Small Talk: The Hot Dog Stand

[Meredith Quill]

The Small Talk topic is for:

• Introductions
• Off-topic chatter
• Having virtual tea with forum buddies

This is NOT a topic for actual show discussion. When you want to talk about the show:

1. Figure out the nature of the topic you want to talk about
2. Look for an existing topic that matches or fits
3. If there is NOT an existing topic that fits, CREATE ONE!

Examples of topics that populate show forums include (but by no means are limited to):

• Character topics
• Spoiler topics
• Comparison topics
• Speculation topics
• In the Media topics
• Favourite X topics
• ...you get the idea

Happy trails beyond Small Talk!

[Yeah No]

16 minutes ago, jah1986 said:

I think some people just have a kind of blind faith in doctors. When I suffered an injury, my doctor prescribed Prednisone, to be taken three times a day, 20 mg each. I didn't know anything about the drug but a few days later I thought I was losing my mind, I was irrationally angry all the time and couldn't explain it. When I asked a nurse friend about the drug he told me the possible side effects. I decided to stop taking the drug a week later, my doctor was unconcerned with my symptoms. It took another week before I noticed relief.

All that to say, I wish the show would give more information about how the daughter became an addict and why Mattie is targeting Well Brexa. Surely there are other big pharma companies out there.

I had a similar experience on prednisone and I only took a very small dose for less than a week (but I am very sensitive to drugs in general). It's amazing how you can almost ruin your life irreparably in 4 days on so little medication....I might save that horror story for another thread.

Another experience I had was with Xanax. When I was going through perimenopause and my anxiety level was higher than usual and other approaches weren't working, my doctor prescribed it for me. I took a small dose at night and it helped me sleep. Back then nobody made a big deal about any addictive properties it had and I knew nothing about that. Years later after menopause I learned about that and decided I didn't need it anymore. By that time I was aware that it could be bad to go cold turkey with it and I needed to gradually taper off. Well, that was much harder than I ever expected. My body had clearly developed a dependence on it and the side effects if I just went off it altogether were HORRIBLE. It took me a few months to be free of it altogether without feeling like total crap. So I can fully understand how someone can be prescribed a drug and unknowingly become addicted to it, then find it next to impossible to get off it. I have absolutely NO judgment for anyone in that kind of situation as each person's experience can differ widely.

Now mind you, if someone just wants to get high and seeks out those drugs, I'd consider that a different situation and wouldn't be as sympathetic to them as a result.

[Yeah No]

21 minutes ago, Percysowner said:

The show has been doing a slow burn of this story, so I'm trusting them to eventually give us more information on Matty's daughter. As to why Wellbrexa, this is the US of A. All drugs get patents and the company that invented them gets all the profits. For example fentanyl was made by TEVA owned by the Sackler family and THEY are the ones that pushed the drug as safe and non-addictive, or at least not very addictive. Other companies my develop similar drugs, but only fentanyl one that has caused the biggest crisis. Pharmaceutical companies do not enjoy sharing the credit or the wealth from their drugs. We have to accept that Matty's daughter got addicted specifically to the drug that Wellbrexa made.

That is a reaction a lot of people have. It is carving out the "right kind" of addicts and giving them sympathy. It is similar to how for most of history rape victims had to be the "right kind" of victim, someone who did nothing to "ask for it". The point of the show is, whether the addict was completely sympathetic or not Wellbrexa manufactured, promoted and sold a drug under the umbrella of being safe and not incredibly addictive and that they not only lied, they hid documents that proved the lie at some point when their safety was being reviewed.

Addiction really is and illness. Some people can deal with the stresses of life better than others. That doesn't make the fact that, in Matty's theory, a rich, powerful company TARGETED the people who were most likely to be hurt by their product.

I see this situation as a very specific one. I have more sympathy for alcoholics because let's face it, alcohol is legal and readily available everywhere. In fact it is almost impossible to avoid it and not knowing how susceptible you may be to alcoholism, you wouldn't have as much responsibility for becoming an alcoholic. Same is true for obesity - we all have to eat and everyone's body reacts differently to food and metabolisms differ, etc., so that is in my opinion (and based on experience) a different situation. 

Seeking out drugs like this is not the same in my opinion, especially if gotten not on prescription and illegally, and especially if the goal is not to medicate pain or some other physical/emotional discomfort. If (like I said in my previous post) you're doing it for kicks and just to get high I see that as less understandable and forgivable as a result. 

Please understand the very specific differences between these situations and why I make those distinctions before you assume that I'm not sympathetic to people who "self medicate". But even self-medication, if not done under the supervision and prescription of a doctor is also another situation where more responsibility lies with the person doing it than in other cases. Different levels of responsibility belong to different situations, and on that basis my level of sympathy differs.

[Yeah No]

41 minutes ago, Percysowner said:

That is a reaction a lot of people have. It is carving out the "right kind" of addicts and giving them sympathy. It is similar to how for most of history rape victims had to be the "right kind" of victim, someone who did nothing to "ask for it". The point of the show is, whether the addict was completely sympathetic or not Wellbrexa manufactured, promoted and sold a drug under the umbrella of being safe and not incredibly addictive and that they not only lied, they hid documents that proved the lie at some point when their safety was being reviewed.

Addiction really is and illness. Some people can deal with the stresses of life better than others. That doesn't make the fact that, in Matty's theory, a rich, powerful company TARGETED the people who were most likely to be hurt by their product.

These situations are very complicated but it's not fair to oversimplify them and make blanked assumptions about people's motivations. Every situation is very specific and different.  I see the comparison you're making here to rape as a very different situation and a false equivalency, but I'm not going to go further into that. And it is very relevant to a legal case just how much personal responsibility is at play here, although I think the drug company has enough responsibility and probably MORE in this case no matter what the individual's responsibility is and on that account they should be held responsible for it. I don't profess to know who should and shouldn't get more or less sympathy unless I were to know a LOT about their situation or if I were God. But there are people that do drugs just for kicks. Not everyone is a poor soul looking to get some relief from the pain and stress of life. And for those people, if I could figure out who they are, I'd have less sympathy. Not NONE but less.

[Nashville]

4 hours ago, cameron said:

Guess you don't believe that doctors standby the hippocratic oath that they take.

Before retiring, I spent about 4 decades doing (among other things) on-site healthcare IT support for public health clinics and hospitals.  Big surprise: doctors, nurses, etc. are as fallible, as greedy - as human, in other words - as the rest of us.

Edited December 18, 2024 by Nashville
Typo

[Yeah No]

I just have to say that I have been held responsible for everything I've ever done in life. No one is standing in line to give me sympathy and forgive me for my mistakes, even though I probably deserve more of it. And absolutely NO ONE is giving me a medal for my strength of character despite all the crap that I've been dealt in life. I have resisted drugs and alcohol my whole life and believe me, it might have been a lot easier for me to take that route. I do believe in personal responsibility in matters like this. It's not fair to people that are killing themselves to be responsible to forgive everyone that is irresponsible. When I get a medal for my resistance to messing up my life like that I'll be more sympathetic.

Edited December 18, 2024 by Yeah No

[Irlandesa]

1 hour ago, Yeah No said:

I see this situation as a very specific one. I have more sympathy for alcoholics because let's face it, alcohol is legal and readily available everywhere. In fact it is almost impossible to avoid it and not knowing how susceptible you may be to alcoholism, you wouldn't have as much responsibility for becoming an alcoholic. Same is true for obesity - we all have to eat and everyone's body reacts differently to food and metabolisms differ, etc., so that is in my opinion (and based on experience) a different situation.

I've found alcohol pretty easy to avoid, actually.  And while that's mostly because I don't like the taste, it's also because alcohol, like cigarettes or cocaine, has been long known as a potentially addictive substance.  Anyone who chooses to try those on some level knows that there's a potentially nasty outcome.  It says right there on the government-mandated warning label.

If anything, food is probably the best comparison to addictive prescription drugs.  People need food to live.  And while we can make better choices, food companies put in ingredients people feel compelled to eat more of even while being marketed as "healthy" that is only now starting to get more play.   

These prescription drugs were not prescribed recreationally.  They were needed for most people who started with them to treat pain.  And the producers hid the fact that they were addictive so patients and even many doctors weren't given the option to make an informed choice about prescriptions the way they are with alcohol and cigarettes.

Edited December 18, 2024 by Irlandesa

[possibilities]

Anyone sober who has dealt with an addict knows it can be very frustrating. So I understand why people are irritible about it.

HOWEVER, I think that even people who did not get their addiction through a prescription, or who are self-medicating or making a mistake for some other reason, are still worthy of understanding. 

I am not saying that we should "enable" (to use the word they teach you when they brand you a co-dependent) bad behavior, but that doesn't mean I think we should just become harsh and stop trying to understand. And I don't think it means people who need help should  not get it because we decide they don't deserve it. 

One reason people self-medicate is that they are in pain, either physical or psychological. It can be very hard to get adequate pain management, and it is also very hard to get competent mental health treatment. So people who don't have a sense of another way to cope try whatever they can think of. And even when that leads to bad results, what they need is better options, not harsh moral condemnation. 

And sometimes people get high just for fun, or because they're curious, or because they're [I'm trying to think of a word other than stupid]... just making a bad decision. Do we believe people deserve to be condemned for life or treated like criminals because of this, when it goes bad? I don't think that. Maybe some people do, but I don't.

Telling people they are terrible people who are doing something stupid and they should boostrap themselves out of their stupidity and don't deserve any respect is not usually how people get smarter and less terrible and more respectable. 

Yes, sometimes people need to have firm boundaries. And I do not personally know how to help some people. But I don't think that is the same thing as closing your heart to someone and deciding they're just garbage and heaping blame and lack of sympathy on them like that's a good medical approach.

There are people who I can't abide, so I get it. We each have a role to play and we can't all engage with everyone. 

But I am very sorry for everyone who has been dealt with in this way. It's impressive to the extent anyone figures stuff out under harsh and unforgiving circumstances. Some can do it. Others can't. I find that sad, not a reason to gloat or condemn.

[Yeah No]

12 hours ago, possibilities said:

HOWEVER, I think that even people who did not get their addiction through a prescription, or who are self-medicating or making a mistake for some other reason, are still worthy of understanding. 

I am not saying that we should "enable" (to use the word they teach you when they brand you a co-dependent) bad behavior, but that doesn't mean I think we should just become harsh and stop trying to understand. And I don't think it means people who need help should  not get it because we decide they don't deserve it. 

One reason people self-medicate is that they are in pain, either physical or psychological. It can be very hard to get adequate pain management, and it is also very hard to get competent mental health treatment. So people who don't have a sense of another way to cope try whatever they can think of. And even when that leads to bad results, what they need is better options, not harsh moral condemnation. 

And sometimes people get high just for fun, or because they're curious, or because they're [I'm trying to think of a word other than stupid]... just making a bad decision. Do we believe people deserve to be condemned for life or treated like criminals because of this, when it goes bad? I don't think that. Maybe some people do, but I don't.

Telling people they are terrible people who are doing something stupid and they should boostrap themselves out of their stupidity and don't deserve any respect is not usually how people get smarter and less terrible and more respectable. 

Yes, sometimes people need to have firm boundaries. And I do not personally know how to help some people. But I don't think that is the same thing as closing your heart to someone and deciding they're just garbage and heaping blame and lack of sympathy on them like that's a good medical approach.

There are people who I can't abide, so I get it. We each have a role to play and we can't all engage with everyone. 

But I am very sorry for everyone who has been dealt with in this way. It's impressive to the extent anyone figures stuff out under harsh and unforgiving circumstances. Some can do it. Others can't. I find that sad, not a reason to gloat or condemn.

I never stop trying to understand people. It's who I am and what motivated me to get an advanced education in exactly that - understanding people. Just because I believe in different levels of personal responsibility in different situations doesn't mean I have no compassion or empathy for people that find themselves addicted, no matter the reason. And having differing amounts of compassion and empathy depending on the situation is not to have none at all, nor does it mean your heart is closed. In fact it can be entirely appropriate. If we didn't do that we wouldn't ever be able to send anyone to jail for their actions. We'd explain away everything they did as if they had no responsibility in it at all. And there are always arguments that can be used to make that case in every situation.

People are especially harsh on serial killers, for example, but what if what they've done is a function of their particular illness or childhood abuse or whatever? If it's cold hearted to have little to no compassion for them and think they should pay for their actions, well I'll live with being called cold hearted.

Even if many drug addicts have a sad story that reduces their responsibility and pulls at heart strings doesn't mean that all of them do, or that all do in the same amount, and I would reserve judgment on that until I knew the particulars about that in each situation. I have a strong feeling that in the case of this show, Matty's daughter's story is probably going to show that her personal responsibility in her addiction is far less than the drug company's and even the doctor's. It is not lost on me how people are prescribed drugs and then become addicted. I started my discussion on that early in this thread with my own personal experience with dependence on Xanax and how that makes me particularly able to understand how that can happen pretty much without your consent.

I find that all you have to do these days is insert a shade of gray into an issue and all of a sudden you feel like you might as well be Hitler. 😏

[possibilities]

My Goodness! I don't think anyone has called anyone, or implied that anyone is, Hitler. Nowadays, people often think they are being called Hitler when someone else is merely disagreeing with them or explaining their own point of view!

[Shrek]

Almost 2 months between episodes is ridiculous. 

[Nashville]

I’d forgotten the season wasn’t over yet.