> Peyton does not actually suffer from severe
> chronic pain; rather, she uses narcotics to
> manage her emotional state.

IANAD, but it's my understanding that for addicts (and alcoholics), this is all of a piece. Otherwise healthy people will have terrible backaches, suffering which vanishes as soon as they've had their usual dosage. This very real but pointless pain is one of the tricks by which addiction convinces its victims to go out and get medicated.

I once worked with a heroin addict who complained about his back all the time. He was young and sturdy, but not the type to move a lot of furniture. And once he kicked, he moved freely and cheerfully.

His work was more coherent as well.

deja vu - reminds me of your post "Does Appearing In Porn Erase Your Ability To Teach Frog Dissection?"

If someone lies and cheats to get something that is not needed, then that is obviously bad. And this whole thing of work being perfect etc is hypothetical. Whoever heard of a drug addict being the perfect employee? Maybe an occasional exceptional performer, but with most employees, what is expected is reliability most of the time and not most of the working days taken off with occasional exceptional performance during times of crisis(not only when the employee feels like it).

Someone who goes out of their way to get something that is not needed is obviously having a problem.

Like if cigarettes stopped appearing on the shop shelves tomorrow, a person who is not addicted to them would just get used to life without them in a couple of days. At most, he would crib about how life was better when cigarettes were available

A person who is addicted would try to contact some underground dealer and pay ten times the price and brave police bullets and fines and somehow get it and put that expense ahead of all other expenses in his/her life in the priority list even if it means losing his/her job, or moving out of a mortgaged house because of falling behind on mortgage payments due to spending excessively on this particular addiction.

I suffer from an addiction of sorts, not pills per say but in the past numbing out emotionally and self medication were certainly a big component of my compulsion - which I would partake in at a very high cost to my overall health, well being and quality as a productive worker.

After abstinence and some diligent work to get to the bottom of those troubles about why I felt I "needed" them.... Time in between to learn how to live life and manage it without just popping a pill or getting intoxicated in order to walk through many tough and confusing times in my life without numbing out.... You know, like, growing u (?) was a big, huge, step forward in living an emotionally sobER life for me.

Two months ago a threw out my back and they gave me percocet (sp). I took one - with a small fear in me that I would like it so much it might kick something off and erase almost four years of sobriety and hard work.... But because I had been working so hard on this I realized all it did was make the physical Pain go away... It didn't do anything for me emotionally any more (like things like this use to). And when the pain stopped so did the percocet.

I wasn't taking this as an escape. I wasn't abusing it. I wasn't removing the intolerable reality that I was miserable emotionally.... In fact, it was after taking a percocet I realized that all this time, money and effort I had spent working on myself, my sobriety and my issues had all been worth it. It just happened so gradually I never realized. Hey, ya know, I've come a long way baby!

Just my two cents! :-)

Let us remember too that this is a television show. They aren't known for showing us the rule and ugly nature of these things... They show the exceptions in pretty little tightly controlled boxes. Also, this illness is progressive. Wait until next season?

I actually know a nurse this happened to. She is now in and out of rehab, lost her license and job teaching nursing. It's sad and it is reality.

Ps. My friend the nurse was very good at her job and People loved her. Very smart (which is why she was also paid a lot to teach too). But she was busted for stealing and lying.

She still has nightmares to this day about being looped up on duty and accidentally giving someone the wrong medication - it never happened but could have. She never missed work, and was very competent. They are called "functional addicts". After knowing and speaking with her for a couple of years I am quite sure she would tell you, despite all her achievements and competence that this was a matter of prohibition. I can't speak for her, but I would bet good money shed tell you that it is just the way she's built - coincidentally or not... This nurse came from a very abusive alcoholic home that to the outside world seemed "perfect". Wow, big shocker.

Not prohibition. NOT prohibition. Effing iPhone!

Feebie,
Congrats to you on your sobriety and finally getting to the light at the end of the tunnel. I have always felt like addiction is more emotional than physical.

I also agree the Nurse Jackie and Dr. House are fiction and are not by any means the standard by which addicts should be judged. If my loved one is in the ER, I will always choose the sober nurse over the addicted one.

She is an addict, and still would be if those drugs were available without a prescription. but probably would not need to commit the criminal/immoral acts. And lots of people might well benefit from being able to get such drugs, without necessarily becoming dependent to the point of addiction. Not all alcohol drinkers become alcoholics, nor do all users of, say, cocaine become actually addicted.

I still have not figured out why the shampoo I like is "proprietary" - prescription only - where I live but is over-the-counter six miles away in another State...

> Let us remember too that this is
> a television show.

That's what I was getting at, but wasn't very clear about.

For the past sixty years or so, people have used television themes about everything under the sun (Sex! Love! Money! Race! Divorce! Violence!) to guide their thinking, and the results have been horrible.

(I remember a case in LA about ten years ago when cops got in trouble for shooting a suspect who'd taken a small child hostage, though I can't remember whether the suspect, the hostage, or both were killed. Urbanites were upset: I asked one of them what was supposed to happen, and he said "They could have just shot him in the leg!" One doesn't need a lot of firearm experience to know better than that. Thank you, Mannix / Miami Vice / Hawaii 5-O / Chuck Norris / etc. etc. etc.)

And in this article, Jacob Freaking Sullum has chosen to use this entirely fictional (fake! not-real!) character as an exemplar of some higher libertarian truth about drugs.

It's ridiculous on its face. It's an offensive and pathetic choice if he's wrong about the larger issue; it's a despicable one if he's right.

This guy is a moron. He should do more research into addiction before spouting off such ignorant opinions.

Assholes always think the problem is with everyone else: bosses, colleagues, the law, et al. One of the perks of sobriety is getting to see how much of the BS and drama in your actively addicted life was all your own creation. What responsibility is this guy running from in his own life that makes him feel the need to write and publish such an uninformed piece?

> "They could have just shot him in the leg!"

Even better to just shoot the gun out of his hand.

> the truth is, all drug use is not abuse.

If it's The Truth, you needn't resort to soap opera narratives to goose the feelings of your readers.

Did I ever tell you about that episode of CBS' Detroit Nightflash where that one detective could function perfectly well with nothing but vodka for lunch?

Amy, you're blowing smoke. Don't do that.

I've spoken about this many, many times...

Because YOU want the person in charge of making sure you get the correct dose of your lifesaving medicine, to be high while they're dosing you? Yeah. Right. Sounds like a fantastic way to improve medical care and all other services.

"It's an offensive and pathetic choice if he's wrong about the larger issue; it's a despicable one if he's right."

Talk about the need to chill, dude. Do some bowls with Amy's other friends. Then you can wax poetic about all that gnarly philosophy logic you learnt.

If it's OK to take oxy for pain at work, why is it not OK to take it just because. That is a very grownup question that is difficult to answer intelligently. I'm inclined to be anti-workplace drug use seeing numerous maiming accidents associated with drugged roughnecks back in the 80's. However, that is not a drug-war question.

Sullum's point was that the destructiveness in Nurse Jackies life were externalities of prohibition. I'm not sure that is black and white, either. Drug use has a self and society imposed psychological prohibition regardless of the law. This is why 4 out of 5 workplace drinkers choose vodka because it's hard to detect and easy to cover up on the breath.

So, if it were legal, Jackie would continue to hide her habit, lie to family and friends, might not bang the pharmacist and would probably eat more pills. Is that better?

There is no free lunch.

I don't care how many years of experience a clinical physician or psychologist or journalist has.... If you've never been through it, you cant possibly understand it. I promise you that. I don't care what type of letters you have behind your name. For real.

Thank you sheepmommy.

Prohibition doest create addicts just as it doesn't cure addicts to reappeal prohibition. It just makes their use legal. Which I am all for, fine, whatever. But it's a bit of a rub that this dude uses a two dimensional, scripted, controlled "addict" perfect in all other ways except...but fOr... Only if this was legal she would be forced into lying and cheatin and stealing.... Uh, bad example. There are so many components to addiction, so so many - to simplify it does a great disservice to the complexity and seriousness of the illness. Again, if you've never been there, your really don't get it.

How is this different from actresses these days who play roles glorifying single motherhood with fairytale endings.... Seriously, it's just all so cute and perfect when u see it tied up nice and pretty like that.

I think he was using her as a generic character, many are familiar with, to illustrate his point.

The point being what has been defined as a legal crime is not the same as what is a moral crime. Sometimes they are the same, such as murder. Other times there is no true morality component to the crime such as speeding, poaching, most simple trespassing, etc.

The lies, cheating, theft and the rest are caused by the fact that all drugs are made illegal by the government on "moral" grounds without evidence based rationale.

So someone smoking a joint, on his own time, in his own place, is now breaking moral laws because he is now going to lie to others. He might also have to pay $40 to buy an an ounce instead of $10 and not buy his kid an extra pair of shoes.

We do know that heroin will probably fuck up many. But if they legalized it and told the the drug companies producing it they are responsible for paying for the rehab, I wonder what would happen. Same with the other prescription drugs.

A part of it is society -- Amy's urban anonymity -- plays a large part. But the reality is prohibition has never worked.

Yes, I agree prohibition will not stop addiction. But I know alcoholics who lie, cheat and steal and that is not illegal. So really, why do alcoholics do it?

The government is really only making it illegal so that they can make mOney off of what would normally be just a mOrAl issue this person and thei families their families. It's really the only difference so why not make that point. It's not the governments fault. He addict does what the addict does. Period. It's either their own issue and those who choose to be around them or the government (who then also makes it everyone else problem). It's a weird bit of forced codependency that the government creates and then profits Off of if u ask me.

I realize he is using this nurse Jackie as an example but why? He has PLEANTY of famous (or case studies) of real people to use. Public record. All of them. I just personally think it was a really poor choice to use a tv character for such a complex and dark subject. It lacks tact. It really does.

Feliz Cinco De Mayo!

Irony ahead---> http://ioplist.com/index.php?topic=312.0

Oxy is nasty stuff- a friend gave me two when I broke my ankle, and they turned me into a zombie for days. (I took them about 12 hours apart, btw.)

PS- If Jackie is risking her freedom, career and reputation she has a drug problem.

"If it's OK to take oxy for pain at work, why is it not OK to take it just because."

Because - and this will shock you - there are a hundred professions where your thinking about yourself first, and believing wrongly that you are not impaired, will kill others.

Even your premise is wrong for many professions: you may NOT take oxycodone at work in those cases.

Why is it so hard to realize that if you are living in a society, it demands things of you which you are then obliged to deliver?

It is not all "Me! Me! Me!" - outside of the Occupy camps, at least.

> Do some bowls with Amy's other friends. Then
> you can wax poetic about all that gnarly
> philosophy

Did you go to college?


> I think he was using her as a generic character

He shouldn't do that. This character (generic or otherwise) doesn't exist. This character ("her") was specifically created, cast, filmed and broadcast to amuse people for money. This character is a PANDER.

The last thing it would do is illustrate a "point."

(I think there's probably a very good reason that he had to dip into the world of fiction to offer an example of someone who steals intensely powerful pain medications but has no complaints, even transparently bogus ones, about pain.)

Ooooh, but I rilly like the theme song on that TV show!
I sing it in my minivan on the way to Pilates!
And that one actor, the one who plays the doctor?
What a DREAMBOAT!

Rad: I said If it's ok to use at work: IF. As to your other point, I guess you didn't read about how I'm against drugs on the job due to the maimed roughnecks I worked with. Did you know alcohol is more risky than pot when working on Big Iron? In any event, I'm totally impressed with your over the top emotional righteous indignation.

Crid: Why does it matter to you? Are you a proud sheepskin owner from a 5-star finishing school? You are starting to sound like a guy who sports a 9-narrow shoe, if you know what I mean.

"In any event, I'm totally impressed with your over the top emotional righteous indignation."

Gee. You don't get out much, do you?

And yes, I do know that about alcohol. Did you know you've just attempted a Two Wrongs fallacy?

You can't stick me with that. It's broken now.

I have to disagree with Jacob Sullum on this one. A couple of bowls at home after work isn't a problem, I agree. His previous articles on doctors being afraid to prescribe sufficient medication for pain management for fear of being prosecuted, again I agree. But we're talking about doping up at work here. If you need that, something needs to be done.

Of course, anyone on these things long term develops a tolerance, and usually functions better on it than off. After 15 years of functional alcoholism I can tolerate levels that would incapacitate most people. That doesn't make it a good thing, or something that should be allowed. And my body is starting to tell me that the party is over.

I agree with Feebie, Rad, etc that a TV show is a fairytale and a spectacularly bad example.

> Why does it matter to you?

Because beyond the first paragraph with which you came into my life a 48-56 hours ago, you've been pretty goofy.

> we're talking about doping up at work here.

Yeah. If drugs make it better, I don't think you've found the work of your life.

> I agree with Feebie, Rad, etc

How dare you call me that. You sound like my first wife.

Four minutes to Supermoon PST

What a foolish article!

IF those meds were made legal otc, there would immediately be added rules prohibiting their use by certain professions while on the job: Truck drivers, medical professionals in charge of patient care, heavy equipment operators, people that work with hazardous or potentially hazardous materials, etc.

If you need to get tranked to become functional, you ain't functional.

"You sound like my first wife."

I understand her shouting my name, but I didn't know she knew Feebie!