A Drug is any chemical substance which when taken alters the moods, perception and behavior. Drug addiction refers to the physiological dependency on drugs and the person experiences withdrawal symptoms like fever, shivering, nausea, insomnia etc, Drug dependency is the dependence a person develops on the drugs, this dependency is not only a physiological dependence but also psychological dependence. When a person gets dependent on a drug, they get a craving for it, and if the person is unable to fulfill this craving, he/she becomes angry, frustrated or depressed.
Drug abuse denotes an excessive use of drugs which is likely to produce a habit and an intensive desire to consume more drugs. It may lead to drug dependency. Drug tolerance means that the person has reached a threshold, and the level of drug intake has gone high and the person requires more and more quantity of drug to get the feeling of euphoria.
It is interesting to know that the usage of drugs is not a new phenomenon. In the prehistoric times drugs were made from extracts of leaves and were used to relieve body aches and pains.
Drugs can be classified into four types:
Narcotic: It can be of different types, to begin with there are opium which are seeds that are collected from coffee seeds. Then there is morphine which is present in opium, initially it was used in medication as a pain killer in injuries or diseases like cancer but it resulted in drowsiness and excessive sleepiness. In order to reduce this effect, through a chemical process the two properties of painkiller and sedative ness were separated. This separation of the properties of morphine caused a disaster in medical science. The strong sedative property of morphine is heroin, which is highly addictive and produces drug dependence. Brown sugar is a unadulterated, unrefined form of heroin, it is usually mixed with class power etc, due to this it is cheep.
Stimulants: Stimulants are used to activate or stimulate the nervous system. It helps a person reach a stage of charged energy; hence it is commonly used by sports persons. Some stimulants are caffeine, cocaine, steroids, etc.
Depressants: They have the opposite effects to stimulants, depressants slowdown and deactivate the nervous system. The person feels sleepy, dull, inactive and the like. It reduces the stress and anxiety, some type of depressants is valium, alcohol, tranquillizers.
Hallucinogens: These kinds of drugs produce hallucinations that are perceived or see things which do not exist. Some types of hallucinogens are LSD, marijuana leaves, marijuana seeds, and hash.
I often wonder why any one use drugs would. What are the reasons behind taking them? It is off late that I heard about many young people being caught taking drugs and was arrested for the same. Here are some reasons why people may use drugs.
The highest population of drug users is among the youth of today. Initial curiosity and experimentation is one cause to drug intake, the youth today wants to try new things, have new thrills and want to experiment with different things. By chance they try drugs and get fixed with the feeling of euphoria. Once addicted there is no turning back for them. Another reason is peer pressure. Everyone wants to be liked, admired and given a lot of attention. If a boy or a girl is got in to the company of others who use and abuse drugs, they feel compelled to use drugs just so they are accepted and thought of as "cool". They don't want to loose friends nor do they want others to think of them as looser or rejects so they circum under the pressure of peers.
The same is true of people of any age group. Sometimes when going through a mid life crises many men and women want to try new things, something they had never done before or were denied when young. The 20th century has developed the world at an ever increasing rate. The fast life, the tough competition to be the best, high standard of living and the ever growing expenses cause much tension, anxiety and frustration. High cases of divorces and failed relationship are just some of the negative outcomes of our fast paced life. Unfortunately some people find it hard to deal with these pressures in life, and resort to drugs to escape from failure and the responsibilities of everyday life.
Sometimes loneliness and depression causes people to use drugs. Children, especially adolescents imitate and idolize their parents. Therefore if there is a drug user in the family, chances of the child to use them becomes high. In such families the values towards the use to drugs is also different. When a person is suffering from a fatal disease or has lost hope and the wish to live resort to the use of drugs to forget the pain.
Finally, the most unfortunate cause of drug intake is the cheep and easy availability of drugs. This easy access to drug users and drug takers lead to high drug addiction and drug abuse. I remember once my young niece asked me why is taking drugs so bad. She told me her teacher told her taking drugs is bad but she couldn't understand why. Unfortunately it's the same story with many others.
There are various effects of drugs; lets classify these into physiological effects, psychological and social effects.
Physiological effect
Effect of drug on our bodies is direct. You may notice symptoms like lack of apatite (no hunger), unusual weight loss, bronchitis (lung disease), bad nutrition level, problem of lever, and lack of personal hygiene (shabby appearance).
Psychological effect
Our mind also gets affected by drugs, but this is indirectly and untapped. You would notice that a person on drugs suffer from depressions, lack of sleep or they even become paranoid.
Social effects
The effect of drugs on society is indirect. When addicted the persons needs more finances to buy more and more drugs to fulfill their craving, when the money is not available it leads to stealing, prostitution and sometimes even murders, hence, leading to a high crime rate. Besides this, addiction can also lead to poor interpersonal relationships those results in bad relationships and sometimes even divorces. Hence, when a person takes drugs they not only harm themselves but also the people around them who they love and care for and also the society at large.
The using and misusing and abusing of drugs can be prevented in several ways like:
Awareness, the most important step towards the prevention of drugs is education people about the bad effects of drugs and their harmfulness by means of lectures, mass media, seminars and workshops.
Make punishment sever, if a person is caught with even 1 gram of drugs in Japan the punishment is 7 years of imprisonment. When people fear the system they would stop using drugs.
Provide a good family life, when a person is surrounded with a good family support system and understanding loving family they would not want to use drugs.
Now that you know what drugs are, and have read about their effects and ways of prevention lets look at some treatments that are possible for people who wish to recover form addiction:
Hospitalization: A person who is physically and psychologically dependent needs to be hospitalized and kept under supervision and is treated for the withdrawal symptoms.
Aversion therapy: under this therapy the user is given painful shocks and this creates a haltered and aversion towards drugs.
Psychotherapy: A psychiatrist treats the user by trying to figure out the root cause behind the use of drugs. And counseling is done to find a satisfying solution.
Narcotics Anonymous: it is an organization of ex- drug users who help others recover by regularly meeting and sharing problems. It is a social support system which gives the user a new perspective on his/ her circumstances and life
Rehabilitation: A person who is discharged from the hospital after a treatment for drugs is usually taken to rehabilitation centers. After a treatment if a person goes back to the same way of life that caused his to be a drug addict in the first place would lead to a relapse and the person would resort to drugs again. So usually after a treatment in the hospital a person usually goes for rehabilitation where the person would keep them self occupied with work and vocational training and learn new and better ways of life and dealing and coping with stressful situations, usually these centers have a psychiatrist or a psychologist who work with them to build a better behavior patter, after a period of time the person is discharged with a certificate stating that they have fully recovered from drug use.
Drugs, Just say NO!!!

» Read More...

If you're like many Americans, the rising cost of prescription drugs may be costing you your health. In particular, seniors living on a fixed income with no insurance are finding it difficult to pay for necessary prescriptions out-of-pocket, and as a result, may be failing to receive the treatment they need to stay healthy. Often, the struggle can put a big strain on seniors' finances.
But why are prescription drug prices so high, especially when most people who require medication are usually not in a financial position that allows them to afford the full price tag? The real reasons are more complicated than what you might suspect, but one thing's for certain - drug prices have been skyrocketing.
The reason that is most often touted (by the drug companies, of course) for the high price of drugs is research and development (R&D) costs. The drug companies contest that the only way to pay for the development of new life-saving drugs - that will improve the lives of millions of Americans - is through profits from current drug sales. The high prices, they say, are merely a reflection of the spending that is necessary for the creation of newer, better drugs.
But is this the truth? Are drug companies using a large percentage of current prescription drug sales to fund R&D? If so, are the new drugs under development truly going to improve the health of the people who need them most? Sadly, this doesn't appear to be the case.
In reality, drug companies spend more on advertising, lobbying and political contributions than they do on research and development. Most of the money you pay for prescription medication ends up in the pockets of marketers and politicians, so that you can be convinced that you need the "newer" and "better" drugs that are under development.
In addition, research and development tends to focus on more "marketable" types of drugs that the drug companies can sell to the largest amounts of people. How many times have you seen advertisements for a drug that can help alleviate such serious medical conditions as social anxiety disorder and seasonal allergies? Unfortunately, this means that most large drug companies tend to neglect the development of life-saving drugs for more serious conditions, as the numbers are not there to rake in high profits.
Developing new allergy or anxiety drugs, however, does not require massive amounts of money, as these drugs have already been developed. Neither does rehashing previously developed drugs to be marketed for a new ailment. Usually the newer drugs under "development" aren't new at all. So even the money that is spent on R&D, it can be argued, is an unnecessary expense driven by the market more than by the country's medical needs.
Unfortunately for the consumer, all the money spent on advertising rather than development, and providing drug information to physicians about specific new drugs that need to be marketed, makes it very likely that you will end up paying more money than you should. Also, because your doctor is only provided with information on the latest and "greatest" drugs, he/she will be more likely to prescribe you the more expensive drugs. Perhaps surprisingly, there are older versions of drugs on the market that work just as well as their updated counterparts (sometimes better) as well as generic versions of brand name drugs that come at a significantly reduced cost. Of course, the drug companies do not market these drugs and do all they can to keep generic drugs off the shelves for as long as possible.
That's another place your money goes when you buy prescription drugs - lawyers. Drug companies spend a lot of money paying for court cases to extend the patents of certain drugs. Even though the cases are often lost in the end, court processes can take months to resolve - buying more time for the drug companies to be the sole profiteers of a particular drug. When the patent on a drug runs out, other companies are allowed to create and sell a generic version of the drug. It is usually sold for a lower price, which takes customers away from the brand name and reduces that drug company's profits. In the end, patents are often extended anyway because the drug company finds a new application for the drug, thus artificially extending the life of the patent and keeping generics off the shelves. You end up paying more because a less expensive generic alternative is not available and you are forced to shell out for the higher priced brand name drug instead.
For the lucky people who have insurance that covers the cost of their drugs, this may be indirectly allowing the drug companies to charge more than they would if everyone had to pay full price. Because many people never see the true cost of their prescriptions, the price is not something they worry about. As a result, drug companies feel freer to raise prices and costs continue to rise. The bottom line? A large percentage of what you pay for drugs is taken as profit.
What Can You Do To Lower Your Drug Costs?
Understanding why drug costs are so high, you may feel that it is impossible to find a way to reduce them. But this simply isn't true. There are several things you can do to make prescription drugs more affordable.
As mentioned briefly above, it pays (literally) to be informed. If your doctor doesn't possess the knowledge regarding all the drug choices available for your condition, take initiative and conduct some of your own research. Ask your doctor if there are any older versions of the newest drug you've been prescribed and find out if the drug is as effective. If it can do the job just as well as its newer relation, and comes with a cheaper price tag, it won't take you long to make a decision.
Secondly, find out if there are any generic versions of the drug you need available in your area. Generic drugs are the same drug but without the brand name price tag. This type of drug is similar to the no-name brands you find in your local grocery store. The product is exactly the same but less expensive because you're not paying for the name (and hence the advertising).
If you are uninsured or underinsured, make sure you exhaust all your insurance options. Calculate the costs associated with purchasing an insurance plan and determine whether or not you can find a plan that will ultimately weigh in your favor. Also, find out if you can benefit from Medicare. Medicare Part D is one option you should research, although for many Americans it has actually made prescription drugs more expensive and seems to have been created to benefit the drug companies rather than the American public. The process can be confusing, but if you take the time to find out if you are one of the lucky few to benefit, it could be worth your while.
Finally, many Americans have chosen to order discount drugs online, from either American or Canadian pharmacies. American online pharmacies offer older and generic versions of drugs at a reduced cost, while Canadian operations can actually offer brand name prescriptions (or whatever prescription you require) for a significantly lower price. This is simply because the Canadian Government regulates the cost of drugs, which means you pay less at the cash register. As long as the pharmacy is licensed to conduct international pharmacy services, ordering online from a Canadian pharmacy is a safe and affordable alternative to the high cost of drugs in the U.S.

» Read More...

In Washington v. Glucksberg, Chief Justice Rehnquist described the framework for substantive due process analysis:
Our established method of substantive-due-process analysis has two primary features: First, we have regularly observed that the Due Process Clause specially protects those fundamental rights and liberties which are, objectively, "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition," and "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," such that "neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed." Second, we have required in substantive-due-process cases a "careful description" of the asserted fundamental liberty interest. Our Nation's history, legal traditions, and practices thus provide the crucial "guideposts for responsible decisionmaking," that direct and restrain our exposition of the Due Process Clause. As we stated recently in Flores, the Fourteenth Amendment "forbids the government to infringe . . . 'fundamental' liberty interests at all, no matter what process is provided, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest."
Applying this method, one must first examine freedom from incarceration to determine if it is a fundamental right. If so, government policies that require the incarceration of offenders, including drug offenders, must serve compelling interests and be narrowly tailored to achieve them. This article assumes for the sake of argument that drug problems give rise to compelling state interests. It then reviews the interests asserted by the government in its pursuit of its drug war policies and the results of those policies to determine whether the policy of incarcerating drug offenders is narrowly tailored to those asserted interests.
B. The Fundamental Liberty Interest: Freedom from Incarceration
Federal and state laws subject drug offenders to incarceration. Incarceration is a tremendous deprivation of liberty that triggers the protections of the Due Process Clause. The Supreme Court has recognized this right on a number of occasions. In DeShaney v. Winnebago County DSS for example, the court held:
[I]t is the State's affirmative act of restraining the individual's freedom to act on his own behalf--through incarceration, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty--which is the "deprivation of liberty" triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause . . . .
Perhaps the earliest explicit recognition by the Supreme Court of freedom from incarceration as a fundamental right under substantive due process came in Allgeyer:
The 'liberty' mentioned in [the fourteenth] amendment means, not only the right of the citizen to be free from the mere physical restraint of his person, as by incarceration, but the term is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties; to be free to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue any livelihood or avocation; and for that purpose to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary, and essential to his carrying out to a successful conclusion the purposes above mentioned.
An 1891 law review article noted that Blackstone described "freedom from restraint of the person" as "perhaps the most important of all civil rights," and that Lord Coke felt "the liberty of a man's person is more precious to him than everything else that is mentioned [in the Magna Charta]." Blackstone states that "the rights of all mankind . . . may be reduced to three principal or primary articles; the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right of private property." Indeed, the original Latin in the Magna Charta's "law of the land" clause uses the term "imprisonetur."
No court has invalidated a criminal statute through the application of substantive due process analysis to the fundamental right of freedom from incarceration. At the same time, no court has ruled to the contrary. The Supreme Court avoided the question in Reno v. Flores:
The "freedom from physical restraint" invoked by respondents is not at issue in this case. Surely not in the sense of shackles, chains, or barred cells, given the Juvenile Care Agreement. Nor even in the sense of a right to come and go at will, since, as we have said elsewhere, "juveniles, unlike adults, are always in some form of custody," and where the custody of the parent or legal guardian fails, the government may (indeed, we have said must) either exercise custody itself or appoint someone else to do so.
This analysis would not apply to adult drug offenders. The Fourth Circuit also avoided addressing freedom from incarceration as a fundamental right in Hawkins v. Freeman:
Hawkins's rhetorical reference to the right as being "freedom from unjust incarceration," and that of amicus, American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina, as the "right to be free from arbitrary incarceration," are issue-begging generalizations that cannot serve the inquiry. A properly precise description can, however, be found in the facts and legal authorities relied upon by Hawkins in support of his claim. From these, we deduce that the precise right asserted is that of a prisoner to remain free on erroneously granted parole so long as he did not contribute to or know of the error and has for an appreciable time remained on good behavior to the point that his expectations for continued freedom from incarceration have "crystallized."
Hawkins is distinguishable because it deals with an inmate whose parole was revoked. In any event, the casual dismissal as an "issue-begging generalization" flies in the face of nearly 800 years of common law tradition and over a century of Supreme Court decisions recognizing freedom from incarceration as a fundamental right. Indeed the language of the Supreme Court's Ingraham decision supports the application of substantive due process proposed in this paper:
While the contours of this historic liberty interest in the context of our federal system of government have not been defined precisely, they always have been thought to encompass freedom from bodily restraint and punishment. It is fundamental that the state cannot hold and physically punish an individual except in accordance with due process of law.
The Court also stressed this fundamental liberty interest in Foucha v. Louisiana, a case involving the confinement of a person found not guilty by reason of insanity:
Freedom from bodily restraint has always been at the core of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause from arbitrary governmental action. "It is clear that commitment for any purpose constitutes a significant deprivation of liberty that requires due process protection." We have always been careful not to "minimize the importance and fundamental nature" of the individual's right to liberty.
While the Foucha Court indicated that "a State may imprison convicted criminals for the purposes of deterrence and retribution," the remark was dicta and did not involve any discussion of substantive limits on the police power. In Meachum v. Fano the Court made a similar remark in the context of a case dealing with prison conditions: "[G]iven a valid conviction, the criminal defendant has been constitutionally deprived of his liberty to the extent that the State may confine him." Again there was no discussion of substantive limits on the police power. Indeed the previous sentence noted: "The Due Process Clause by its own force forbids the State from convicting any person of crime and depriving him of his liberty without complying fully with the requirements of the Clause."
Recently in Zadvydas v. Davis, the Court noted:
The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause forbids the Government to "depriv[e]" any "person ... of ... liberty ... without due process of law." Freedom from imprisonment--from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint--lies at the heart of the liberty that Clause protects.
Freedom from incarceration is not just a fundamental right. It is the one of the most fundamental of rights.
C. Identifying the State's Interests
Governmental drug policy interests identified in federal statutes include "demand reduction," "supply reduction," and "reducing drug abuse and the consequences of drug abuse in the United States, by limiting the availability of and reducing the demand for illegal drugs."
Federal law sets specific goals for the National Drug Control Strategy. These include:
"Reduction of unlawful drug use to 3 percent of the population";
"Reduction of adolescent unlawful drug use to 3 percent of the adolescent population";
"Reduction of the availability of cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamine";
"Reduction of the respective nationwide average street purity levels for cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamine"; and
"Reduction of drug-related crime."
Goals are also set forth with regard to drug-related crime:
(i) reduction of State and Federal unlawful drug trafficking and distribution; (ii) reduction of State and Federal crimes committed by persons under the influence of unlawful drugs; (iii) reduction of State and Federal crimes committed for the purpose of obtaining unlawful drugs or obtaining property that is intended to be used for the purchase of unlawful drugs; and (iv) reduction of drug-related emergency room incidents . . . .
D. Defining "Narrow Tailoring" in the Context of Substantive Due Process
Assuming that the governmental interests are compelling, we must determine whether the incarceration of drug offenders is narrowly tailored to achieving them. The government must show that its policy passes strict scrutiny. The concept of narrow tailoring is not well defined in the context of substantive due process, but has been fairly well defined in regard to the First Amendment and Equal Protection. Equal Protection cases also arise out of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Education the Supreme Court held: "Under strict scrutiny the means chosen to accomplish the State's asserted purpose must be specifically and narrowly framed to accomplish that purpose." In a footnote, the Court described narrow tailoring in even further detail:
The term "narrowly tailored," so frequently used in our cases, has acquired a secondary meaning. More specifically, as commentators have indicated, the term may be used to require consideration of whether lawful alternative and less restrictive means could have been used. Or, as Professor Ely has noted, the classification at issue must "fit" with greater precision than any alternative means. "[Courts] should give particularly intense scrutiny to whether a nonracial approach or a more narrowly-tailored racial classification could promote the substantial interest about as well and at tolerable administrative expense."
It is important to note here that a policy that does not advance the government's interests violates substantive due process regardless of how it compares with the alternatives. If it does not accomplish its purpose, logic dictates it cannot be specifically and narrowly framed to accomplish its purpose.
E. Advancing Governmental Interests
Congress has identified certain tools for assessing the national drug control strategy. The National Household Survey is the measure for "unlawful drug use." Similarly, "adolescent unlawful drug use" is to be measured "by the Monitoring the Future Survey of the University of Michigan or the National PRIDE Survey conducted by the National Parents' Resource Institute for Drug Education." On these measures, the goals are not being reached.
The measure of adolescent drug use that was specifically identified by Congress, illicit drug use in the past 30 days, worsened in 2001. More than 25% of US twelfth graders reported using illicit drugs in the past 30 days. That is nearly double the figure for 1992 and more than eight times the stated goal of 3%. Over 40% of 12th graders tried an illicit drug in the past year.
The PRIDE Survey and National Household Survey show similar results.
The drug war has also failed in its other goals. The Monitoring the Future Survey tracks how twelfth graders perceive the availability of drugs. Reducing availability is an explicit goal of the drug war. The perceived availability of marijuana in 2001 was slightly higher than in 1975. The figures for harder drugs are more disturbing. From 1975 to 1986, roughly 20% of twelfth graders said heroin was easy to get. That number shot up in the late 1980s and has remained consistently higher than 30%. Cocaine remains widely available to our youth, with nearly 50% of twelfth graders saying it is easy to get. The survey began measuring the availability of ecstasy in 1989, when only 22% of twelfth graders felt it was easy to get. In 2001, that number went over 61%, having jumped from 51% the year before.
Drug war policies are not achieving the stated drug war goals. They cannot be "specifically and narrowly framed to accomplish their purpose" because they are not accomplishing their purpose. Drug use has not been reduced in any significant way, and levels of drug use are far above the stated goals. Our children have easy access to drugs. We can't even keep drugs out of jails. The drug war and the incarceration of drug offenders have also failed to achieve secondary goals regarding supply, demand, purity, drug-related health problems and drug-related crime. The policy of incarcerating drug offenders does not "directly advance[] the governmental interest asserted." The War on Drugs is not working.
F. Alternative Means
Even if a court is persuaded that incarceration advances the government's interests, the government must also show that its policy choice fits better than the alternatives. Critics of the drug war encompass a broad spectrum of backgrounds, and the range of "solutions" is just as wide. Libertarians and others favor outright legalization of drugs. The legalization of marijuana is a somewhat popular variation of overall legalization, and there are other variations such as the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes and decriminalization of drugs or marijuana. Another leading approach, known as harm reduction, looks at drugs from a public health perspective.
The effectiveness of some of these alternatives is difficult to assess. Even so, certain comparisons can be made. Advocates of treatment point to studies showing that treatment is much more effective than incarceration. Spencer notes:
The recidivism rate for first time Dade County drug offenders was sixty percent, but for those who successfully completed the Dade County Drug Court treatment programs, the recidivism rate reported by Dade County officials was only seven percent. Drug court treatment programs are also cost effective. It costs Florida only $2,000 to put a drug offender through a drug court program, as compared to $17,000 per drug offender for incarceration. As a result, other drug court programs are being established throughout the country.
Similarly, a Rand study found treatment to be seven times more cost-effective than current supply-control policy in reducing cocaine consumption.
G. The Incarceration of Drug Offenders is Not Narrowly Tailored
Incarceration involves a far greater infringement of fundamental rights than alternatives which are both more effective and less intrusive. The incarceration of offenders is not advancing the state's asserted interests. The drug war is not narrowly tailored, failing the Supreme Court's "established method of substantive-due-process analysis" as described by Chief Justice Rehnquist. The laws requiring the incarceration of drug offenders are therefore unconstitutional, if substantive due process analysis is applied.
IV. CONCLUSION
It is true that the approach suggested in this paper would limit the police power. Constitutional protection of individual rights exists for that very purpose. We face coercive government action, carried out in a corrupt and racist manner, with military and paramilitary assaults on our homes, leading to mass incarceration and innocent deaths. We can never forget the tyranny of a government unrestrained by an independent judiciary. Our courts must end the War on Drugs.

» Read More...

Is your town like mine? Pharmacy chain stores like Walgreens are springing up everywhere, and doing so like there is no tomorrow. The demand for one drug niche market, the prescription drug addiction market, is especially booming and unrelenting.
Consumers are asking their doctors for prescriptions to drugs they have seen advertised on television and in magazines, and more often than not the doctors oblige them. People just can't seem to get enough of these magic pills.1
What has happened to our culture that turns otherwise sane, drug-free consumers into willing, life-long prescription drug addicts? We are being seduced and here's how:
A cute, animated ball is shown in a TV commercial, sadly bouncing around until taking a "feel better" magic pill. Presto chango; in the blink of the eye the once sad ball is now happy and joyful. So goes the storyline used to sell American consumers on a powerful antidepressant drug called Zoloft. The message? Life is better with Zoloft.
Another commercial shows an older woman working in her flowerbed. The scene shifts to an elderly man building sand castles with his grandson on the beach, then shifts again to another older man playing soccer with a young boy. As these themes are playing, the words "For Everyday Victories" fades in and out on the screen. Then a voice is heard, "Imagine planning your day around your life instead of your osteoarthritis pain. Vioxx can provide 24-hour relief of osteoarthritis pain to help you enjoy everyday things again." The ad leaves viewers with a sense of relief.
Welcome to the fallacious prescription drug addiction game of the pharmacy world. The pharmaceutical cartel wants life-long customers, and this is how they get them. Television and magazine ads are used to seduce consumers by creating the illusion that drugs are safe and make us feel better.2
The drug industry knows consumers do not want to be physically addicted to drugs. But they also know if consumers believe a pill can make them feel better, without physical addiction; they can make new customers for life. Clever, huh?
Make no mistake: Some drugs are physically addictive. However, the drug cartel also knows drug ads "pre-condition" addiction (establish need) by making consumers believe living with pills makes their life better. In other words the addiction is mental, not physical. So what's wrong with this picture?
Playing Russian Roulette With Pharmacy Pills:
Playing this prescription drug game carries sudden and severe consequences. The millions of people who are seduced into playing it pay with their lives. This is literally Russian roulette played with pills, and your corner pharmacy knows it! In the case of the Zoloft users, the risk of committing suicide and violence is increased fourfold.
Remember the twelve year-old boy, Christopher Pittman, who killed his grand parents with a shotgun? Three weeks before the killing, the lad was put on Zoloft. Two days before the slayings, doctors doubled the drug's dosage. Joe Pittman, the boy's father, believes his son killed because the drug clouded his sense of right and wrong. A clinical psychologist assigned to the case believes the same.
Since the Vioxx ad first appeared on television, about 20 million people in the United States started using Vioxx. The advertising campaign was a great success. People went to their doctors asking for a Vioxx prescription, and 70% of the time doctors obliged them.3 But something terrible happened few people know about.
According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as many as 27,000 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths resulted from people prescribed Vioxx by their doctors. On September 30, 2004, Merck, the maker of Vioxx, recalled Vioxx from the market, and the Vioxx television ads disappeared.
Prescription Drug Addiction is a Scam:
Drug ads, like those above and dozens more like them, are appearing more and more on television. These ads are designed to seduce for one reason. The pharmaceutical apparatus, the medical system and pharmacy world that promotes drug usage is a scam, a hoax: A multi-trillion dollar International fraud that preys on ignorance and trusting nature of human beings. Why else would
they hide behind lies and government sanctioned laws designed to protect their industry? The entire drug industry is fraudulent. Matthias Rath, MD, founder of the Dr. Rath Health Foundation, says, "The pharmaceutical industry offers "health" to millions of patients - but does not deliver the goods. Instead it delivers products that merely alleviate symptoms while promoting the underlying disease as a precondition for its future business. To cover the fraud, this industry spends twice the amount of money in covering it up than it spends on research on future therapies."4
Pharmaceutical companies and the pharmacy trade, especially, know people would never buy their product if the truth were widely known. Long-term usage of any prescription or over-the-counter drug is always dangerous to ones health and is oftentimes lethal.
Prescription drug addiction (long-term use of drugs) kills 100,000 Americans each year and injures or maims another two million, according to the American Medical Association (AMA). This AMA figure does not include some 40,000 deaths each year caused by over-the-counter pain medications.
What's Happening Here?
Let's begin with a simple, truthful premise. Good medicine heals and never harms. Bad medicine never heals, and can only cause harm and death. Isn't this just common sense? It should be!
Look at it this way. If prescription drugs are suppose to be good for people, where are all the healthy drug consumers? Do you know of anyone taking drugs long-term say they are feeling healthy? To compare: Ask the healthiest people you know if they take drugs. They'll stare back at you as if to say, "What do you mean? I don't do drugs of any kind!"
Statistically speaking, there is no such thing as a "safe" drug.5 All drugs carry the risk of harmful side effects, including damage to vital organs and death. The risk increases exponentially with long-term usage. Your life is worth much more then the risk of injury or death from chemical drugs. There are much safer and better answers to health issues than long-term use of drugs (prescription drug addiction).
Note: The short-term (temporary) use of drugs during medical emergencies is certainly legitimate and is an altogether different issue. In a medical emergency, patients and administered drugs are carefully monitored every moment. In this environment drugs can save lives. Albeit, all drugs remain dangerous which is why they should not be taken long-term.
Exploiting Human Nature:
Television ads like the Zoloft and Vioxx ads are purposely designed to seduce and tempt us for a reason. The pharmaceutical cartel knows our human nature is tempted to take the easy way out of conflict. For example: It's an easier choice to live on Prilosec to manage stomach ulcers than it is to make healthy life-style and diet changes that would heal ulcers. It's easier to pop a pill to sleep all night than it is to make changes in our life that would allow us to fall sleep naturally without a pill.
Truth is; it is much wiser to "just say no" to drugs, and instead make diet changes and exercise to stay healthy and physically fit. Diet and exercise can not only prevent, but also literally reverse disease like diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular disease, clinical depression, osteoporosis, irritable bowel syndrome, and many others.
The smart thing to do would be to tell the pharmaceutical cartel to go to Hell, but, hey, they are already there: And that raises still another issue. There is a huge spiritual consideration toward prescription drug addiction many Christians do not see or understand.
Drugs Versus God:
The modern English word, pharmacy, is derived from the ancient Greek word "pharmakeia," pronounced "far-mak-i'-ah." The root word of pharmakeia is pharmakeus, which means: "a drug, spell-giving potion, druggist, poisoner, a magician or sorcerer."6 The word "pharmakeia" transliterated means "medicine from a pharmacy." 7
There are three verses of Scripture in the Bible's New Testament that condemns "medicine from a pharmacy." They are Galatians 5:20: Revelations 9:21 and Revelations 18:23. However, before you go pick up your Bible, realize whatever translation you read is just that, a translation from an ancient text. You will not find the original word "pharmakeia" or "medicine from a pharmacy" in those verses. What you will find are the words "witchcraft, magic spell and sorcery."
In choosing the words witchcraft, magic spell, and sorcery over the more accurately defined meaning for pharmakeia, "pharmacy," modern day Bible translators (either by neglect or design) effectively obliterated any spiritual connection to taking medicine from a pharmacy. Now who do you suppose benefits the most from this tidbit of information?
Why God Condemns Medicine From a Pharmacy:
Pharmakeia is listed as a work of the flesh in Scripture (Galatians 5:20), because those who turn to drugs as a way of life (and those who encourage their use) place dependency on a false reality (an illusion) instead of in God's provision. Pharmakeia is an insidious scheme, one that keeps millions of people from knowing the power of natural healing afforded to them by God's creation..
Conclusion:
The price human beings have paid and continue to pay for prescription and over-the-counter drugs is staggering. Education and common sense is the best defense against this unholy onslaught on humanity.
The pharmaceutical cartel thrives by seducing people to ask their doctors to prescribe them dangerous drugs for the rest of their lives, then hides and denies any responsibility.
Our body was created with the natural ability to maintain life-long health, given half the chance to do so. It is human nature to avoid healthy life-style changes that can bring our body back into a natural balance of health and well-being. Drugs are not the easy answer.
For every medically named disease, there is a safe, natural remedy available. It is our responsibility to seek out that remedy, and live a life-style that promotes healthy living.
References:
1. The numbers are staggering: in 2003, an estimated 3.4 billion prescriptions were filled in retail drugstores and by mail order in the United States. That averages out to 11.7 prescriptions filled for each of the 290 million people in this
country.
Ukens C. How mail order pharmacy gained in market share in 2003. Drug Topics Mar 22, 2004; 148.
2. The industry spends over $21 billion a year to promote drugs using advertising and promotional tricks that push at or through the envelope of being false and misleading. Two studies of the accuracy of ads for prescription drugs widely circulated to doctors both concluded that a substantial proportion of these ads contained information that was false or misleading and violated FDA laws and regulations concerning advertising.
Stryer D, Bero LA. Characteristics of materials distributed by drug companies: An evaluation of appropriateness. Journal of General Internal Medicine Oct 1996; 11: 575 - 583.
Wilkes MS, Doblin BH, Shapiro MF. Pharmaceutical advertisements in leading medical journals: Experts' assessments. Annals of Internal Medicine Jun 1, 1992; 116: 912 - 919.
3. "Various studies show that between 70 to 90 percent of the time when a patient comes in to the doctor and asks for a specific drug that he saw on a commercial or in a advertisement, he walks out with a prescription for that very
drug." Quote from Dr. Ray Strand, Author of Death By Prescription.
4. Dr. Rath Lays Charge of Genocide on Pharmavia ICC at The Hague. http://www.healingcelebrations.com/hague.htmhttp://bestdrugtreatments.blogspot.com/
5. "Once the FDA approves the medication or a drug for use by the general public, they know less than half of the serious adverse drug reactions when that drug is released." Quote from Dr. Ray Strand, Author of Death By Prescription.
6. Strong's Concordance of the Bible: pharmakeus, Strong's #5332; pharmakeia, Strong's #5331
7. Vines Dictionary of the New testament

Jim Lynn is the publisher of health-e-wise newsletter, http://health-e-wise.com, and author of The Miracle of Healing in Your Church Today. http://godshealingword.org

» Read More...

In America, the cost of medication is touching the sky & finding economical medicine is nearly impossible, while American pharmaceutical companies are generating high revenues. For customers, it is always a wise decision to buy from a Canadian Pharmacy online. According to the Wall Street Journal (Harris Interactive Online poll in 2006), 80 percent of American adults favor importing drugs from Canada and other countries. One of the facts behind the low prices of Canadian drugs is that the Canadian government has set limits on drug prices that companies can charge for prescriptions, whereas regulations allowing for discounts on prescriptions are not present in the United States. For example, American companies are allowed to charge $350 for 20 tablets of Viagra or Cialis, whereas in Canada they are sold at prices as low as $90 (or approx. 75% lower price). In the recent past the popularity of affordable Canadian drugs has increased and canadian drug stores have become a life-saving advantage to everyone in need of cheap medication. Buying online medicine from Canadian drug stores is an effective solution to the need of prescribed medicine and ordering online is more convenient than traveling to a community drugstore. All the online Canadian pharmacies provide prescription medicine at unbelievably low cost; however it is very important for anyone buying from online Canadian drug stores to check that the pharmacy is licensed & selling only legal drugs. There are some unapproved online drug-stores that may sell illegal drugs without permission Also on the darker side of this picture, there has been a major flow of emailed spam for 'Canadian Pharmacies', which, according to industry associates, has caused significant damage to the legitimate pharmacies in Canada. Before buying medicine online from a Canadian pharmacy, it is always recommended to research well for trusted and licensed Canadian online drug stores. One should always check that the pharmacy is providing drugs approved by the local authority and, last but not least, one should never buy online drugs without a valid prescription.

» Read More...