Thank you for this post. I am so sick of this totalitarian nanny state shit from them. And it's a pity that the Michael Jackson case will put fuel in this fire. At certain point there has to be a realization that one will get a certain number of abuses with everything (and also while I am at it, that some people will have life threatening reactions to some drugs--because some people are allergic to penicillin is no reason to ban it.)

I am still so pissed about the pseudoephedrine legislation. Because they think they could make a tiny dent in the meth problem, because some meth was being manufactured using Sudafed, they made millions of allergy sufferers' lives more miserable. The consequence of what they did is not just that those who want pseudoephedrine with their antihistamine have to ask for and sign for it behind the pharmacy counter, the consequence was that certain very useful drugs stopped being made because their market became smaller not being on display, like Drixoral. (Proof can be found on the net, thousands of people on health sites asking " happened to Drixoral, how come I can't find it? I need it!") There is nothing like Drixoral made in the U.S.A. now, the antihistamine it used in combo with pseudoephedrine is different from all the others available and worked much better for many people. Sure you can get it from a Canadian website, willing to sell it to Americans at exorbitant prices, like 10 times what it used to cost when it was made here.

For anyone who has family with serious pain issues, you know this bullshit. Everyone using is not Michael Jackson.

Thanks for the heads up on this - rec'd and comment sent.

As a nation we have gone back and forth on this issue. Access to effective pain medication is critical. Without it, people suffer and kill themselves. It took a long fight to get to the current compromise of pain management contracts.

I am not denying that there is an illegal trade in these drugs - in fact in almost every drug. However, that is a complicated issue that will not be resolved by making even more complex access. Included in that complexity is lack of access to health care.

Narcotics are not effective in controlling chronic pain and are profoundly over-prescribed.

I'm doing it.

Excessive government regulation does not repair poor enforcement. It leads to more regulation and less efficiency in regulation. Reduction in government regulatory practices would benefit the patients. Then again I am biased and do not wish my Cheerios regulated either.

I would venture that pharma, Doctors and patients are not behind this issue. They all benefit without it. I would say that our legal system and the litegious nature of our society may be the incentive to "do good" with yet another rule to keep the "sheeple" safe from themselves.

Ok, I sent it in. I will next send something to my dem congressman and to Amy K.

One more obstacle between the doctor and the patient.

Hahahahaha, what a moron.

You wanted more government control, and you all got it. Good luck, dumb fucks.

SENT:

Don't complicate the lives of people with chronic pain in favor of protecting
drug abusers. There are better ways. It is ridiculous to require multiple
doctor visits for re-fills for a known pain problem.

I didn't read all of the comments, but here is mine.

I sent an email to them and asked them to please punish DOCTORS who fling around Rx's instead of real medical advice.

I believe that once the medical community joins the rest of us and converts to a digital, networked operating environment, abusers of pain meds will be easily identified. If a doctor prescribes pain meds for a patient, it is THEIR responsibility to monitor and recommend future therapy.

The group that should be targeted to oppose this measure is the medical community. They should come out full force with the message that they have taken an oath and that they will help their patients and accept punishment, including loss of license for repeated abuses of the system.

The FDA upset me when they banned bio-identical hormones. So instead of taking natural estrogen that is identical to what the ovaries I used to have produced, I have to continue taking hormones created from horse urine (YUMMY!), which has been directly linked to the formation of breast cancer. I have been taking these things since I was 11 years old when I lost my ovaries to cancer.

I guess the FDA doesn't really care if I have boobs... or if I die... or if you and millions of others have to live in pain every day and night. Some "holier than thous" have obviously seen the light and have decided to save us all from the risks of pain pills.

I'm getting mad now so time to stop thinking about this, but I will forward your message.

Good grief - aren't guns known to reliably kill people, too? The latest GAO findings on terrorists and guns reports that out of 963 attempts to purchase weapons by persons on the terrorist watch list, they were successful an amazing 865 times. Yet, anything remotely resembling the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies for guns, like those that are under consideration for opioid use, would be DOA in D.C.

Unlike guns, opioid use by those with legitimate problems and prescriptions, is thought to be so risky that draconian regulations are required in order to ensure the benefits of these drugs continue to outweigh certain risks, according to the FDA summary.

Can someone explain this to me? Are these people in the FDA nucking futz?

I'm on my way to comment, Face.