patrick.net

bg says

curious2 says

AF=Shostakovich is brilliant, 22 users don't know what they're missing.

I didn't get it when I first started reading here. Now I love it.

Apocalypsefuck is the guy you want to be around when the zombie apocalypse finally happens.

I definitely get a happy buzz from drinking if I hit just the right level, about 3 drinks.

One drink, I feel good.
Two drinks, I've got a happy buzz going.
Four drinks, I'm naked dancing on the tables. At my age, it ain't pretty.

Not everyone can drink. Not everyone can smoke pot. If it were legal, I would smoke pot every day at the end of the day - just like people have a glass of wine to relax.

Homeboy says

[Cannabis] made me feel nervous, jumpy, paranoid and trembly.

Mandy Lifeboats says

way stronger than I remember.

Hadn't realized how much stronger the stuff has gotten

bg says

Anxiety and disphoria.

Each of the anecdotes quoted above illustrates a widely documented change in recent decades, yet another tragic consequence of the "war on drugs." Due to the crackdown on growers and smugglers, cannabis growers have been selecting to maximize THC. It's like during Prohibition, people couldn't find beer, only whiskey. Unfortunately the higher THC content increases the risk of paranoia and even schizophrenia in susceptible persons. From a baseline risk of 1% generally, the risk of schizophrenia can increase to 2%-4% among heavy users of cannabis with high THC content. It's tragic and unnecessary. Someday hopefully enough people will figure out that the "war on drugs" is yet another scam brought to you by lobbyists and their paid henchmen in government, in this case the prison-industrial complex that makes $$$ and power from incarcerating millions of people (more prisoners in "the land of the free" than almost any other country). Better to find a source of old-fashioned, organic, ordinary cannabis, with natural levels of THC, until the war is over.

or, I dunno, just stay clean and sober and on the right side of the law! Maybe that'll work?? ... I know, I know, that's just plain silly in the eyes of the common lib.

Can some one translate the translation above. It makes no sense at all.

Oxycodone has been around since 1916 and is cheap as chips Last time I bought it was at costco at $15.00 for 120. You must be thinking of Oxycontin which is a time release oxycodone and still on patent. No one is forced to buy oxycontin. You can just buy plain old oxycodone and forgo the time release. No one is forced to buy any of the new on patent drugs. There are plenty of generics . There are plenty of other cheap effective narcotic pain killers out there besides oxycodone. Morphine is powerful and dangerous so it is reserved for the most severe pain that is not controlled by lessor drugs. Many people don't tolerate it well, sometimes fatally. You can get it but usually only through a pain management specialist. Thats fair. If you are in so much agonizing pain you actually need morphine outside of a hospital then you should be seeing a pain management specialist anyway. If you aren't in agonizing pain why fool around with something as dangerous as morphine at all?

Bap33 says

or, I dunno, just stay clean and sober and on the right side of the law! Maybe that'll work?? ... I know, I know, that's just plain silly in the eyes of the common lib.

If the law forbid going to church, would you still advocate "staying on the right side of the law"? If a law is unjust there is no wrong in violating it.

Harriet Tubman was a criminal. It was illegal to help slaves escape. Never confuse legality with morality.

Tolerating unjust laws, even those that do not affect you personally, is worse than "just plain silly". I'm clean and sober, but I find it appalling that people are thrown in cages just to make profits for the prison industry. But if that doesn't upset you, think about it this way. It's the state giving free housing and health care using your tax dollars. At least be upset that the prison industry is freeloading off of your taxes.

bob2356 says

You must be thinking of Oxycontin which is a time release oxycodone and still on patent... You can just buy plain old oxycodone and forgo the time release. No one is forced to buy any of the new on patent drugs.. You can get [morphine] but usually only through a pain management specialist. Thats fair

Thanks for the correction regarding Oxycontin v oxycodone, but the rest of your post reflects the fact that (a) you are human so you tend do resolve cognitive dissonance in a way that rationalizes your self-interest and (b) half your community income is derived from the medical industrial complex. Yes people are required to pay PhRMA, it's part of everything from Medicare to ObamneyCare. No you can't just buy what you want in this country, you need to buy permission first from someone licensed, for example your spouse. No it isn't fair to people who are in pain that they are used as hostages with ransom paid to the medical industrial complex. You've been away lately but a big deal in the US now is the mandatory coverage for "preventive care" with no copay which means PhRMA is rolling out new patented contraceptives with hardly any testing, because it's more profitable than the old familiar Pill that went generic years ago; everyone is forced to pay PhRMA for the new patented ones, and the prescribers are coerced into prescribing them, and the patients who take them will discover the currently unknown side effects as they arise. No one ever said the law is fair, except you did just now and really I think it's because of the cognitive dissonance that would result from admitting you profit personally from an unfair law. It's profitable, not fair.

BTW on a mostly unrelated note I owe you an apology for one of the statistics on CT scans and pediatric leukemia, which I remember seeing but could not find. I should have simply dropped the number ("doubled") even though I had seen it, because in any event it became a forest vs trees issue. The bottom line is, (a) radiation causes cancer, (b) unnecessary radiation causes unnecessary cancer, (c) the medical industrial complex is marketing unnecessary radiation including CT scans for asymptomatic patients as "preventive care", (d) this causes unnecessary cancer. That's the forest, i.e. the larger point. If you start to argue individual trees like incidence of childhood leukemia five years ago, you end up getting lost in all the other things affecting those aggregate statistics, e.g. progress on environmental protection can be offset by increased radiation resulting in the same level of cancer overall even though the specific mix of risk factors changes. Instead of going back and forth about aggregate numbers, I should have simply stuck to the undisputed facts (a)-(d) above.

So you would rather have drunk drivers out running people over...
Your moral compass is askew...

Dan8267 says

I'm clean and sober, but I find it appalling that people are thrown in cages just to make profits for the prison industry.

SoftShell says

you would rather have drunk drivers out running people over.

He didn't say anything like that. That is an unfair mischaracterization of what he said and you should withdraw it. Driver's licenses can be revoked, and eventually we should have autonomous cars anyway.

SoftShell says

So you would rather have drunk drivers out running people over...
Your moral compass is askew..

1. Marijuana is not alcohol.
2. Alcohol is legal.
3. Just because a drug is legal, doesn't mean driving a vehicle while high or drunk is legal.
4. The solution to drunk driving and all the other problems with driving is to ban the automobile and replace it with personal mag-lift vehicles running on smart highways.

My moral compass is fine. It's your brain that's not working.

Oh, and here's your empty chair award for making a Straw Man argument. Enjoy!

curious2 says

He didn't say anything like that. That is an unfair mischaracterization of what he said and you should withdraw it.

People who make Straw Man arguments never admit their mistakes because it reveals that they have absolutely no counter-argument but don't want to accept the truth. Use of a Straw Man argument shows a complete lack of strength in one's position and the willingness to use deception to confuse the audience in hopes that they will accept a falsehood as the true. It's based on the principle that the ends of getting what you want justifies any means.

curious2 says

Each of the anecdotes quoted above illustrates a widely documented change in recent decades,

I don't doubt what you say, but my example took place around 30 years ago.

Bap33 says

I know, I know, that's just plain silly in the eyes of the common lib.

Bap, this is but one example as to why I tend to ignore half of the shit you say. You believe that you have a window into the soul of the "common lib." But you are just tossing that out to be a jerk. Breaking the law, or not, has nothing to do with political views.

But being prejudiced against what you perceive liberals to believe is exactly the same as being prejudiced against any other group. Blacks, orientals, white people with blue eyes, women... doesn't matter.

Assuming that you know how I think based on what you believe to be my moral structure is very offensive. I don't assume that you are a narrow minded person without the ablility to accept people for who they are and not based on what you assume to be their political views.

Of course, I don't have to assume that - because your post gave the answer.

elliemae says

Alex - we get it - you don't like the Obamas and are trying to find a conspiracy

what a Kindergarden... he likes me he likes me not...

elliemae says

If Obama did what everyone else did, he wouldn't have become the first black president.

what? plz provide more context...

elliemae says

AlexS says

IT certifications are voluntary.

So are licenses to practice law.

try practicing law without license... just try it...

You can do IT without certifications, the latter only and arguably make you more marketable to some companies.

My bad ellie. I just lack the patients to find better vocabulary. In my little world, people that have a mind set that says it is ok to buy,sell,take illegal drugs for the express purpose of numbing the senses, and do not respect the law, are normally people I call libs. I understand you may not call them libs.

I also call an adjustable smooth jaw wrench a Cresent Wrench ... not all adjustable smooth jaw wrenches are Cresent Wrenches.

Equating the illegal buying/selling/using of a mind altering drug with segration seems a bit of a stretch.

I am against seatbelt laws. I only put my self in danger when I do not use my seatbelt. There was no seatbelt law when I started driving. My first car didn't even have seatbelts. No other person needs to break the law for me to not use my seatbelt. When I am not driving, there is no risidual effect from me not using a seatbelt. The LEFT side of the political room supported seatbelt and helmet laws, because they are NannyState piles of shit. But, I have to follow the law because it is expensive, and will cost me dearly should I be found driving without one. Now, just because a bunch of old hippys have not grown ot of the dope smoking age, and they are now in command of things, they actually have their minds set to believe that the law is what is wrong, not the mind altering behavior ... yea, nothing beats a burnout for deep ideas.

I do accept people for who I see them to be. Just like you do. I do not have to agree or like their morals or ideas, but who does? Everyone is more comfortable with people that are like themselves -- even dope heads.

Dan8267 says

But if that doesn't upset you, think about it this way. It's the state giving free housing and health care using your tax dollars. At least be upset that the prison industry is freeloading off of your taxes.

dude, I am so against jail as a form of punishment, you have NO idea! A violent crime should result in swift execution by hanging. Selling drugs is a violent crime. Raping kids is a violent crime. Murdering babies in the womb is a violent crime. Drunk driving and killing people is a violent crime. All violent crime should be met with the same swift punishment.

But, doing drugs is just a really bad choice, like masterbating in a public area or in public view. If all social support were not accessible by anyone found to be taking narcotics, so that the listless burnouts and speed freaks will just starve to death, as will there children to help clean the gene pool a little bit, then I would support full libertain social government.

The use of alcohol is much more natural than smoking, because drinking is a natural act. Smoking anything is unnatural and disgusting. I know, I know, libs tend to be intollerant toward a person with my views, and willing to call one thing natural and another thing unnatural. Their intollerance is amazing at times.

Bap33 says

Their intollerance is amazing at times.

Whereas yours is entirely predictable.

AlexS says

try practicing law without license... just try it...

If you have no immediate desire to practice law, you don't need a license. They're not practicing. No great conspiracy there.

AlexS says

If Obama did what everyone else did, he wouldn't have become the first black president.

what? plz provide more context...

Elementary. There was no black president before him. Had he bought into the trend, he wouldn't be president now.

AlexS says

Alex - we get it - you don't like the Obamas and are trying to find a conspiracy

what a Kindergarden... he likes me he likes me not...

Exactly. Looking for a conspiracy where there is none is childish.

Bap33 says

dude, I am so against jail as a form of punishment, you have NO idea! A violent crime should result in swift execution by hanging. Selling drugs is a violent crime. Raping kids is a violent crime. Murdering babies in the womb is a violent crime. Drunk driving and killing people is a violent crime. All violent crime should be met with the same swift punishment.

what exactly do you find violent about the act of growing/trading/consuming marijuana?

using your mind as a litter box, and the government as a weapon of mass destruction is a crime that should be met with the harshest of punishments, but i digress

you are what you hate, you just aren't cognizant the implications of your actions enough to realize it, you liberal statist

why do you hate personal freedoms?

Bap33 says

The use of alcohol is much more natural than smoking, because drinking is a natural act. Smoking anything is unnatural and disgusting

um, there is nothing more natural then a plant that grows in nature, and takes ZERO processing prior to consumption. Alcohol, on the other hand, takes a fair amount of processing

cannabanoids are lipophilic, so why not consume marijuana orally? Eating things is a natural act, no? And as far as i know, the only liquid that is 'natural' to drink, is water

The worst part of your silly so called rationalization in attempt to make some limp wristed argument, is that ALCOHOL IS TOXIC, while marijuana is non-toxic.

You'd sound less confused if you just honestly stated "the government told me dope is bad, hence dope is bad", because that seems to be the depth of your argument

Bap33 says

Selling drugs is a violent crime.

There are about 5,264 hard drugs that are legal to sell. They are called prescription drugs. Is selling these drugs a violent crime? Should those sellers be hung? If not, why should a drug far less dangerous than any of these five thousand drugs be criminal to sell?

And by your analysis, shouldn't it be perfectly legal to grow and use your own weed if you aren't selling it? This would harm the legal drug industry and the prison industry, but why should it be illegal?

Bap33 says

All violent crime should be met with the same swift punishment.

So a barroom fight and first degree murder should result in the same punishment: execution. Can't say I agree with that.

Bap33 says

But, doing drugs is just a really bad choice

Lots of things are really bad choices including what you mentioned: not wearing seat belts and helmets. Why should the state punish people for making bad choices that do not harm other people? The state is also very inconsistent in which bad choices it punishes. When was the last time you were fined for eating at McDonald's or Chick-fil-A? As someone who is against the nanny state, you should be against the state prohibiting people from ingesting whatever they want including drugs. The only justifiable drug law is one that prohibits a drug which directly causes people to become violent. Weed does not do this.

Oh, and liberals don't believe in the state forcing people to wear seat belts and helmets. Liberals oppose all nanny states and father-knows-best states. You're confusing leftism and liberalism. Remember, the root of liberalism is liberty. Liberals are pro-freedom.

Bap33 says

like masterbating in a public area or in public view.

What right does the state have to prevent or punish anyone from masturbating in public? What right does the state have to punish anyone for activating nerve cells that send signals to the brain which then interpret these signals as pleasure? It is utterly ridiculous to think the state has any right to interfere with such personal liberty. Where does the state get such a right? Not from the people. If I don't have the right to control your body, then I can't give that right to the state. I can't give what I don't have. Since no one has the right to control another person's sexuality, the people cannot give the state that right.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/muHg86Mys7I

And why should the state be allowed to prevent people from doing anything that causes no harm to others? Just because you find something disgusting or offensive does not give you the right to prevent others from engaging in it even in public places. You know how disgusting and offensive I find religion. I find it at least as offensive as you find a guy jacking off. Does that mean I get to use the state's monopoly on violence to arrest anyone who tries to say a prayer in public?

Oh, that's a religious matter and it's protected by the First Amendment. Well, orgies are also religious matters going all the way back to ancient Greece (and actually even further). So public orgies should be protected by the First Amendment as well. And yes, even weed can be as rightfully called a religious sacrament as anything Christians do. After all, weed and other now illegal drugs were the inspiration for almost all of religion including Christianity. All those ancient religious experiences? Drug hallucinations.

So you see, what you really are advocating is that the state uses violence to enforce arbitrary cultural preferences. Such use of violence for completely arbitrary preferences held by only some of the members of a society is hardly the hallmark of freedom. And if the state can violently enforce arbitrary cultural preferences, then some day it will enforce cultural preferences that you appall, perhaps coming from Islamic culture. All it would take is a sufficient number of people with those cultural preferences, and Islam is the fastest growing religion.

Bap33 says

The use of alcohol is much more natural than smoking, because drinking is a natural act. Smoking anything is unnatural and disgusting.

So then you would have no problem with marijuana if the active ingredient THC were dissolved in water and drank like alcohol? Then it should be legal by your reasoning, right?

How about ecstasy? That is already dissolved in water and drank. Are you for legalizing that?

How about tobacco? Shouldn't that be illegal since it is smoked?

The fact is that the law does not reflect any consistent philosophy, and your proposals don't make it any more consistent.

errc says

And as far as i know, the only liquid that is 'natural' to drink, is water

Then again, natural does not mean good, so it's a mute issue.

I'm very much in favor of drinking decaffeinated ice tea without any sweeteners. It's calorie free and even healthier than water as it provides antioxidants, and you're less likely to get bored with it and crave a soda.

errc says

The worst part of your silly so called rationalization in attempt to make some limp wristed argument, is that ALCOHOL IS TOXIC, while marijuana is non-toxic.

Very true. The only motivation consistent with the behavior of our government, is that it does not want marijuana to compete with prescription drugs because, if marijuana were legal, there would be no profits in it or the prescription drugs as anyone can easily grow hemp. Why pay for something you can freely grow yourself?

Profit seems to be the only motivation for anti-marijuana laws. The thing is, it's not profitable to society to
1. Lock up enormous number of people.
2. Pay prison guards for this.
3. Keep the prisoners from being productive members of society.
4. Prevent those people from being able to get jobs and become productive members of society when they leave prison because they have a record.

It's actually utterly ludicrous from an economic perspective. It's only profitable to a few corporations and the prison industry. For the rest of society, the war on drugs is a major economic disaster. And that's ignoring the vileness of violating people's rights and freedom.

Dan8267 says

it's a mute issue.

Like a cow's opinion, it's moo!

Do you ever wonder why people that consume sugar (a mind altering, highly addictive stimulant) en masse, never utter a peep about how sugar should be illegal, yet these same addicts and drug users wave their finger at people that consume a non toxic plant with health benefits?

That doesn't sound like an organic, nor a rational, line of thought. It sounds much more like somebody else planted that idea inside your head (propaganda)

Sugar is toxic
Sugar is the gateway drug
Sugar has no nutritional benefits
Sugar has had much greater, negative affects on society

Relative to marijuana, which has industrial uses, medicinal uses, recreational uses, is non-toxic, not a gateway drug, has nutritional value, and does not negatively impact society

Enjoy your sugar in your caffeinated coffee, as it rots your teeth, brain, body and soul!!

I never realized how addictive sugar was (at least for my brain) until I stopped eating it "cold turkey." There was a week of mild "withdrawal" and then I had no desire for it. Then I started eating it again and was "hooked." Maybe it's not as bad as tobacco (never used it) but I still think sugar is addictive.

Sounds like marijuana has different effects for different people. Sort of like "legal" prescription drugs for anxiety/depression. When I was having anxiety "issues" the doctor told me I had to "experiment" with different drugs in order to find the "right" one. I ended up in the ER with a panic attack after starting out with Prozac. Gotta love experimenting with mind-altering drugs. Timothy Leary would be proud.

errc says

Sugar is the gateway drug

Sugar is a gateway drug? To what? ;-)

freak80 says

errc says

Sugar is the gateway drug

Sugar is a gateway drug? To what? ;-)

A shit diet?

Bigsby says

freak80 says

errc says

Sugar is the gateway drug

Sugar is a gateway drug? To what? ;-)

A shit diet?

Marijuana is a gateway drug to sugar.

turning into a fat fuck for the rest of your life....

freak80 says

errc says

Sugar is the gateway drug

Sugar is a gateway drug? To what? ;-)

errc says

Sugar is toxic
Sugar is the gateway drug
Sugar has no nutritional benefits
Sugar has had much greater, negative affects on society

You're narrowing down the list of things that I can do... But you're wrong about sugar having a negative effect on society...

I used to give my nieces & nephews sugar about 20 minutes before I left my sister's house. It paid her back for the time she cut my doll's hair (when I was 8) and she told me it would grow back...

THAT sugar had a positive effect on me!!!

Isn't marijuana a gateway drug to sugar (twinkies, Haagen Dasz, etc)?

curious2 says

No it isn't fair to people who are in pain that they are used as hostages with ransom paid to the medical industrial complex. You've been away lately but a big deal in the US now is the mandatory coverage for "preventive care" with no copay which means PhRMA is rolling out new patented contraceptives with hardly any testing, because it's more profitable than the old familiar Pill that went generic years ago; everyone is forced to pay PhRMA for the new patented ones, and the prescribers are coerced into prescribing them, and the patients who take them will discover the currently unknown side effects as they arise. No one ever said the law is fair, except you did just now and really I think it's because of the cognitive dissonance that would result from admitting you profit personally from an unfair law. It's profitable, not fair.

So where exactly in all this ramble is the part where people are "forced" to use on patent meds. Anyone can ask either their doctor or their pharmacist for generics. I do it.

bob2356 says

So where exactly in all this ramble is the part where people are "forced" to use on patent meds. Anyone can ask either their doctor or their pharmacist for generics.

Please read more carefully. Everyone is forced to PAY FOR patent meds. If you don't see how, read it again.

Yes, people who are knowledgeable can ask permission to buy something cheaper, and some doctors will grant that permission when requested. But, doctors are on a treadmill, caught between PhRMA, CME, and insurance; they need to prescribe profitably. They can easily think of reasons why a particular patient should have the patent drug, reciting claims presented in CME or touted by drug industry reps that visit the doctor's office, and it takes a rather confident patient to argue in that situation. In particular, the less educated patients are in a much weaker position. This may be one reason why education is the best predictor of longevity, not money and certainly not medical insurance.

As for asking the pharmacist, that usually doesn't work. In some states, if the doctor has allowed generic substitution, you can get a generic "equivalent" with the same active ingredient, if the pharmacy has one. (These may not actually be equivalent, and you are not allowed to compare generic manufacturers the way you can with OTC drugs.) You are never allowed to substitute a similar Rx drug with a different active ingredient the way you can with OTC drugs. For example, if you're shopping for OTC analgesics, you can choose freely among different active ingredients and multiple brands of each. You definitely can't do that with Rx analgesics. The discrepancy is part of why Americans, who pay the lowest prices in the world for OTC drugs, pay the highest prices in the world for Rx drugs. Again, the key to understanding the persistence of the system is to recognize that it's profitable, not fair.

freak80 says

sugar is addictive.

Definitely. Interestingly, even artificial sweeteners can set off a similar chain of events, with the consequence that people who switch to "diet" soda don't lose weight.

freak80 says

I ended up in the ER with a panic attack after starting out with Prozac.

Prescription drugs are a leading cause of emergency hospitalizations, in some age groups #1. That's part of why RomneyCare led to a 30% increase in emergency hospitalizations, after supporters promised that "preventive care" would lead to fewer. ("Preventive" CT scans in asymptomatic patients will lead to more hospitalizations, for cancer, but those will take longer to show up.) Funny how boosters of ObamneyCare recycled the same claim to advocate the same plan nationally, and the semi-"smart" people who trust commercial news (where literally a majority of the ads come from PhRMA) fell for it again. One might think the industry would need to come up with new lies at least to sell the same policy, but no, with enough lobbying $ they can get politicians to echo the same lies over and over again. The main difference between Rx drugs and illegal drugs is, Rx drugs are backed by a powerful "legitimate" industry that shares the "legitimate" $ with lobbyists and politicians, while illegal drugs are backed by a powerful illegal industry that launders its $ through money-center banks that share their "legitimate" $ with lobbyists and politicians. They are different categories, with the markups finding their way back to the politicians via different routes, but safety and efficacy are not really related to the political and financial categorization.

Wow! They like me! Right now, they really like me!!!

It's just division: dislikes / likes

That's all there is to it. Not very useful really, except as a kind of measure of how much people like your comments.

curious2 says

Please read more carefully. Everyone is forced to PAY FOR patent meds. If you don't see how, read it again.

I read it again, I don't see it the first time, I still don't see it. Most people are already covered for contraceptives. Look it up, almost all employer insurance plans already cover contraception. Why would everyone suddenly change their contraception? Doesn't make sense. Trust me, doctors truly don't give a shit whether someone uses the pill or norplant or burning incense with chanting for contraception. The other seven items of affordable health care act womens preventative care don't involve drugs at all so they have no relevance.

curious2 says

Yes, people who are knowledgeable can ask permission to buy something cheaper, and some doctors will grant that permission when requested. But, doctors are on a treadmill, caught between PhRMA, CME, and insurance; they need to prescribe profitably.

Not any doctors I know. My wife the doctor is very curious how all this works. . So please give us the benefit of your extensive inside knowledge of how medical practices work. A couple free drug samples (that she and most doctors give to patients that they know have a hard time paying for meds) and the every other month rubber chicken dinner with power point presentation isn't exactly being in bondage to big pharma. She has never seen on patent drugs discussed at a CME course. She has never had an insurance company ask about prescriptions. Never, not once. She's spent years in practice and running her practice. I have spent years doing medical billing and medical practice management software for doctors offices, Neither of us has a clue what you are talking about when you say prescribe profitably. Enlighten us, starting with some type of description of your vast experience working day to day in the medical field.

No matter what she prescribes, on or off patent, there is zero affect on my wife's income from prescription drugs. So cognitive dissonance is not in play here. Nice try, but it ain't so joe.

bob2356 says

No matter what she prescribes, on or off patent, there is zero affect on my wife's income from prescription drugs.

People are under the impression that MD's make $$$$ from prescribing, which would be wonderful if it could happen. Then every MD would be outrageously wealthy and wouldn't have to worry about dumb stuff like ethics & sick people...

There are some MD's who participate in research and receive grants from big pharma, but imho most don't. So far as Bob's comment that samples are normally given out to people who can't afford, big pharma is giving out smaller amounts of samples for the normal stuff any more. They try to push the more expensive meds, so MD's don't have as much in their drug closet as they used to . It sucks.

The issue with the healthcare law is morals. Women are supposed to be demure little creatures who don't outwardly display their desire for sex (but are tigers in bed with the man that owns them), and should pop out babies like a pez dispenser.

Of course, if the man is gone or can't afford to pay for all of them thar babies, that's not our problem either. We need to cut back on welfare programs so that these "victims who are reliant on government handouts" can go out and get a fucking job. Leave the kids at home to watch each other, I guess.

I like that this conversation all started when I said I like to smoke weed.#120
Notice the tone here overall has become a bit more "mellow" than usual with out the usual "harsh" back and forth.

elliemae says

Women are supposed to be demure little creatures who don't outwardly display their desire for sex (but are tigers in bed with the man that owns them), and should pop out babies like a pez dispenser.

Ellie, I do not look at women that way.

thats cause your a 'freak'....

freak80 says

elliemae says

Women are supposed to be demure little creatures who don't outwardly display their desire for sex (but are tigers in bed with the man that owns them), and should pop out babies like a pez dispenser.

Ellie, I do not look at women that way.