Can this approach work with MA firearm lists?

[Quiet]

The point is, it is not "best medicine possible", it is just same old stuff but repackaged to make it more attractive to abusers.

There is no legitimate reason for this formulation to exist, period.

I am somewhat familiar with Alkermes' technology as used in other drugs to make them extended release. I investigated them back about 15 years ago as a potential investment. It's not worthless. It's not the same old stuff. I have seen first hand how extended release opioids help people who are in pain.

I am not familiar with the anti-abuse freaking crap that they are putting into other extended release tablets. Maybe I don't want that extraneous crap that is of absolutely no benefit to me, for the sake of maybe preventing some addict from choosing this drug, in my opioid pills.

It's kind of like making suppressors illegal for anyone to own because someone might use them to be a mafia hitman. It doesn't help you hit the target any better and you can surely use those good old earplugs. So take one for the team and turn in your suppressors. I'm sure you're in favor of that?

- - - Updated - - -

When was the BATFE dissolved?

The BATFE does not have the authority to approve or disapprove which guns go to market as the FDA does to approve or disapprove which drugs go to market.

 

[durask]

I am somewhat familiar with Alkermes' technology as used in other drugs to make them extended release. I investigated them back about 15 years ago as a potential investment. It's not worthless. It's not the same old stuff. I have seen first hand how extended release opioids help people who are in pain.

I think we will have to agree to disagree here, there is nothing that extended release hydrocodone will do that you cannot do with extended release oxycodone or morphine products.
Especially since a non-trivial percentage of Caucasians (about 15% or so) has trouble metabolizing hydrocodone to it's active metabolite (hydromorphone) in first place.

Now if you are still interested in investing in them, they do have a very very interesting drug in the pipeline, google ALKS 5461...

 

[durask]

I am somewhat familiar with Alkermes' technology as used in other drugs to make them extended release. I investigated them back about 15 years ago as a potential investment. It's not worthless. It's not the same old stuff.

Actually it's not their technology.

http://www.zohydroer.com/hcp/extended-release-profile.php

Each Zohydro™ ER capsule contains a mix of beads made with Spheroidal Oral Drug Absorption System (SODAS®), a controlled-release technology.2,3


SODAS® technology has been marketed for more than 20 years
Approved for use in 6 extended-release products in the United States, including 3 DEA Schedule II products

http://www.drug-dev.com/Main/Resource-Directory-Products/Elans-SODAS-Technology--31.aspx

 

[cekim]

Actually it's not their technology.

http://www.zohydroer.com/hcp/extended-release-profile.php

Each Zohydro™ ER capsule contains a mix of beads made with Spheroidal Oral Drug Absorption System (SODAS®), a controlled-release technology.2,3


SODAS® technology has been marketed for more than 20 years
Approved for use in 6 extended-release products in the United States, including 3 DEA Schedule II products

http://www.drug-dev.com/Main/Resource-Directory-Products/Elans-SODAS-Technology--31.aspx

Why does freedom and personal responsibility scare you so much?

Why do you feel a need or justification to use violence to impose your belief on people with whom you claim to want to "agree to disagree"?

 

[durask]

Why does freedom and personal responsibility scare you so much?

Why do you feel a need or justification to use violence to impose your belief on people with whom you claim to want to "agree to disagree"?

I do not recall mentioning any of that...
If you read my posts, I specifically mentioned that Gov Patrick overstepped his authority. However I am free to form my own opinions about drug companies and their motives and their products.

 

[cekim]

I do not recall mentioning any of that...
If you read my posts, I specifically mentioned that Gov Patrick overstepped his authority. However I am free to form my own opinions about drug companies and their motives and their products.

Here:

The point is, it is not "best medicine possible", it is just same old stuff but repackaged to make it more attractive to abusers.

There is no legitimate reason for this formulation to exist, period.

You are making a statement of your beliefs "this is not the best medicine possible" and then asking government to enforce this with threat of violence.

The alternative is to agree to disagree and let doctors, patients and adults decide what is "best" and even to harm themselves if they see fit.

So, whether you believe you said it or not, you did. We can agree to disagree on that point, only I won't send any body-armor and machine gun clad special teams your way to enforce my beliefs.

 

[durask]

Here:


You are making a statement of your beliefs "this is not the best medicine possible" and then asking government to enforce this with threat of violence.

The alternative is to agree to disagree and let doctors, patients and adults decide what is "best" and even to harm themselves if they see fit.

I am sorry, I have no idea where you are getting the idea that I want the government to enforce it.
"No legitimate reason" does not equal to "enforcing with threat of violence".
If you feel that the phrase "legitimate reason" implies government coercion then I will rephrase as
"There is no unfilled need that will be alleviated by the appearance of this drug".

 

[cekim]

I am sorry, I have no idea where you are getting the idea that I want the government to enforce it.
"No legitimate reason" does not equal to "enforcing with threat of violence".
If you feel that the phrase "legitimate reason" implies government coercion then I will rephrase as
"There is no unfilled need that will be alleviated by the appearance of this drug".

If you do not desire government enforcement of your opinion of whether there is or is not an "unfilled need" then what does it matter? Why even describe or ponder "legitimacy" of the need? What does "legitimate" even mean in this context without a legal enforcement scheme?

I would also offer this thought... I have had surgery a few times throughout my life and the painkillers they prescribed each time were terrible. Did not do much more than dull the pain and gave me horrendous headaches in trade that in the end turned out to be worse than going without painkillers entirely post-op...

So, I call complete and total BS to your claim that we already have perfect painkillers out there for any who need them for whatever "legitimate” pain is...

Frankly, I just avoid them if at all possible, but I don't feel I have the right to make that choice for others.

 

[M1911]

cekim, this painkiller is no different than the ones that you likely had. hydrocodone bitartrate is hydrocodone bitartrate.

 

[Quiet]

Only his headache will last for hours and hours :-D

.... or maybe the slow release version won't cause that side effect.

 

[tbk5]

Uh, ok. My thought was that if MA was denied from specifically stopping a manufacturer to go 'extra steps' for safety, in order to distribute the product in MA,--that legal argument might also apply to the firearms list?? I guess it can't because although Zogenix has a useful purpose, it can be additive and misused. Wait a minute, sounds like certain guns! My head hurts. I think I'll go to the range this morning...

 

[cekim]

Uh, ok. My thought was that if MA was denied from specifically stopping a manufacturer to go 'extra steps' for safety, in order to distribute the product in MA,--that legal argument might also apply to the firearms list?? I guess it can't because although Zogenix has a useful purpose, it can be additive and misused. Wait a minute, sounds like certain guns! My head hurts. I think I'll go to the range this morning...

The easier way to "understand" this mess, er, the legal issue here is that the laws regulating drugs and those regulating guns is not the same.

When the Federal Government "regulates" something (assuming the courts ultimately agree it has the power to do so), it can now choose to take some or all of the power over a given thing it intends to regulate.

It can "preempt" state law entirely or it can "save" state law. Or it can do anything in-between.

Simply put, this decision doesn't really apply to firearms law well if at all.

Personally, I think there needs to be a fundamental "burden shift" here to force the state or federal government to prove their legitimacy to regulate both by intention and then result.

So, first a fundamental right cannot be "regulated away" at all, due process must be applied on an individual basis and second, if they are ever allowed to control the purchase or sale of anything, they should be forced to show first that their regulations stand a good chance of working and then after the fact if they don't, then they are struck down.

We are going about this government business entirely backwards by allowing the abstraction of "governmental interest" to even exist. They have no interests. They have no rights. Both belong to the people.