p thoughts and notices

While paraphernalia is generally nicer to the pharmaceuticals industry than it is to organized crime (see link for economics rationale) paraphernalia cannot fail to notice the confusion generated by media hype, political hysteria and conflicting government policies when comparing the pushing of legal medicines with the prohibition of illegal substances used for the evil purpose of recreation. It is easy to contrast the process used for the approval of the "good for you" substances endorsed by the nerds at the FDA with the methods used for dealing with the "bad for you" stuff falling under the prohibition bias of the testosterone lager lads goons employed by the DEA.

For example, on September 30th, giant pharmaceutical company Merck recalled its popular painkiller Vioxx following report of a significant increase in risks of heart attacks resulting from prolonged usage (see this link for further information, as well as for the opportunity to participate in a class action lawsuit). Now, paraphernalia likes Merck. After all, these dour German scientists invented both ecstasy and morphine! However, it seems that Vioxx, introduced in 1999, may be responsible for as much as 27,000 deaths. The media, no doubt spinned to death by Merck and the FDA, actually thinks that the Vioxx case is a proof that the FDA works!!! To everyone’s relief, Merck is now rushing Arcoxia to the market, as it is considered safer than Vioxx (how hard can that be!). The FDA remains non committal…

The performance of the FDA is obviously shameful when compared with the pro-active attitude taken by the “kick ass” storm troopers wearing DEA badges. For example, marijuana, introduced God knows when, has not been the cause of any direct death as per US government sources. Well, might as well Schedule-1 it anyway!!! Similar treatment was accorded to ecstasy, which the DEA banned against the advice of its own administrative judge.

Not shy in fulfilling its duty - unlike the wimps at the FDA who can still be convinced by the likes of Merck - the DEA is also pre-emptive in solving problems, usually through the use of firearms.

In the meantime, somewhere else in Gotham, leading medical journal The Lancet published a study indicating that some combinations of vitamins may actually increase the risk of cancer. Preliminary studies estimate that 9,000 per million users of supplements could die prematurely as a result of taking them. Now, who should we trust to solve this new threat? The DEA, the FDA or maybe even John Ashcroft?

Given this conundrum, and for sanity’s sake, paraphernalia will be content to just put a NicoDerm’s patch and hope that their dump statement “So your brain’s happy. You’re happy. Or at least you’re happy that your brain’s happy.” will turn out to be true, be it under the DEA or the FDA...