Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwawayadvsec | Hacker News Reader

Cigarettes are killing more people than all the substances you mentioned.

Also the fact that you include "creatine" among those substances is extremely ridiculous, creatine is available OTC and present in many foods, it's obvious that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Lip-fillers are not substances that you ingest or inject in your bloodstream, they're part of surgeries.

The FDA should be here to say this is recommended for this and that purpose. Here are the recommended dosages. Not to forbid you from using something. Every dangerous substances should have warnings on them like "this could kill you/give you cancer/mental illnesses" or even "not meant for human consumption".

View on HN

Your ad-hominem is unacceptable behavior; I clearly listed a fairly obvious mix of things (some OTC, some prescription, some FDA regulated) which are sometimes misused or excessively used. I didn't even bother mentioning opioids or benzodiazepine because presumably we would think of those first.

Lip-fillers are not "part of surgeries", they're non-surgical procedures; their use is regulated by the FDA [in the US]. Noone claimed you "put them in your bloodstream". Just stop misrepresenting in bad-faith.

> Cigarettes are killing more people than all the substances you mentioned.

We know that. Red herring: so is bad nutrition (sugar, HFCS, salt, for example).

You're sidestepping grandparent's point about abolishing any legal limits on pharmaceuticals. How would such a world work? Prescriptions would be pointless since consenting adults could just sell/trade them.

The tone of your comment seems to indicate you think this is obviously a bad thing?

Prescriptions would just be doctors recommendations in this case. There could still be mechanisms to softly encourage only this usage, like insurance only covering doctor prescribed drugs.

Is your concern about painkiller addiction and abuse or about people hurting themselves by taking drugs without good understanding of them or something else?

Prescriptions wouldn't be pointless.

I can get access to any drugs on earth, I'm still not going to try any random unprescribed med for the fun of it.

A prescription means your doctor said I think you need this, at this dosage, for this long. You can even get prescriptions for OTC stuff.

A prescription isn't a way to allow you to take something, it's a way to tell you what your doctor thinks you need.

>Prescriptions would be pointless since consenting adults could just sell/trade them.

A good chunk of the population operates this way right now. Also why pay a $150 kickback to doctors just to write something on a pad that probably shouldn't require a prescription in the first place?

That's an American complaint about an American problem. Basic healthcare in the rest of the developed world functions ok, unlike the US.

And why the US created that setup (between the 1960s-80s) is a political discussion.

We're straying from the general premise here about about abolishing any legal limits on pharmaceuticals. Or else, we're changing the topic to an argument-from-consequences based on the idiosyncrasies of US healthcare and its costs.

What’s wrong with this? A prescription would just be a doctors recommended amount of a substance and not a license to have an otherwise illegal substance as it now

Reply on news.ycombinator.com