 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'd like a bowl of drugs, some scrambled brains on drugs, and a glass of
orange juice, please.
http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/s7188c.htm
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> I'd like a bowl of drugs, some scrambled brains on drugs, and a glass of
> orange juice, please.
> http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/s7188c.htm
I have always wondered why English (at least American English) uses the
same word for medicine as for recreational drugs. Sure, there may be
*technical* reasons for using the same term for both, but it can certainly
become confusing, so wouldn't it be more *practical* to use completely
different names for the two things? Finnish uses two completely different
names and they are never mixed.
Slogans like "say no to drugs" can be quite confusing when you realize
that most medicines are also "drugs". Are you going to say "no" to medicine
which will cure your illness?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I have always wondered why English (at least American English) uses the
> same word for medicine as for recreational drugs. Sure, there may be
> *technical* reasons for using the same term for both, but it can certainly
> become confusing, so wouldn't it be more *practical* to use completely
> different names for the two things? Finnish uses two completely different
> names and they are never mixed.
>
> Slogans like "say no to drugs" can be quite confusing when you realize
> that most medicines are also "drugs". Are you going to say "no" to medicine
> which will cure your illness?
It appears to me that the FDA is in fact using the word "drug" in a
different sense again; they appear to be using the word to refer to any
*product* which is *claimed* to have a health benefit. (This would
appear to include things which aren't even chemicals.) This, clearly, is
legal-speak. (Legal terminology has some pretty odd classifications in
it, in general.)
Presumably because the technical definition of "drug" is a matter of
convention. E.g., is food a drug? It's a substance which, when ingested,
has a profound effect on the human body. Does that classify it as a
drug? Well, it depends on how you define drug.
(Not that I'm disagreeing with your original point; just pointing out
that the FDA is using yet *another* meaning for the same word.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> I'd like a bowl of drugs, some scrambled brains on drugs, and a glass of
> orange juice, please.
>
> http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/s7188c.htm
I knew a guy who would buy a lot of Cheerios, and take it to his home
country twice a year to give to his father who had heart problems, so I
can see the FDA's point. OTOH, I'm not sure if government agencies
should be going around trying too hard to prevent people from doing
stupid things.
On the whole, I'd probably side with the FDA. I'm not as old as quite a
few of you, but somehow I see more younger people get taken in by silly
advertising than the older crowd - and I don't think it's just wisdom
from age. Older people probably have a sense that you don't get medicine
from overly packaged food, because presumably it wasn't that way when
they were growing up. But that division is slowly eroding for the
younger crowd, who are growing up seeing this to be "normal". I can
understand it being harder for them to distinguish between legitimate
stuff and Cheerios.
--
"I find you guilty!", said the judge with conviction.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> I knew a guy who would buy a lot of Cheerios, and take it to his home
> country twice a year to give to his father who had heart problems, so I
> can see the FDA's point. OTOH, I'm not sure if government agencies
> should be going around trying too hard to prevent people from doing
> stupid things.
More like, the FDA should be stopping commercial enterprises making
unsubstantiated or misleading claims.
(It still annoys me that every time you see an advert for beauty
products they're littered with meaningless terms such as "nutivitemins"
and "age reperfect" and other psuedoscientific technobabble... As if
putting sciency words in your product blurb means it's a somehow
superior product.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/15/2009 12:19 AM, Tim Cook wrote:
> I'd like a bowl of drugs, some scrambled brains on drugs, and a glass of
> orange juice, please.
>
> http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/s7188c.htm
God, I hope that's a joke!
But something tells me it isn't :(
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> *product* which is *claimed* to have a health benefit. (This would
> appear to include things which aren't even chemicals.) This, clearly, is
Pedantically, everything is chemicals. :)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> (It still annoys me that every time you see an advert for beauty
> products they're littered with meaningless terms such as "nutivitemins"
> and "age reperfect" and other psuedoscientific technobabble... As if
> putting sciency words in your product blurb means it's a somehow
> superior product.)
Just remember, Homeopathic is a synonym for placebo.
Maybe now they'll get rid of those irritaing commercials
[6 Weeks later]
H: Honey I'm almost done fixing the lock on our front door.
W: I lowered my cholesterol to 180!
H: Yeah, [wiping sweat from his brow] but you had Cheerios to help you.
Commercials like that make me feel homicidal.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Slogans like "say no to drugs" can be quite confusing when you realize
> that most medicines are also "drugs".
That's why we have the word "medicine". ;-)
And, for that matter, alcohol and tobacco, which are usually not included
when someone talks about "drugs".
> Are you going to say "no" to medicine which will cure your illness?
Sadly, far too many religious fanatics or otherwise deluded believers in the
mystic do.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> [6 Weeks later]
> H: Honey I'm almost done fixing the lock on our front door.
> W: I lowered my cholesterol to 180!
> H: Yeah, [wiping sweat from his brow] but you had Cheerios to help you.
> Commercials like that make me feel homicidal.
Especially since there is some evidence that the detrimental effects
of cholesterol (even the "bad" LDL one) has been greatly exaggerated.
Not that lowering your cholesterol (by healthy means) would be a bad
thing, because the means by which you lower your cholesterol also had
the fortunate side-effects that they remove other nasty stuff from your
body.
But there's a limit to everything, of course. The body has a natural
cholesterol balancing mechanism, and thus cholesterol will never go under
a certain level because the body will actually start *producing* cholesterol
when it drops too low. The human body needs cholesterol to survive.
(Motivated by the cholesterol myth, there have been some experiments
on artificially lowering cholesterol to unnaturally low levels by chemical
means, and these experiments have mostly been life-threateningly dangerous.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
