The Goat Pen

Another question I have is, why don't they offer preventative heart caths? Seems like they would be encouraging people to get one at a certain age, kinda like colonoscopies, but from everything I could gather by asking the doctors and nurses at the cardiac unit in Raleigh, they don't do one unless you have basically already had a heart attack or had clear symptoms, i.e., chest pain. Seems like it would be good to know if you've got blockage before you actually have a heart attack or even mild symptoms. For example, the sister of a friend of the MIF's daughters is getting married this summer, he fiance's dad just died from a heart attack on the same day they took my dad up to Raleigh. I've never met these folks (they are from out of state), but goddamn, dude was 61 years old and now dead. Seems like a scheduled, preventative heart cath might've saved his life.

Another example is the MIF's husband, granted he was only 45 years old and seemingly in great shape, but he would've passed every type of stress test, etc., and still died of a massive heart attack (he was an avid biker and had just come in from a 30 mile ride when he keeled over). From what I can gather, the only way they can truly determine if you have a blockage is by using the heart cath. Seems like they would be encouraging people to get them on a routine basis rather than waiting for chest pain or an actual heart attack to occur. Kinda like with a colonoscopy, if everything checks out fine, you don't get another one for 10 years (or whatever), but if they see something they can fix it right away or if it's not bad, they can put you on some medicine and you can alter your diet and exercise, etc., and then come back in 5 years (or whatever)...

First, just assume that you have narrowing. Second, those events you describe aren't likely to be the slow, build-up over time event but rather the big event (like a travelling clot that finds a place to get stuck). Finally, stop smoking and lose a few pounds. You're getting chubby.

They did say there was a good chance that it was a small clot that got cleared out when they jacked him up with blood thinners in Wilson the day before he got the heart cath (and I think they gave him more when he got to Raleigh)...

"Still, not every older man needs a statin. If you have normal cholesterol and blood pressure and are not overweight, you are probably not in the statin zone."

That's my dad. Also, he doesn't smoke or drink, although on the other side, he doesn't exercise much outside of a few rounds of golf per week. I'm sure he is going to start at least walking some now and hopefully going to the gym a couple times a week...

Him having an MI puts him in the zone for receiving. Also, be careful on what you consider "good" - cholesterol is more than LDL. But he can take it or not. This is America.

"But he can take it or not. This is America."

That's what I was saying about heroin on another thread...

I saw what you said. Legalizing heroin (and a few other drugs) pushes my libertarianism past the edge. I'm not in favor of it, or legalizing crack, meth, and a few others. At some point, the potential danger to the herd outweighs the freedom for the one.

I think of it like vaccines. Government can madate to protect all of us and I'm okay with that.

I don't say that lightly about it and would be fine with pot and mdma being legalized and maybe a few other things.

What is the potential danger heroin poses to the herd? That a massive number of people would start using it if it was legal? Also, since we're on the subject of danger to the herd, do you think cigarettes should be illegal? In this regard, I was just reading an article on the relative safety of Swedish snus (which I use) compared to other tobacco products, and I came across this quote:

"Compared to cigarettes, snus seems less dangerous. “It’s difficult to say that something is as toxic for you as smoking a cigarette unless you’re starting to talk about ingesting cyanide or rat poison,” says Erika Sward, assistant vice president of national advocacy for the American Lung Association."

The rapid physiological addiction. The willingness to abandon everything to get the next hit. The overdoses.

Alcohol, and any intoxicat has that, with H it's turbocharged.

I don't think heroin's legal status makes much of a difference. The reason its use has exploded is that the legal opiates are harder to get and use which has made them more expensive and made shooting H a much more attractive option. I doubt very many people start their opiate problem with heroin. The opiate epidemic (and it's real) is about the prescription drugs and the degree to which people abuse those. Make it much harder to get those and most of these additctions never start. The newish formula that makes the pills hard to crush and snort or shoot are a good start. But, what really need to go are the pill mills and doctors that give the shit out like candy.

I have always heard that nicotine is just as addictive as heroin. Besides that, though, the overall harm done by tobacco is massively greater than that caused by heroin. In fact, I would suggest that it's the slow, surreptitious, "it's not affecting me now" aspect of tobacco addiction that makes it far more harmful and costly. At any rate, there is no doubt that tobacco use is extremely harmful and costly. So, given this danger to the herd, do you think tobacco should be illegal, and if not, why? I am not badgering you here, just asking an honest question. For me, it's a no-brainer. If heroin (or any other drug) is illegal, tobacco should be too. But my libertarian beliefs lead me to think that they should all be legal, and let folks go to the devil in their own manner of choosing...

hedge wrote:I have always heard that nicotine is just as addictive as heroin. Besides that, though, the overall harm done by tobacco is massively greater than that caused by heroin. In fact, I would suggest that it's the slow, surreptitious, "it's not affecting me now" aspect of tobacco addiction that makes it far more harmful and costly. At any rate, there is no doubt that tobacco use is extremely harmful and costly. So, given this danger to the herd, do you think tobacco should be illegal, and if not, why? I am not badgering you here, just asking an honest question. For me, it's a no-brainer. If heroin (or any other drug) is illegal, tobacco should be too. But my libertarian beliefs lead me to think that they should all be legal, and let folks go to the devil in their own manner of choosing...

it probably would be illegal if it had not been here since the start of the country and people knew the long term health issues with it.

As it is now, teen smoking is down to I think single digits % wise -so public awareness is pretty much driving it out.

There has definitely been a recent upsurge in heroin use, esp. amongst middle class whitey's who would've never considered using it a generation ago, but I suspect, like crack, that's going to be a passing fad. Sadly, kids are dying (there have been a couple around here who the MIF's daughters went to school with), but tragic as that is, I think those deaths serve as a grave warning and potent deterrent for others.

Looking at these numbers, though,I just can't use the word "epidemic" talking about heroin:

[img2]https://d14rmgtrwzf5a.cloudfront.net/si ... e-2013.gif[/img2]

"As it is now, teen smoking is down to I think single digits % wise -so public awareness is pretty much driving it out."

Exactly, and I suspect the same will happen with heroin, low as the usage numbers already are. Right now, it's new and cool in a lurid way. Pretty soon it won't be new anymore and definitely won't be cool. There will always be addicts, but I think, like crack, heroin use is going to spike and then drop off dramatically...

hedge wrote:"As it is now, teen smoking is down to I think single digits % wise -so public awareness is pretty much driving it out."

Exactly, and I suspect the same will happen with heroin, low as the usage numbers already are. Right now, it's new and cool in a lurid way. Pretty soon it won't be new anymore and definitely won't be cool. There will always be addicts, but I think, like crack, heroin use is going to spike and then drop off dramatically...

we're talking 50 years to get to that single digit.

We can't have that kind of time frame with a drug as serious as heroin.

I honestly don't think heroin use will rise with legalization

but I think its bad enough now to never consider it.

Well hell, less people are using heroin now than are dying from smoking. And only a small fraction of heroin users die from it. I would guess that the fraction of smokers who die or develop serious health issues is far, far higher, as in most of them. My guess is that most heroin users eventually quit. It's just not conducive to leading a normal life, and most users just get tired of it. According to this outfit (http://www.asam.org/docs/default-source ... igures.pdf), only 23% of people who use heroin become addicted to it. I would have thought that number would be higher, but it is encouraging that most people who try it don't use it for long...

the hypocrisy of cigarettes and marijuana is a good argument.

I can't go there with Heroin, Meth, Crack, etc,

Looking at some charts, I can see why eCat is concerned about heroin. Evidently, Kentucky and Ohio are amongst the nation's worst hit states in terms of drug overdoses, although they both lag slightly behind good ol' West Virginia...

Maybe making marijuana legal lowers the demand for the more illicit drugs.

hedge wrote:Looking at some charts, I can see why eCat is concerned about heroin. Evidently, Kentucky and Ohio are amongst the nation's worst hit states in terms of drug overdoses, although they both lag slightly behind good ol' West Virginia...

we had someone selling heroin out of their house 4 streets down from us.