Soon to need a prescription for Nurofen/Solphadine/etc?

Kurtosis

RATM wrote: »

There hasn't been one single academic peer reviewed article on codine addiction in Ireland.
It seems that the PSI, an organisation based on the principles of medical science are now turning their back on medical science and basing their decisions on heresy and anecdote.

The PSI have not introduced any new laws here, they have merely issued guidelines based on current regulations to ensure the sale and supply of codeine-containing medicines is carried out in accordance with the current regulations and the product licences.

Edit: Just to let you know, seems the Irish Times used some of the content of one of your posts in an article a few days ago, hope they didn't just rob it from the site here. If you sent it in then disregard this.

RATM

drkpower wrote: »

No. Im dead serious.

Of course cigarettes shouldnt be bannned; nor should alcohol; or codeine; or cannabis; or heroin, as far as i am concerned. They should all be regulated by the State - in different ways, depending on the circumstances and the way they are used. Cigarettes & alcohol are, and have been, regulated for years.

Only to minors. And if you're following that logic then you can claim that the right to vote is regulated to them too.

Cigarettes are on sale 24/7, you can buy any quantity you want and you can smoke as many as you like.

Alcohol is only regulated in hours for sale and that is a consideration of public drunkeness and public order, it is not a regulation of alcohol in itself but rather it is regulating the consequences on the general public of drunken muppets at 6am in the morning. As it stands you can buy as much alcohol as you like between the hours of 10.30-10pm to take away. There is nothing stopping anyone drinking their liver to death, period.

sesna

As regards the mysterious Orwellian Nanny State constantly referred to, it should be noted that the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland's Council is basically a bunch of heads over on plush Shrewsbury road who can be thanked for devising these guidelines, the majority of whom are members of the public supposedly serving the public interest. I see nothing similiar to these guidelines pertains in the UK.

The most worrying aspect of these guidelines are that they were introduced without any study/evidence on the scale of the problem of codeine addiction in Ireland. If there is a huge problem the guidelines are wholly insufficient, if there is a minor one they are overkill.

RATM

penguin88 wrote: »

The PSI have not introduced any new laws here, they have merely issued guidelines based on current regulations to ensure the sale and supply of codeine-containing medicines is carried out in accordance with the current regulations and the product licences.

Where did I say the PSI introduced laws? Despite early confusion its well known by now that they are 'guidelines'. Besides, the introduction of legislation is for the executive, not the PSI.

In other news Boot.co.uk sell codine based products from their website. Irish holidaymakers buy them by the truckload in Spain. And drug dealers on the street have now taken to selling them. Well done PSI, way to cock up.

gbee

RATM wrote: »

And drug dealers on the street have now taken to selling them. Well done PSI, way to cock up.

Yup, even more freedom, and as they are not actually illegal ....

drkpower

RATM wrote: »

Only to minors. And if you're following that logic then you can claim that the right to vote is regulated to them too.

Cigarettes are on sale 24/7, you can buy any quantity you want and you can smoke as many as you like.

Alcohol is only regulated in hours for sale and that is a consideration of public drunkeness and public order, it is not a regulation of alcohol in itself but rather it is regulating the consequences on the general public of drunken muppets at 6am in the morning. As it stands you can buy as much alcohol as you like between the hours of 10.30-10pm to take away. There is nothing stopping anyone drinking their liver to death, period.

No doubt the regulation of both cigs & alcohol is not as stringent as perhaps they should be; we know most of the reasons for same. Of course regulation also comes by way of taxation and limits on advertising & supply. But fundamentally, alcohol/cigs (for good or for bad reasons) really do occupy their own special category.

I would also point out that the public awareness of alcohol and cigarette addiction are widely known; the awareness of codeine addiction is not very well known at all - and as such, this measure was especially justified. Another difference is that people, for right or for wrong, generally believe that medicines are 'good', and are more vulnerable when it comes to the dangers caused by them. The history of benzodiazepine addiction in this country (and that is a POM) is an example of how this can easily occur (although doctors have to take a large dose of responsibility for this).

Dudess

sesna wrote: »

As regards the mysterious Orwellian Nanny State constantly referred to, it should be noted that the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland's Council is basically a bunch of heads over on plush Shrewsbury road who can be thanked for devising these guidelines, the majority of whom are members of the public supposedly serving the public interest. I see nothing similiar to these guidelines pertains in the UK.

I suppose the "nanny" reference is perhaps appropriate given the nature of this: let's not allow people make their own decisions and let's allow everyone suffer because of a minority who abuse these substances. I'm aware though that's only one strand of the debate, which is a fairly complex one.

sesna

Dudess wrote: »

I suppose the "nanny" reference is perhaps appropriate given the nature of this: let's not allow people make their own decisions and let's allow everyone suffer because of a minority who abuse these substances. I'm aware though that's only one strand of the debate, which is a fairly complex one.

Just elaborating on where these guidelines originated from.

Spanish Eyes

RATM wrote: »

In other news Boot.co.uk sell codine based products from their website. Irish holidaymakers buy them by the truckload in Spain. And drug dealers on the street have now taken to selling them. Well done PSI, way to cock up.

Boots UK do not deliver to Ireland.

I don't think Codeine products can be purchased without a scrip in Spain.

Where are the drug dealers getting them???:D

Ben Hadad

How did the world function with out all these addictive over the counter pain killers that people are so vehemently defending their right to take.

Just fine.

Are people taking these out of convenience.

Yes

Are these drugs curing any underlining problems.

No

Are these addictive

Yes

Are they injurious to your health

They certainly can be

Now can we all agree that something that is potentially addictive and potentially injurous to ones health, which is only taken for convenience reasons and has no effect on any underlying medical condition, should be regulated by the industry which is meant to be curing and not causing ill health.

HorsesNHarleys

drkpower wrote: »

Is there much of a black market for antibiotics, or prescription anti-inflammatories?

Not for anti-inflammatory, but definitely for anything with codeine in it. What's interesting about the prescription anti-inflammatory medication is the doctors will usually tell you to take a certain amount of the over the counter anti-inflammatory medication which is equivalent to the prescription strength or they can write the prescription for it. It really is a matter of whether you want to take one 800 mg pill or four 200 mg pills.

With regard to the anti-biotic prescriptions, I imagine if there was an outbreak of something and there was a shortage of the necessary anti-biotic then there probably would be a black market, that's usually how it works, but right now there isn't. Trying to put some kind of logic on how our medicines are determined to be restricted is futile because there is no logic. It's based primarily and driven by the almighty dollar. The pharmaceutical industry and the Food and Drug Administration are about corrupt as they come. The primary focus of the Pharmaceutical Industry is to ensure that the sales of pharmaceutical drugs for on-going diseases continue to increase while discovering new diseases for existing medicines to treat.

Think about it realistically, finding cures is in direct conflict with the Pharmaceutical Industries objectives, why would they ever want to find cures for any illness or disease? By finding cures, they stand to lose billions in lost profits. In America, the government pours billions of dollars into companies in the way of grants doing medical research to find cures that will never be found because, it's not in their best interest to find a cure. They simply take the money and run. They go through all the motions like they're doing research and trying to find a cure without ever having any intent to do so. The companies then put out a medication that won't cure but will help minimize the effects, mask the symptoms or reduce them, but never cure and so the circle continues on and on.

Doesn't it seem odd that we can develop some of the most complex advanced weaponry, computers, aircraft, rockets, satellites, artificial hearts and limbs, robotics, we can send folks into space, but we can't find the cure for cancer or the common cold? Look at the billions in money made from those two diseases/illness alone.

Trust me, governments typically don't institute any policy or law for your protection that the government itself is not gaining or benefiting more from by doing it whether it is monetary or simply more control over people's lives and a greater dependency on their government to function in their daily life.

sesna

HorsesNHarleys wrote: »

Doesn't it seem odd that we can develop some of the most complex advanced weaponry, computers, aircraft, rockets, satellites, artificial hearts and limbs, robotics, we can send folks into space, but we can't find the cure for cancer or the common cold?

No, not if you have a basic understanding of these conditions.

Ben Hadad

gbee wrote: »

No they did not, I won't insult you about displaying ignorance, but Heroine was legal in the 1800 through to about 1930 ... or so.

Throughout history, there are examples of The Indian War Dance and the opiate they took, the African Zulu warrior who injected Cocaine in his nose as he entered battle after a drug educes war dance ...

Erm. Maybe a revised thesis would be in order. wE DEPENDED ON DRUGS OF ALL SORTS,

Well maybe you depending on drugs of all sorts, but I don't.

Also every example you gave is kinda dumb.

How did people fare before they took heroin??
Just look at any junkie in Dublin, slightly better I would warrent

Indian war dance - an insitement to violence. I think their survival chances were slightly better before.

Zulu example - same

Please, how did these drugs for these above examples mean that the world could not function?

DublinWriter

sesna wrote: »

As regards the mysterious Orwellian Nanny State constantly referred to, it should be noted that the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland's Council is basically a bunch of heads over on plush Shrewsbury road who can be thanked for devising these guidelines, the majority of whom are members of the public supposedly serving the public interest. I see nothing similiar to these guidelines pertains in the UK.

I worked for a major UK pharmaceutical company in Ireland the 90's and the sale of their OTC codeine based product in this country was something in the region of four times the sales in the UK per capita.

Ten years ago they were aware of people starting to get hooked on their product. Codeine is an opiate and very addictive. Most of the high ranking Nazi leaders (including Hitler himself) were all hooked on it towards the end of WWII. Howard Hughes was also another famous addict.

The markup on these Codeine based products is phenomenal. Basically the PSI are covering themselves in case of getting sued due to the large volume of OTC products containing Codeine that are being bought by Irish consumers.

Effecively nothing has changed. Even in the USA you need a script to get anything with Codeine in it.

Stark

HorsesNHarleys wrote: »

Trying to put some kind of logic on how our medicines are determined to be restricted is futile because there is no logic. It's based primarily and driven by the almighty dollar. The pharmaceutical industry and the Food and Drug Administration are about corrupt as they come. The primary focus of the Pharmaceutical Industry is to ensure that the sales of pharmaceutical drugs for on-going diseases continue to increase while discovering new diseases for existing medicines to treat.

Think about it realistically, finding cures is in direct conflict with the Pharmaceutical Industries objectives, why would they ever want to find cures for any illness or disease? By finding cures, they stand to lose billions in lost profits. In America, the government pours billions of dollars into companies in the way of grants doing medical research to find cures that will never be found because, it's not in their best interest to find a cure. They simply take the money and run. They go through all the motions like they're doing research and trying to find a cure without ever having any intent to do so. The companies then put out a medication that won't cure but will help minimize the effects, mask the symptoms or reduce them, but never cure and so the circle continues on and on.

Doesn't it seem odd that we can develop some of the most complex advanced weaponry, computers, aircraft, rockets, satellites, artificial hearts and limbs, robotics, we can send folks into space, but we can't find the cure for cancer or the common cold? Look at the billions in money made from those two diseases/illness alone.

That's very interesting Tom. How's Katie getting on these days by the way?

sesna

DublinWriter wrote: »

I worked for a major UK pharmaceutical company in Ireland the 90's and the sale of their OTC codeine based product in this country was something in the region of four times the sales in the UK per capita.

Ten years ago they were aware of people starting to get hooked on their product. Codeine is an opiate and very addictive. Most of the high ranking Nazi leaders (including Hitler himself) were all hooked on it towards the end of WWII. Howard Hughes was also another famous addict.

The markup on these Codeine based products is phenomenal. Basically the PSI are covering themselves in case of getting sued due to the large volume of OTC products containing Codeine that are being bought by Irish consumers.

Effecively nothing has changed. Even in the USA you need a script to get anything with Codeine in it.

It just seems strange commisioning guidelines without any hard evidence or any study. How can the PSI check if these guidelines have been effective this time next year. Any declaration of success (such as declared by PSI spokesperson on radio during the week ) is purely anecdotal and subjective.

Side point - I agree that something had to be done but would be sceptical of PSI being sued. Could we, for example, sue the financial regulator for their negligence over the past 10 years or the Department/Minister for Finance

bleg

sesna wrote: »

It just seems strange commisioning guidelines without any hard evidence or any study. How can the PSI check if these guidelines have been effective this time next year. Any declaration of success (such as declared by PSI spokesperson on radio during the week ) is purely anecdotal and subjective.

You could check the sales.

DublinWriter

sesna wrote: »

Side point - I agree that something had to be done but would be sceptical of PSI being sued. Could we, for example, sue the financial regulator for their negligence over the past 10 years or the Department/Minister for Finance

Apples and oranges. We as consumers of financial services don't have direct dealings with the Regulator or the Minister.

It's all to do with how people in the US are starting to sue McDonalds over becoming obese. We are starting to become more like the states in how litigious we are.

If the PSI really gave a rat's arse then they'd lobby to make Codeine a prescription-only product as it is in the States. It's a major cash-cow for them.

sesna

bleg wrote: »

You could check the sales.

The problem is not the sales.

What good is it if you deny 4 people codeine who legitimately need it and would have used it responsibly, while the one person with an addiction or who abuses the product comes in with all the rehearsed answers, visits various pharmacies and thereby easily circumvents these weak guidelines.

sesna

DublinWriter wrote: »

Apples and oranges. We as consumers of financial services don't have direct dealings with the Regulator or the Minister.

It's all to do with how people in the US are starting to sue McDonalds over becoming obese. We are starting to become more like the states in how litigious we are.

If the PSI really gave a rat's arse then they'd lobby to make Codeine a prescription-only product as it is in the States. It's a major cash-cow for them.

We as "consumers" of pharmaceutical products dont have direct dealings with the pharmacy regulator.

Using your analogy of suing McDonalds, we would be suing the pharmaceutical companies. I have never heard of that happening for sleeping tablets, morphine, other drugs with addiction potential.

Maybe McDonalds should bring in Happy guidelines, ask when we last ate a cheeseburger, have we tried healthy food, discern between people with low body fat and obese people, etc.

Finally, the PSI do not designate prescription-only status to medicinal products. That's the remit of the Irish Medicines Board.

policeman

HorsesNHarleys wrote: »

Doesn't it seem odd that we can develop some of the most complex advanced weaponry, computers, aircraft, rockets, satellites, artificial hearts and limbs, robotics, we can send folks into space, but we can't find the cure for cancer or the common cold? Look at the billions in money made from those two diseases/illness alone.

An nurse experienced in cancer care once told me, through her own research, that a cancer cure had been discovered as far back as the 1970's but it was buried because the global drug giants make too much profit from it, and governments see it as some sort of population control [therefore costing them less money]. Now, I accept this is anecdotal, and you might say another paranoid conspiracy theory, but it sticks in my mind.

Profit before people.. Profit before people...Look after number 1, personal gain, blady blah. That is predominantly the way civilisation has evolved much to our collective shame. Therefore all is never what it seems.

So when the next person says to you, sorry scratch that, pontificates "I'm doing this for your own good, because I really do care what happens to you I]you moron[/I" Ask yourself do they really give a toss? What's their real motive? Are they just looking after themselves? To the latter the answer will invariably be a resounding Yes.

bleg

DublinWriter wrote: »

Apples and oranges. We as consumers of financial services don't have direct dealings with the Regulator or the Minister.

What direct dealings with the PSI have you had?

If the PSI really gave a rat's arse then they'd lobby to make Codeine a prescription-only product as it is in the States. It's a major cash-cow for them.

What?

DublinWriter

sesna wrote: »

Using your analogy of suing McDonalds, we would be suing the pharmaceutical companies. I have never heard of that happening for sleeping tablets, morphine, other drugs with addiction potential. (Maybe it could happen with the Thalidomide victims but that was before there was proper regulation in place).

Not really, we would be suing the farmers in that case.

Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't.

In the case of script-only medicines the trend is to sue the pharma company (see recent cases involving Seroxat/Paxil) that's a different ball-game entirely. The dispensing chemist is in receipt of a prescription and is not using his/her discretion to sell the drugs directly to a customer, as is the case with OTC Codeine based products.

sesna

policeman wrote: »

An nurse experienced in cancer care once told me, through her own research, that a cancer cure had been discovered as far back as the 1970's but it was buried because the global drug giants make too much profit from it, and governments see it as some sort of population control [therefore costing them less money]. Now, I accept this is anecdotal, and you might say another paranoid conspiracy theory, but it sticks in my mind.

Playing devils advocate again. :pac:

sesna

DublinWriter wrote: »

Not really, we would be suing the farmers in that case.

Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't.

In the case of script-only medicines the trend is to sue the pharma company (see recent cases involving Seroxat/Paxil) that's a different ball-game entirely. The dispensing chemist is in receipt of a prescription and is not using his/her discretion to sell the drugs directly to a customer, as is the case with OTC Codeine based products.

There is a difference though between a fundamental problem with the drug as mentioned above in the case of Paxil, and a problem arising from patient misuse of an otherwise perfectly safe drug. Hence why I stated I have not heard of any litigation involving addiction from misuse of any painkillers. ( Mentioning Thalidomide was a bad example as this was obviously nothing to do with addictive potential/misuse by patients)

The dispensing chemist does use discretion with script medicines too. A prescription is not an order they must follow.

Stark

policeman wrote: »

An nurse experienced in cancer care once told me, through her own research, that a cancer cure had been discovered as far back as the 1970's but it was buried because the global drug giants make too much profit from it, and governments see it as some sort of population control [therefore costing them less money]. Now, I accept this is anecdotal, and you might say another paranoid conspiracy theory, but it sticks in my mind.

Complete BS. The Government spends an absolute fortune on cancer care for people. Not to mention that many people being hit by cancer are productive people below the age of retirement, adding a further cost burden to employers and social welfare. If there was a cheap and easy cure, they'd be all over it.

policeman

Ben Hadad wrote: »

Well maybe you depending on drugs of all sorts, but I don't.

Jeez.Now why can't we be all like this?! A true shining example. 2 gold stars I'd say.

policeman

Stark wrote: »

Complete BS. The Government spends an absolute fortune on cancer care for people.

Mmm..where does this money trail go I wonder

Corsendonk

policeman wrote: »

Mmm..where does this money trail go I wonder

On spaceships of course! if you believed that bull you mentioned about a cancer cure in the 1970s that was suppressed you should believe that.

Kurtosis

Corsendonk wrote: »

On spaceships of course! if you believed that bull you mentioned about a cancer cure in the 1970s that was suppressed you should believe that.

Pfft, spaceships?! Everyone knows it's actually spent on tinfoil hats and canned food for government officials for when the mind-reading lizard people invade.