accountable for mistakes, illegal drug makers are not. Why
    should illegal drug producers act benevolently, while big pharmacy doesn’t? The
    answer is they don’t. Style and implementation of management has more in common
    with how much money is being made, than whether the thing is illegal or not.
    And illegal drugs make people lots and lots of money. If the pharmaceutical industry
    is polluted by deceit and cover-ups, then the illegal market must be worse. And
    it is.









    The incidence of suicide as a result of antidepressants
    is likely very low. Did you ever consider the more plausible possibility
    that your friend tried to kill himself because he was depressed?









    How do you find long term effects in people without having
    people take the fucking drugs? Do you have a better way? People in pharmaceutical
    research have to devote the better half of their life studying to provide
    lame-assed ignoramus’ like yourself a way out of debilitating conditions.
    Perhaps if you could see past your vision of the immoral mad scientist in a
    white lab coat bent on your pain and suffering, you could approach the level of
    a realistic interpretation of what’s really going on.








    I’ll take the advice of someone with a PhD over the ignorant
    rant of a spooked luddite any day, thankyou very much.
  3. noeticbuzz
    It is fucked up to the extremem!


    I was on pills for depression and I started feeling even shittier on the stuff. It didn't clue in to me until I missed a dose a couple of days and started feeling better.


    There is definatly some scary shit that they give you
To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!