So should we allow 17 year olds to buy cigarettes then? They are available OTC. Lets be consistent here. Clearly if Plan B is a choice a 17 year old can make, cigarettes are as well. On the plus side it increases the tax base so we can afford Obama's multi-trillion dollar deficits.
AreaCode707
Lifer
- Sep 21, 2001
- 18,447
- 133
- 106
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Actually, there have been plenty of issues with schools and aspirin, not just with schools dispensing it but also with students posessing their own on campus without notes, and with students sharing with other students.
Release form: http://www.jcdsri.org/medicateform.pdf
Kids dying from abuse of OTC cough medicine: http://www.pe.com/localnews/in..._S_robo09.425167f.html
Kids turning in OTC meds as part of a contraband search: http://dpa.xtn.net/dynamic/News/Story/154400
And it's been going on for a while:
Kids suspended for sharing tylenol: http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03...r-sharing-tylenol.html
and midol: http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-sear...&s_trackval=GooglePM
Inhalers have to be kept with the nurse: http://www.accessmylibrary.com...mmary_0286-5208354_ITM
So yeah, people have protested kids having OTC meds at school.
Did you even read your own links?
IF you did, did you read my post?
Can you understand how all your links and my posts challenge are completely unrelated?
THINK McFly, THINK!
Do you think that these rules came about because nobody cared? Because nobody protested? Because there were no issues with misuse of OTC meds at schools?
I said: OTC does NOT mean "perfectly safe under all conditions no matter what you do with it."
You said: And yet NO ONE has protested school nurses handing out aspirin and tylenol
I provided examples of situations where aspirin and tylenol at schools have caused problems, and where schools have restricted and regulated them because of those problems.
And rather than actually respond, you say this is unrelated. On the contrary, this is exactly to the point of those of us arguing against unregulated OTC meds for teenagers.
I'd be in favor of lowering the age of responsibility on a multitude of things. However, as long as that age of legal responsibility is 18 and parents still have to deal with the consequences of their kids' actions, I support making those parents in charge of those actions.
halik
Lifer
- Oct 10, 2000
- 25,696
- 1
- 81
Well then that's a whole different debate.
My main point here really only was that FDA should be concerned about the health effects of the medication and health effects only. As soon as they start pushing regulation because of religion/morals/whatever rather than medical facts, they need to be fired on the spot.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
Putting cigarettes and alcohol on a shelf that some soldiers can't reach is a potentially dangerous bit of stupidity to begin with, though I'd imagine the basic idea is still to keep them out of high schools.
Don't forget, cigarettes are sold in nice easy-to-share quantities, too. I doubt many pharmacies would let you walk in and buy a six-pack of plan-B.
In fact, maybe we should find out if they sell it to men, too, and protest if they refuse.
AreaCode707
Lifer
- Sep 21, 2001
- 18,447
- 133
- 106
Agreed. However, I don't think the FDAs recommendation on things like this should change the law regarding parental responsibility over children. Either parents are or are not responsible for the actions taken by their kids up to a certain age. You can't pick and choose what they are responsible for and what they are not, not while you maintain that parents legally have to deal with the consequences.
So far you have called me a bible thumper and a prude who is too stupid to inform their children. I dont see how that can be construed any other way. And the only person waving their is d*ck is you, but then you told a female to get a boner...go figure.
Polite from my side as I did not sling any insults you way. You should be more careful in the future and you wont have to offer apologize to anyone. I am always up for a civil discussion....
halik
Lifer
- Oct 10, 2000
- 25,696
- 1
- 81
Right,
I think the debate about OTC sales to minor is very much a public policy question (need empirical data, weight the pros and cons etc.)
However, the FDA debate is STRICTLY medical. Either the drug is safe by current OTC standards or it needs to be regulated by script. There is no and should never be any question of policy in evaluating meds... otherwise you end up with the same B.S. like the HPV vaccination.
AreaCode707
Lifer
- Sep 21, 2001
- 18,447
- 133
- 106
I really wish (futilely) that the media would get out of the hype business. It's largely due to the format of reporting and the need to incite panic that the general populace does not distinguish the responsibilities of various governmental bodies. If the FDA recommends no earlier than 16, the media reports it as "now the age will be 16!" as though there are no more decision points involved than that. And, because that's how the public reacts to it, the later decision points are rendered moot because public outcry one way or another has already determined the response.
Sigh. Mass media. So much good and so much bad.
You know what, putting the abortion arguments aside is it REALLY a good idea to allow these hormonal crap to be given to teens without prior medical evaluations?
It's like the HPV vaccine. Sounds great in theory until the side effects show up.
I hope no teenager will get her/lose their lives over this if something goes wrong. Then the drugmaker will be sued and it'll be taken off the market.
It's like the HPV vaccine. Sounds great in theory until the side effects show up.
I hope no teenager will get her/lose their lives over this if something goes wrong. Then the drugmaker will be sued and it'll be taken off the market.
AreaCode707
Lifer
- Sep 21, 2001
- 18,447
- 133
- 106
Over the counter just means that you don't need a prescription to buy it. It can still be locked up / not on the shelf.
[/quote]
Good to see a professional agrees, personally as a parent I would rather my child be safe than risk any health problems due to abuse brought about by lack of knowledge with OTC drugs...I know when I was that age I wouldn't have paid attention to the labels, not saying all kids would be like that but wouldn't be surprised if alot of them would never reard the directions.
Jesus, what side effect could be worse than cancer. It has HALF the amount of side effects of most other vaccines (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vp...hpv-vacsafe-effic.htm) Do you even know how silly you sound? Go spend an hour or two on your local cancer ward. If that doesn't convince you that the vaccine is worthwhile, I'm not sure what will.
The biggest side effect is soreness. Soreness!! Do you have any idea what type of soreness you feel after chemo and radiation? It's been three years and I still wake up sore! And my cancer wasn't in a "sensitive" area like the type of cancer that HPV prevents. Get a clue man!
There had been documented cases where a drug was labeled safe and turned out it was dangerous. Vioxx anyone?
I'm not arguing against the vaccine. Nowhere in my post did I advocate the banning/disallowing the use of these vaccines/drugs. I'm just saying that you never know what these things will do. I'm not a pharmacist and I don't pretend to be one, but biological crap to my knowledge is pretty unpredictable.
Biology is not unpredictable. It may seem that way but it's really not. The mechanisms which cause cancer are pretty well understood, it's stopping them that is the hard part. We know a great deal about how cells function. While it's true that certain individuals will react differently to a medication, we are all pretty much wired the same way. Saying that you "never know" what drugs will do isn't really accurate. We know a great deal about what they will do.
Vaccines are not the same type of medication that Vioxx is and the efficacy of vaccines has been well established. They work by basically giving you a weakened version of the virus, which your immune system is able to defeat and produce anti-bodies for. The anti-bodies recognize the virus if you are ever infected with it and are able to take it out before it becomes a problem. (that's my very junior non-technical explanation)
It's just not an apples to apples comparison. Your main point was sound, but your choice of the HPV vaccine as an example was flawed.
As for the main discussion in this thread, I'm pretty sure a 17 year old can buy a condom over the counter, so I don't see a problem with this. Obviously, there are some more medical consequences of this type of hormone, but so long as it isn't used over and over I doubt it would cause serious problems. Most excess hormones are just removed from the body anyway.
Actually, plenty of atheists and other non-religious people are pro-life for rational/logical reasons unrelated to a god in which they don't believe. They've even got a group and a website which I've posted here numerous times before. But I understand the pro-choicers always rushing to repeat the cycle of constructing/destroying the "religious fanatic" strawman, because it's so much easier for the intellectually lazy. No heavy thinking required!
Atomic Playboy
Lifer
- Feb 6, 2007
- 16,432
- 1
- 81
Plan B is a medication with certain side effects that scientists at the FDA have approved for use by 17 year olds. Cigarettes are a chemical indulgence which purport to offer no medical benefit but have numerous harmful side effects. They aren't comparable.
This makes zero sense. We don't trust them to take one OTC drug within the school, so we can't trust them to take a separate OTC drug outside the school? Let me ask you this; what are this "liberal school's" policies on children taking Tylenol outside of school? That seems to be more directly comparable. My school never allowed me to throw Frisbees in class, but that didn't make it illegal for me to do it outside.
I can appreciate someone's honesty if they come out and tell me that they are against abortion, that they feel sex should be used primarily for procreation, or what have you; I may disagree with their views, but at least they're being honest about it. You come on and spout off complete nonsense that compares medication to cigarettes and posits that because Tylenol isn't allowed in school, no OTC drugs could possibly be allowed anywhere. These arguments are bullshit designed to mask your true intent. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. Tell me you want to stop all abortions and you believe emergency contraception is a form of abortion. Then at least we can have a rational discussion.
Sure, but there are more people who support some form of abortion. Perhaps that's because calling those of us who do godless heathens, murderers, or immoral wasn't the best way to explain the pro-life position.
TheNoblePlatypus
Senior member
- Dec 18, 2001
- 291
- 0
- 76
Considering that there are no restrictions on stupid people having children, I would like to see parental consent removed from contraception. There is too much ignorance, fear, and shame that goes into it for parents to be trusted with this decision. If your 10 year old is having sex, you've failed as a parent.
Also, anyone in this thread that mentions the morning after pill and abortion in the same sentence needs to be ignored and have their vote invalidated. The morning after pill prevents ovulation, it doesn't "kill a zygote".
This pill eliminates the need for an abortion. That the moral implications of it's use is still a topic for discussion just shows how primitive we still are.
Also, anyone in this thread that mentions the morning after pill and abortion in the same sentence needs to be ignored and have their vote invalidated. The morning after pill prevents ovulation, it doesn't "kill a zygote".
This pill eliminates the need for an abortion. That the moral implications of it's use is still a topic for discussion just shows how primitive we still are.
I think this is a good move...
...however I do wonder about a couple of things:
1.) If the 17 year old is now adult enough to decide when to take, and the Risks of, drugs, are they now not adult enough for age of consent?
2.) If the 17 year old is now adult enough to decide when to take, and the Risks, drugs, cannot the argument be made that they're adult enough to decide if they can drink?
3.) If the 17 year old is now adult enough to decide when to take, and the Risks, drugs, should we not modify the Selective Service age to 17 instead of 18?
It would seem that if we're saying they're adult enough to make these decisions, they ought to be considered Adults, and not children any longer.
Chuck
...however I do wonder about a couple of things:
1.) If the 17 year old is now adult enough to decide when to take, and the Risks of, drugs, are they now not adult enough for age of consent?
2.) If the 17 year old is now adult enough to decide when to take, and the Risks, drugs, cannot the argument be made that they're adult enough to decide if they can drink?
3.) If the 17 year old is now adult enough to decide when to take, and the Risks, drugs, should we not modify the Selective Service age to 17 instead of 18?
It would seem that if we're saying they're adult enough to make these decisions, they ought to be considered Adults, and not children any longer.
Chuck
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter