"These records provide an unprecedented look at the surge of legal pain pills [oxycodone and hydrocodone] that fueled the prescription opioid epidemic, which resulted in nearly 100,000 deaths during the seven-year time frame ending in 2012."

Salt Lake City looks to be at an average of 80+ pain pills per person per year as of 2012. Certain other Utah counties appear to be at 40-50+ pain pills per person per year. The numbers are increasing over time. So much for the Word of Wisdom.

Places that are doing relatively well: The North Central part of the country, Texas, and most of Virginia.

Article -- "Drilling into the DEA's pain pill database" (The Washington Post, updated July 21, 2019)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/dea-pain-pill-database/?utm_term=.9b763e86994a&fbclid=IwAR1FoPCtxFZbO4F4ehBLDhaH7ySaTlPq0AMAX_plQ_Nv0wBbhwJCQlmwKR0



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/2019 08:38PM by summer.

I, praise be to Ben Hogan, am woefully ignorant in matters involving drugs of any kind other than jalapeños.

Besides blocking pain, do these pills 'mind alter', so that it's like getting high?

The effects vary from one person to the next, but many people experience a euphoric state with them.

Well, I have to take it as a given that you of all people know what you're talking about...

I've never taken opiates, but my wife has taken them following surgeries. She's quite happy when she's taking them, and from what I've observed with patients, such is not unusual. For some, though, it's merely an analgesic effect with no particular high.

It depends on the particular opioid as well. Oxycodone seems the most potent available in pill form in producing highs. Among IV drug seekers in ERs, Dilaudid seems to be the drug of choice.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 07/24/2019 03:14AM by scmd1.

I've taken opiates post surgery, and I can't stand to be on them more than 1-3 days. They make me feel very drugged and lethargic, and sometimes sick to my stomach. I move off of them as soon as I possibly can. I guess people have different reactions to them.

I was a very rowdy child and have the old fractures and arthritic pain to prove it. Thirty-odd years ago, when I first came to NM, my newly-chosen primary care doctor asked me, "Why didn't you TELL me that you had two fractures in your spine?" I told him, "Because I honestly didn't know." My mother punished me for getting hurt, so I hid injuries. I suspected at the times I was hurt, that the damage was pretty severe, but I was more afraid of what my mother would do than the danger of leaving these injuries untreated.

Now, in old age, those fractures have gone arthritic on me, and on bad days, I can be in pretty nasty pain from the hip to about mid-calf on my right side. Fortunately, I have had very understanding doctors. I take opiate painkillers when I need to, and I'm grateful to have access to them. I annotate the date and time that I take every one of them, to prevent accidental overdose. I never, ever get any kind of high or buzz from them. They just make the pain go away.

I believe that just knowing that the meds are THERE helps to ease the pain. If I can get by with just a muscle relaxant, I do.

Some of my doctors, over the years, have asked to see my medicine notebook. No problem. I always keep accurate records of what hurts, how badly, and what I have taken for it.

Addicted? I don't think so. Having access to the level of pharmacological firepower that I do allows me to enjoy life a lot more than I would, otherwise.

Catnip, I know that some people really do need them. When I was first starting to walk after my leg injury, I was in severe, unrelenting pain for only one month, and I wouldn't wish that on anyone. The pain was mind-bending.

It's the numbers in the article above that tell me that something is wrong, i.e. 80+ pain pills per person, per year. That's 80+ pain pills for every single person in Salt Lake City! Obviously not every resident there is taking pain pills, but it still seems like *way* too many pills are being prescribed.

summer Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
>
> It's the numbers in the article above that tell me
> that something is wrong, i.e. 80+ pain pills per
> person, per year. That's 80+ pain pills for every
> single person in Salt Lake City! Obviously not
> every resident there is taking pain pills, but it
> still seems like *way* too many pills are being
> prescribed.

You're absolutely right, but your point makes it even more frightening. If the opiates are actually being taken by one-quarter of the population, such would indicate that, for those who are taking pain pills, the average number of pills among those actually using the opiates is 320 per person per year. If only one-fifth of the population uses opiates, based on the data you presented, it would be 400 pills on average per person per year. Based on your data (or, for that matter, on virtually anyone's data), the smaller the percentage of those in SLC actually using opiates, the more appalling the numbers become.

I'm somewhat conflicted with regard to the situation. I feel that opiates and other mind-altering substances absolutely need to be kept out of the hands of minors except under the strictest of medical supervision. On the other hand, many people with either chronic pain issues or with severe pain issues of shorter duration are being denied the medication they truly need because we're all wary of being flagged for excessive prescribing of narcotics.

I'm torn between an approach of supporting the present laws (I have no choice but to follow them) or even stricter laws and an approach of making narcotics easier to obtain and of expecting adults to look after themselves so that strong medications can be available for those who genuinely need them.

How many of those pills are going into the black market? Traffickers might be finding Utah, the scam capital of the US, an easier place to do business. Or more lucrative, if societal drug attitudes in the IMW raise street prices. Gee thanks, religion.

There are known and proven methods to seriously cut opiate addiction rates, but they are at odds with drug policy.

The other approach would be to promote better and drugless means of pain management. This is also a cultural problem since they are so far outside the existing paradigm.

babyloncansuckit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How many of those pills are going into the black
> market? Traffickers might be finding Utah, the
> scam capital of the US, an easier place to do
> business. Or more lucrative, if societal drug
> attitudes in the IMW raise street prices. Gee
> thanks, religion.
>
> There are known and proven methods to seriously
> cut opiate addiction rates, but they are at odds
> with drug policy.
>
> The other approach would be to promote better and
> drugless means of pain management. This is also a
> cultural problem since they are so far outside the
> existing paradigm.

Of Utah's 80 per capita per year, surely some ARE making it to the black market.

Regarding drug-free means of pain management, society would certainly benefit from greater research in this area and from better use of existing research, but in the foreseeable future, the need for analgesic drugs will not disappear.

I think they make you stupid, as in cloud your thinking. I refuse any offers of pain killers.

For me feeling some level of pain keeps me from doing stupid things. For instance assuming since it no longer hurts everything is healed and I can do what I want.

> I think they make you
> stupid, as in cloud
> your thinking.


Okay, so it's like falling in love!! Well, no wonder people keep taking them!

Stoicism is a popular post-Mormon philosophy.

Actually I'm a never Mo, the stoic come from being raised by a nurse. She believe and we learned that coping with pain helps you clearly identify the problem.

I do not react well to any pain meds so I avoid them.

However, they have their place. Controlling pain from cancer is a great example. But when I broke my foot and was offered oxy, I saw that as an unnecessary use of pain meds.

They can use them and not have to confess. My ex's sister has been on pain pills as long as I've known her. I started doing medical transcription 2 years after we got married and so I recognized the meds she had in her bathroom. I was SHOCKED. She is still on them. She goes far and wide to get doctors to prescribe them for her. Somehow she got on disability. She's a fine upstanding mormon????

I do believe that if it is a prescription--and it doesn't matter if it is someone else's prescription--to mormons they rationalize it. My daughter's old boss ended up going to prison for a short time because she was stealing drugs at the hospital. She worked there.

You just know there is some enterprising young Peter Priesthood Lawyer type pitching a way to spin these stats positively.

Maybe LDSinc and Utah could start/join a class action lawsuit against the Sackler family...?

All about the Profit, baby!

AND how you, yourself, react to them. I've been violently ill from pain pills--just taking one. When I had shingles, I asked the doctor to change me from hydromorphone to something milder and it was so much better as I didn't have highs and lows. I have a very addictive personality per my family and I've never become addicted to opiates. They make me feel sick, even mild ones, but I've needed them sometimes.

They are useful if they are used correctly and prescribed correctly.

Some people like them, some people don't. I've had them prescribed to me for various injuries and surgeries, and they are a godsend when NSAIDs don't work. (NSAIDs aren't without their own side-effects, either.)

I have very strong opinions on this topic. The opiates I've been prescribed are not "mind-altering." It's not LSD. They're a group of drugs that mimics your body's own endorphin effects, as far as blocking pain signals and creating a state of mental relaxation. Blocking pain and mentally relaxing are pretty important for people in immense pain. Being in chronic pain has its own negative effects (it's just like being under chronic stress as far as damage to the body) so a relief from that along the way can help you heal.

Obviously, they can be very addictive, and if you have an addictive personality, believe that you should never feel any pain at all, take them purely for psychological effects, or use them as your ONLY means of managing pain, you can get into trouble with them pretty quickly. Even if the psychological effects are not what you're going for, long-term use can lead to physical dependency. Basically, opiates block the pain signal your injury sends to your brain. Your injury starts to send bigger and bigger pain signals in a vain attempt to get through to your brain, so when you finally stop taking the opiates, you're in MORE pain than you were in the beginning.

Medicine has never been a panacea. I personally have no problem with them being prescribed for post-surgery use. But people can be idiots, and the stats about addiction and overdose deaths don't lie.

The other thing is, hospitals like IHC are now catering to "patient experience," as opposed to treating conditions. They want five star reviews on Yelp. They want people to pay their exorbitant bills and report they had a "good experience" with their doctors, and patients who are happily on hydrocodone are more likely to report a positive experience. If the patient was sent home with instructions on how to manage pain through rest, ice, ergonomic movement, meditation, and social support, they wouldn't report as good of an experience. People in pain don't want to work; they want relief. Opiates give them what they want, but it's not always the best (or only) option.

This is where strict control of psychotropics interferes with business. A euphoric hospital stay would boost good reviews as long as the patients are lucid enough to write them.

The other thing is, these drugs were heavily marketed to health care providers, under false pretenses. Doctors were told that they were LESS addictive than other pain meds, which isn't true. They were told that certain scales of opiates were weaker than morphine, when they are actually STRONGER than morphine. So a doctor that believed his sales person might think they're a less addictive, weaker, safer option and prescribe them more often because of it. Now you have very strong drugs in the hands of people who may not need them (or could do with lower doses, fewer pills). And as evidence of the national epidemic came to light, the drug manufacturers made no attempt to change course.

The whole thing is an atrocious mess, and I think one of the casualties might be that these drugs may no longer be available to people who could benefit from them in structured, proper ways.

forgotmyname Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Doctors were told that they were LESS
> addictive than other pain meds, which isn't true.
> They were told that certain scales of opiates were
> weaker than morphine, when they are actually
> STRONGER than morphine. So a doctor that believed
> his sales person might think they're a less
> addictive, weaker, safer option and prescribe them
> more often because of it.

Any doctors who actually fell for this line of reasoning were fools who failed to recall what was taught in Year 2 of medical school.

The other thread closed before I could respond to your sarcasm At no time did I ever say that I was a "direct" descendant to AL. I am a lineal descendant, and there are multiple lineal descendants just like the one you mentioned in your family. Don't be so contrarian as to put words in peoples mouths. Now get back to your patients.

I meant collateral descendant, not lineal (which means the same as direct). I am a collateral descendant...there are multiple collateral descendants Doctor.

You are 100% correct about that.

That's very cool you're related so close in proximity to Abraham Lincoln. He was one classy dude! As for president, he was par none.

:)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/25/2019 08:09AM by Amyjo.

AnonExMoLincolnAncestor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> At no time did I ever say that I
> was a "direct" descendant to AL.

I don't believe anyone living is.

Um, you sort of DID say you were a direct descendant of Abraham Lincoln.

"
posted by: AnonExmoLincolnAncestor ( )
Date: July 22, 2019 05:54PM
Re: "Did Lincoln Read the Book of Mormon?"

As I indicated in 2014 above, I am a direct descendant of Lincoln. On behalf of the family of Lincoln, I will tell you most emphatically that Lincoln saw the cult for what it was back then - a crazy fanatical cult. He was a smart man, and not fooled by ridiculous evidence-voided claims.
"

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1258594,2244139#msg-2244139


P.S. You seem to use "descendant" and "ancestor" as though the two terms are synonymous. They're not.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/24/2019 07:33PM by scmd1.

scmd1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Um, you sort of DID say you were a direct
> descendant of Abraham Lincoln.
>
> "
> posted by: AnonExmoLincolnAncestor ( )
> Date: July 22, 2019 05:54PM
> Re: "Did Lincoln Read the Book of Mormon?"
>
> As I indicated in 2014 above, I am a direct
> descendant of Lincoln. On behalf of the family of
> Lincoln, I will tell you most emphatically that
> Lincoln saw the cult for what it was back then - a
> crazy fanatical cult. He was a smart man, and not
> fooled by ridiculous evidence-voided claims.
> "
>
> https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1258594
> ,2244139#msg-2244139
>
>
> P.S. You seem to use "descendant" and "ancestor"
> as though the two terms are synonymous. They're
> not.

Collateral descendant simply means an indirect descendant from Lincoln. That would still make Lincoln an ancestor of his. And he, one of Lincoln's (indirect) descendants. "A collateral descendant is one descended from the same ancestor but not in the same line, e.g. brothers and sisters."
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/C/CollateralDescendant.aspx

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Collateral descendant simply means an indirect
> descendant from Lincoln. That would still make
> Lincoln an ancestor of his. And he, one of
> Lincoln's (indirect) descendants. "A collateral
> descendant is one descended from the same ancestor
> but not in the same line, e.g. brothers and
> sisters."
> http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/C/Collatera
> lDescendant.aspx

Still not direct.

That has been explained and reiterated by the original poster. Lincoln is still one of his ancestors.

An excellent observation par none.

I missed this earlier, LW. Bravo. [another fragment]

You know, I just slid right over that. My excuse is that given her loosey-goosey ways with the vernacular, I figured it was an attempt at 'bar none.' Which was not a good usage, but oh well.

Now I realize that nonpareil was the goal. Uncertainty is not a weakness and Google doesn't judge.

I understand the meaning of the term "collateral descendant," though you may explain it again as many times as it pleases you to do so. My post was in reference to this statement by AnonExmoLincolnAncestor:

"At no time did I ever say that I was a "direct" descendant to AL. I am a lineal descendant, and there are multiple lineal descendants just like the one you mentioned in your family. Don't be so contrarian as to put words in peoples mouths. Now get back to your patients"

in reference to THIS statement by AnonExMoLincolnAncestor :

"As I indicated in 2014 above, I am a direct descendant of Lincoln. On behalf of the family of Lincoln, I will tell you most emphatically that Lincoln saw the cult for what it was back then - a crazy fanatical cult. He was a smart man, and not fooled by ridiculous evidence-voided claims."


The poster first said he was a direct descendant of Lincoln (and if you read his posts on the earlier thread, at one point he refers to himself as Lincoln's ancestor), then denied having said it.


" Posted by: AnonExmoLincolnAncestor ( )
Date: July 23, 2019 11:51AM
Re: "Did Lincoln Read the Book of Mormon?"

Oh, thanks for asking. Yes, the other side of the veil is so cool. The first thing they do is ask if you want to kick scmd1's bootys, and it's amazing. Everybody says, "YES..indeed we do", with such fervor. It's heartwarming, the unity, etc.

I get what you're saying, I think. Look, if these bozo's, like the Moron who wrote the book in the link (in this thread) and elsewhere, can make up the bullcrap that spews from their idiot mouths about Lincoln - well then indeed, I as an actual bonafide ancestor of the man - can speak for him. Right? Isn't that fair. Why couldn't I? What gives them the credibility to speak for the man. It's maddening for me to hear that Lincoln would have regarded the BOM as anything but pure unadulterated bull ****. I know it my genes...which speaketh truth unto me..scmd1!"

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1258594,2244326#msg-2244326



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/25/2019 07:06PM by scmd1.

"I know it my genes...which speaketh truth unto me"

For direct descent you have this chance of having any of your ancestor's genes.

"So on average you'll have about 3% of your great, great, great grandparent's DNA. There is a good chance it is a little more or less than this because the DNA swapping in recombination is pretty random. This means that sometimes you'll get a lot of one of the DNA from one chromosome in a pair and a little from the other."
https://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask445

I don't think there is a probability much of you having any of Lincoln's DNA in you. And speaking for the dead isn't an inheritable trait as you probably already know, right?

Thank you for sharing that about Lincoln. I wouldn't have taken him for a foolish man either. He'd have seen through Mormonism quite clearly because he was not taken in by the cunningness or chicanery like many of Joseph's Smith's inner circle were.

He'd have spotted Joseph early on as a Wolf wearing sheep's clothing. Lincoln was a well read and self-educated man, not a simpleton. He was an intellectual giant, not swayed by the likes of men such as Smith.

LOL! I think not.

He was interested in a gaggle of charlatans via his wife.

http://www.spiritualpathspiritualistchurch.org/spiritualism-in-the-whitehouse-lincoln/

Way to go, EB! You just raised Abe's esteem in Amyjo's eyes!

Praise Jehovah!

Lincoln wasn't involved with Mormonism at any time, nor was his wife, Mary. How do I know? Because neither of them were susceptible to it. The Mormon religion was on the fringe of society. The Lincolns were both the elite and the upper class of their day. They were worlds apart. They moved in completely different cultures, namely high society for the Lincolns. Joseph Smith was a renegade and a rogue. They really had very little in common, socio-economically.

Spiritualism was and is a religion that was popular during the Lincoln's era. Still, not a cult on the fringe like Mormonism was/is. Lincoln even referred to Mormonism as a "strange new sect." Lincoln also signed the nation's first anti-polygamy bill in 1862.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/25/2019 10:21PM by Amyjo.

Lincoln was hardly "elite."

Comparable to his contemporary Joseph Smith, Jr. to the north, he was born on the frontier, moved farther west as he grew up, and received only 12 months of formal education. His father may not have been a grifter like the Smiths, but he was farmer who lost most of his land in dubious deals and legal disputes. In a region that valued little besides physical labor, Lincoln's intellectual bent earned him the opprobrium of his neighbors.

Another connection to Mormonism was that as a frontiersman, Lincoln was often situated near Smith and his followers. His Illinois rival Stephen Douglas, for instance, was well know to the Mormons and shows up in several of the early Mormon journals. Compared to Douglas, Lincoln was an ill-bred and ill-educated yokel. When he won the presidency, as most delegates' reluctant second choice, he was roundly dismissed as a uneducated rube who had stumbled into the White House and would soon prove a failure. Chase never saw through the rough exterior although Seward, in whose home Brigham Young had once worked, came to see the president as a genius. But that was because Seward could overlook the lack of manners and education and perceive the wisdom and strategic vision that Lincoln brought to national affairs.

The wealthier and more polished Mary Todd's spiritualism was as disreputable then as it would be today. She was an unbalanced woman who could not dependably manage a household let alone the White House's social life. Her seances and spiritualism caused Lincoln as much trouble as it provided entertainment to the president's skeptics.

What made Lincoln remarkable was that despite his humble background, lack of education, uncouth manners, and lack of connections in high society and politics, he was a strategic genius with the ability to manage others who were more courteous, more educated, more experienced, and better connected. His subtlety manifested in his ability to project a disingenuous image of at least moderate religiosity and to de-emphasize emancipation in order to keep the border states loyal until the last months of the Civil War. A more "honest" policy would not have succeeded in defeating the Confederacy let alone abolishing slavery.

Lincoln was, in a sense, the anti-Smith. He demonstrated that with enough character and commitment, a hillbilly with virtually no education could produce miracles. And he did that in spite of a God whose management of the world and treatment of Lincoln's family aroused his deep resentment. As he told his friends in the late 1830s and early 1840s, it made no sense to wait for God to eliminate slavery and polygamy: he had to do it. If it hadn't been for Mary's insistence, based on her spiritualism, that he must attend the theater that night, he might have achieved his second objective as well as his first.

>>opprobrium<<


I thrive on the esoteric vocabulary found here.

> If it hadn't been for
> Mary's insistence, based
> on her spiritualism,
> that he must attend the
> theater that night, he
> might have achieved his
> second objective as well
> as his first.


Huh!! So you're saying that there is a possibility that Mary Todd Lincoln was part of the conspiracy to off her hubby!!??!!

Here's a lurid story of her life after the death of her husband:
https://www.history.com/news/mary-todd-lincoln-assassination-facts

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lincoln was hardly "elite."

One reason he married his wife was to pull himself up to her social rank in society. And she in turn helped him to succeed in high society because she was from southern high society.


>
> Comparable to his contemporary Joseph Smith, Jr.
> to the north, he was born on the frontier, moved
> farther west as he grew up, and received only 12
> months of formal education. His father may not
> have been a grifter like the Smiths, but he was
> farmer who lost most of his land in dubious deals
> and legal disputes. In a region that valued
> little besides physical labor, Lincoln's
> intellectual bent earned him the opprobrium of his
> neighbors.

Comparable to Smith, Lincoln was an intellectual giant. Smith was a schemer and a dreamer. Lincoln worked and had the ability to reach his goals in life without scamming his followers ie, constituents. He didn't need to lie his way or cheat his way in life to make a living. He had the ability to pull himself up, and became a self-made lawyer through education. Lincoln made an honest living. Smith didn't know how nor had any desire to.

>
> Another connection to Mormonism was that as a
> frontiersman, Lincoln was often situated near
> Smith and his followers. His Illinois rival
> Stephen Douglas, for instance, was well know to
> the Mormons and shows up in several of the early
> Mormon journals. Compared to Douglas, Lincoln was
> an ill-bred and ill-educated yokel. When he won
> the presidency, as most delegates' reluctant
> second choice, he was roundly dismissed as a
> uneducated rube who had stumbled into the White
> House and would soon prove a failure. Chase never
> saw through the rough exterior although Seward, in
> whose home Brigham Young had once worked, came to
> see the president as a genius. But that was
> because Seward could overlook the lack of manners
> and education and perceive the wisdom and
> strategic vision that Lincoln brought to national
> affairs.
>
> The wealthier and more polished Mary Todd's
> spiritualism was as disreputable then as it would
> be today. She was an unbalanced woman who could
> not dependably manage a household let alone the
> White House's social life. Her seances and
> spiritualism caused Lincoln as much trouble as it
> provided entertainment to the president's
> skeptics.
>
> What made Lincoln remarkable was that despite his
> humble background, lack of education, uncouth
> manners, and lack of connections in high society
> and politics, he was a strategic genius with the
> ability to manage others who were more courteous,
> more educated, more experienced, and better
> connected. His subtlety manifested in his ability
> to project a disingenuous image of at least
> moderate religiosity and to de-emphasize
> emancipation in order to keep the border states
> loyal until the last months of the Civil War. A
> more "honest" policy would not have succeeded in
> defeating the Confederacy let alone abolishing
> slavery.

His wife, Mary, was very polished and came from southern wealth. What he lacked in refinement she more than made up for. Her instability became more pronounced following the death of her children and the assassination of her husband. Lincoln it was said may have suffered also from mental disease possibly manic depression, that went untreated. He was always however, a lifelong Christian without a denomination who believed in the bible. He said so himself, and it has been documented by biographers and historians.

>
> Lincoln was, in a sense, the anti-Smith. He
> demonstrated that with enough character and
> commitment, a hillbilly with virtually no
> education could produce miracles. And he did that
> in spite of a God whose management of the world
> and treatment of Lincoln's family aroused his deep
> resentment. As he told his friends in the late
> 1830s and early 1840s, it made no sense to wait
> for God to eliminate slavery and polygamy: he had
> to do it. If it hadn't been for Mary's
> insistence, based on her spiritualism, that he
> must attend the theater that night, he might have
> achieved his second objective as well as his
> first.

If he hadn't been assassinated that night, it would have been another. The plot to murder Lincoln didn't happen in one day. Lincoln grew up working poor. He became self-taught and refined as a lawyer turned politician. His wife Mary helped him with his social skills and refinement and social network that would help him in his political quest for the White House that was his ultimate goal. He was the American Dream incarnate.

God raised him up to lead the country through the Civil War and to reunite it on the other side of one of the darkest chapters of our history. Like George Washington before him, he is one of the greats with the founding fathers of this nation.

He also dreamed of his impending death before it happened. He was able to foretell of his doom, without able to prevent it.

Pray tell, or preach tell, what is your source for the assertion that ghawd raised Abraham Lincoln to lead America in its hour of need?

And why did ghawd then abandon his faithful servant before the job given him was complete?

And rather than "because I said so... " are there any sources you can cite?

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pray tell, or preach tell, what is your source for
> the assertion that ghawd raised Abraham Lincoln to
> lead America in its hour of need?
>
> And why did ghawd then abandon his faithful
> servant before the job given him was complete?
>
> And rather than "because I said so... " are there
> any sources you can cite?

You must be an early riser up at 4 a.m. to be reading my post as soon as I write it.

Common sense dictates that God raised Lincoln up for the time and place in history he lived through to lead our nation. Lincoln wasn't abandoned. Nor was his mission incomplete. He had done what he set out to do. He was man of the hour.

Lincoln's life, like the nation he embraced, was a mosaic and a tapestry he made richer for his having lived it. And for his having lived it as well as he did by making a difference. He saved our country from being split apart at the seams. He was a great leader.

It could be that your posts create a disturbance in the Force.

Thank you for the remarkable documentation regarding Abraham Lincoln's connection to ghawd and destiny.

Is it bothersome that TBMs feel the same way about Joseph Smith and use the same hubristic thought process?

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It could be that your posts create a disturbance
> in the Force.

Only for the likes of you, old dog. Not too many here are preoccupied with me the way you doo. At 4 a.m. no less. My beliefs are as real to me as yours are to you, and I'm free to express them. I do not hound you for your atheist views even though I think you are mistaken. That is your right to believe that way, but I don't obsess myself with your posts the way you do with mine. If you were really secure in your beliefs you wouldn't be so obsessive about mine.

>
> Thank you for the remarkable documentation
> regarding Abraham Lincoln's connection to ghawd
> and destiny.
>
> Is it bothersome that TBMs feel the same way about
> Joseph Smith and use the same hubristic thought
> process?

Joseph Smith didn't accomplish what Lincoln did to unite the country. He was a grifter who sowed division who only wanted to take what others had without making a living the honest way.

And no, Mormons do not use the same thought process for Smith because the Mormon religion is not the United States of America. Without the US of A it wouldn't have had the foundation for its birth however. Because of our freedom for religion it like other religions have the ability to sprout up. Mormonism is a truly American born religion built on folklore and mysticism. It is also the richest and most powerful American religion to spring up since the founding of our nation.

Smith does not compare in any way, size or manner, including stature, to a Lincoln. He lacked the fortitude, the honesty, work ethic, integrity, honor, and a moral code. He did however build the foundation for a Marriott Hotel before there was one. Because J. Willard Marriott took his lessons from TSCC from which his hotel empire was built on. He studied the Mormon model for success and used it as his blueprint upon which to structure his hotel enterprise.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 07/26/2019 11:31AM by Amyjo.

This relates to the thread about Adam & Eve and misogyny in the church. Pregnant women are being prescribed opiates, and Utah has the highest death from overdose rate for pregnant women.

Like I said before, people in pain don't want to work, they want relief. Desperately. And women who are not only in pain, but expected to do all the unpaid house labor & child rearing, possibly also working a paid job, "striving" to both remain modest & chaste AND pump out 12 kids, and also fulfill ridiculously time-consuming "callings" want relief extra desperately. Nobody is as desperate as a toiling woman locked in a religion that treats her like a second-class citizen.

I have no idea why any doctor would prescribe oxycodone to a pregnant woman (and thus her developing fetus) but I'm not a doctor, so maybe there's a reason. It seems wrong, but I can see certain women jumping at the chance to not feel mental or physical pain, and be "justified" because it's "doctor's orders." :-( :-(

If you ever find yourself in chronic 24/7 nerve pain, and the opiates at the time were the only choice, you might be surprised what you might do. After years using them for this kind of pain I Take the weakest and lowest amount I can. Lucky for me medical Cannibis will and does help the kind of nerve pain I have.
Living in Utah it is a slow moving process.

Chronic nerve pain is like having a toothache you can't do anything about. The tooth you can pull.
I felt the same till it happened to me. Thought those folks were weak.
Now I never judge what someone else is dealing or living with.

I have witnessed alcohol do more damage to families and society than opiates.

Thank you for this. A lot of people who judge harshly assume that an addict went out one day and said, "those pills look like fun." I'm sure that happens, but rarely.

I don't think most addicts are evil, weak, or stupid. They need help to deal with a bad situation.

I'm a devout atheist, but I love the expression, "There, but for the grace of God, go I."

He became that way after his divorce. He was on suboxone for 10 years to "stay off" opiates. Suboxone is A TOUGH DRUG--in terms of he gave me a little tiny bit to put under my tongue for pain and I got violently ill. So it is addictive in and of itself.

I agree with what you have said. Pain pills are there for a reason, but it is easy to become addicted. If I didn't have such a bad reaction to some I've taken, I'm sure I could easily be addicted especially with some of the psychological crap I've been through. There is pain that only opiates will work for.

Thankfully, my son is off alcohol and opiates.

Marijuana is what helps him the most and I gladly buy it for him as it has changed OUR LIVES as I know don't have to worry so much about him and he is able to function. My therapist said that marijuana is the medication of the future for mental health.

and I was on it. Every one of my siblings is on an SSRI. My mother should have been. I am able to go off mine some of the time and I'm only on 10 mg.

Some people have the gene and we definitely do. My ex's family has bipolar, too.

This was a reply to Amyjo.

Have you seen the movie "Walk the Line?" I don't know what meds they used to prescribe in the 1960s for anxiety, depression, etc., weight loss, but they are very addictive drugs. This isn't a 9/11 business. This has been around forever.

Prozac isn't even in the same category as opiates. It doesn't give you a "high"--it isn't addictive. You have to taper off it, but it isn't addictive. Prozac is a miracle drug considering what they used to give for anxiety and depression (but then it carried and still does a stigma to be depressed and needing help). Antidepressants are entirely different than an opiate.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/25/2019 09:21AM by cl2.

As I stated to Catnip above, I do understand that people in chronic, severe pain really do need their pain meds. I just feel that should not be at a level of 80+ prescribed pills per year, per resident. Most people are *not* in pain that is so chronic and severe that they need opioids 24/7, year round. IMO most people only need occasional help for post-surgical procedures. So who exactly is getting all of these pain pills? That is a HUGE number of pain pills.

Me for one. Whether the pain is physical or mental, it is debilitating. I am dependent same as a smoker. Not addicted. Major difference. I agree cl2 about SSRI’s. They are a miracle drug for those with depression, anxiety, PTSD. A certain percentage of the population is at risk for addiction. The drug of choice is the variable. My daughter is an addict. Genetic gift from her bio dad. His DOC was vodka. He died at 37. Hers was opiates. Methadone saved her life. I can say she never in watching her grow up ever said I want to be a junkie.

The opiate problem isn’t a Mormon, Utah, or weakness problem. Just genetic brain wiring. Imagine if we demonized everyone who carried more weight than required to sustain life. Or diabetics.
The patients in real physical pain have suffered greatly from all of this panic and judgement. Worst victims are our veterans.
You can’t see pain, so it’s easy to say a person shouldn’t take opiates....trade them places for 7 days.

>>Me for one.

I'm trying to tell you -- yes, I understand that *some* people need to take opiates every day, all day. You, for one. Catnip, for another.

But does *every* person in SLC need 80 pain pills per year? Because that is the rate at which they are being prescribed. 80+ pills per person, per year. That is what I am questioning. Four per year, maybe. Ten per year, maybe. But 80+? That number is absurd.

>>The patients in real physical pain have suffered greatly from all of this panic and judgement.

I believe this. I had one medical provider (a periodontist) refuse to prescribe opiates post gum surgery (the surgery was invasive, he was working underneath my molar.) He prescribed 800 mg. tablets of Motrin instead. Fortunately, the Motrin worked well for me. But I understand the difficulty of someone who genuinely needs the opiates to relieve pain.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/25/2019 05:14PM by summer.

I think since 9/11 our entire country became a Prozac nation.

It may not be only Utah. The opioid epidemic is a national one. Utah ranks near the top of the list, but it isn't the only state that is.

A lot of people are in pain and self-medicate. What do doctors do for them when they come to them in pain but prescribe pain pills?

For anxiety they prescribe Valium. Anti-depressants for depression. With a physical injury there are inevitably people who start on pain killers and wind up addicted to opiates once the prescriptions run out. It seems to be occurring with increasing frequency per statistics. But who wants to end up a statistic?

Utah is right up there for a lot of reasons but it is by no means alone in topping the list.

My state is really strict in handing out prescriptions for controlled substances. I wonder whether Utah is as strict as New York is? Utah's drinking under the influence laws is the strictest in the nation btw. It has the toughest DUI laws in the nation. But having stricter laws don't prevent drug abuse or addiction. They might help curb them though. Oya vey.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/24/2019 08:28PM by Amyjo.

Maryland mandates good record keeping as well. When I first went to a new medical practice last year, my NP could pull up a record of what I had been prescribed no matter who prescribed it. At a minimum, it was all opiates over the past few years, but I think everything was in there.

Prescribers in California have the same access to prescription information regarding patients.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/25/2019 06:39PM by scmd1.