Skip to main content

View Diary: Oregon House passes pseudoephedrine (Sudafed) prescription bill (44 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Huge Assumption (none)
    "Now we're restricting something that when used as intended is beneficial to the user and harmless to the community solely because a very few people misuse it."

    This reasoning is so full of holes it is frightening.  How do you define damage to a community?  Lets see how about economic.  Joe has a cold/flu and goes to get a OTC to supress his symptoms. He takes the drug and his symptoms are better but he's still infectious.  Instead of staying home and taking care of himself he goes to work.  Joe infects 5 people at work with his cold.  Two of those people stay out of work. The other three do the same as Joe and perpetuate the cold throughout the whole company.  Now instead of the economic damage to one (Joe) he's multiplied it.  His coworkers who stayed home have lost wages. His boss now has to deal with a small epidemic is managing lowered production and hence lowered the bottom line and the customer may not be getting the product they paid for in a timely manner.  It goes on and on.  Now multiply that scenerio across the US how many millions of dollars are lost due that the kind of negligence perpetuated by Joe and enabled by the use of symptom surpessing drugs.

    As far as the harmless nature of the drugs in question a quick search of PubMed citations of the National Library of Medicine should disabuse you of the notion of harmless.  Side effects and innapropriate drug combinations create a huge economic burden.  I could go on and on without even getting to the damage to the community by the meth dealer.  The upshot is got a cold or flu stay home the drugs you want to buy don't do anything to cure it.  Personally I'm glad these drugs will be harder to get.  The benefits are small compared to the cost.

    •  How nice that you work somewhere... (none)
      ...where sick days are an option and you can take a day or two off work without suffering financial hardship.  You must also have that neat thing called medical coverage that makes it affordable to go to the doctor for an office visit.

      If I had my way, everyone would have those sick days so they wouldn't infect their co-workers.  They'd also have that medical insurance so they could get their prescription Claritin-D if they needed it.

      Until then, working people across the nation will continue to "suck it up", fight their symptoms the best they can, go punch that time clock, and try to remember to wash their hands and disinfect their keyboards, mice, and telephones.

      •  Another Assumption (none)
        Russ,
        I've been self employed for 25 years, the last 15 years in healthcare. If I don't work I don't get paid.  I don't have any benefits.  I pay for my own insurance and healthcare. It's apparent your mad because I thought your last statement was uninformed. You made another assumption about who I am and responded to that illusion.  I responded to your originial thinking which I thought to be incomplete.  If you don't like the conclusions I drew fine.  I hope that by pointing out that there are other costs to a community by utilizing these drugs you'll think differently about the issue of illness and infectious disease.  When you or a loved one chooses to expose the community at large to an infectious agent there is a cost.  Sometimes the costs of "sucking it up" can be huge.  How do you think epidemics get started anyway? If you think this is pie in the sky then I suggest reading up and the next anticipated pandemic.
        •  You're right; I'm sorry (none)
          I did assume and I was mad.  I do agree with your point about sick people staying home from work.  I work in IT, so I'm constantly having to touch other people's keyboards and mice.  Thank my non-existent-Supreme-Deity for antibacterial hand cleaners!

          I just want everybody to have the luxury of being able to use sick days; that's the point I was trying to make.

    •  Let's see - (none)
      my 22 person office includes 13 women and 4 men with school age children.  Most of us have at least one cold a year, our children maybe 2 to 4.  If we have no fever, but stay home for the average 5 day cold - and some also stay with the kids - I guess that would be up to 200 days per year. Come January, we would be doing good to have 10 people at work on a bad day.  (By the way, over 5 sick days a year rolls over to vacation days.)

      Nope - our unofficial rule is stay home on days with fever, chills, or severe coughing.  The rest of time, we self-medicate, drink a lot of hot tea and do the best we can.  Works for us.

      The truth always matters.

      by texasmom on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 11:56:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site