?? why?

[JohnW2]

Our Generation were brought up on Aspirins. Would they be allowed today?

As I said, I very much doubt it (and probably even more so in the case of paracetamol), at least as non-prescription medicines.

 

[ebee]

It used to cost 99p for a bottle of a hundred not long since, until they decided to thwart those who might choose to deliberately overdose. There`s me at the supermarket buying several packets at a time of paracetamol/aspirin by going thru each different checkout until one of them realises and gets pedantic so I go out of the entrance then walk back in and go thru the ritual again, when challenged I tell them each checkout is and Moreso each in and out the entrance door is actually a separate transaction.
Those determined enough never think to go to several smaller shops in a town centre and just buy the allowance once each do they?
The only discernible difference was to put the price of medication up!

 

[morqthana]

Yep, the same with them.

Because of changing attitudes over time. If alcohol or tobacco were first to appear today, there is not a chance in hell that they would be 'accepted', and would be regarded, treated and legislated for in just the same way as heroin, cocaine, MDMA and whatever.

I think I heard once that if salt were discovered today there would be no chance of it being allowed as a food additive.

But interesting that you mention those drugs, because

In all of the cases, effectively changing things retrospectively ('turning the clock back') would be next-to-impossible.

In the case of the 3 you list, all were proscribed many years after their invention, despite in some cases having been popular over-the-counter remedies manufactured by mainstream pharmaceutical companies.

I think in fact that until relatively recently, when they changed the law to basically make "anything which gets you high" a controlled substance, to stop the continual chasing after new synthetics, all recreational drugs were made "illegal" after they'd come to be used recreationally.

 

[morqthana]

Or alcohol?

Because the Government is making a forking mint out of it.

And also because if anyone appointed by the Government to advise on drug policy actually gives advice based on a rational analysis of relative harms is sacked if that advice is not what the Government wants because it's already made unscientific, evidence-free policy for political reasons.

 

[JohnW2]

It used to cost 99p for a bottle of a hundred not long since, until they decided to thwart those who might choose to deliberately overdose. There`s me at the supermarket buying several packets at a time of paracetamol/aspirin by going thru each different checkout until one of them realises and gets pedantic so I go out of the entrance then walk back in and go thru the ritual again, when challenged I tell them each checkout is and Moreso each in and out the entrance door is actually a separate transaction. .... Those determined enough never think to go to several smaller shops in a town centre and just buy the allowance once each do they?

Quite so - hence the only way of minimising (but not eliminating) the risk of members of the general public obtaining a potentially lethal number of tablets would be to completely ban them or, at least, make them prescription-only.

The problem is not quite as drastic with aspirin, but in the case of paracetamol, just one packet of 16 (let alone the two packs of 16 allowed in a single transaction) is more than enough to potentially kill many a person. In comparison with what we like to see of medicines, the 'therapeutic index' of paracetamol (ratio of dose that causes serious problems or death to the dose needed therapeutically) is worryingly low (about 10:1) for a non-prescription medicine.

 

[morqthana]

I've never found paracetamol on its own to be particularly therapeutic in the first place.

 

[JohnW2]

I think I heard once that if salt were discovered today there would be no chance of it being allowed as a food additive.

I suppose that, in terms of current thinking, that would make some sense - but it would be much more difficult to do anything about established food items which naturally came with very high levels of salt, so people might start using them in lieu of 'salt' out of a jar or packet (unless one somehow 'banned' those food items as well!).

But interesting that you mention those drugs, because .... In the case of the 3 you list, all were proscribed many years after their invention, despite in some cases having been popular over-the-counter remedies manufactured by mainstream pharmaceutical companies.

Indeed - but not only as 'remedies'. One tends to forget that the 'proscribing'/banning of substances was essentially a post-war (WWII) phenomenon. Prior to that, there were plenty of things (like various opium derivatives) that were freely and legally available, and used in essentially what we would call a 'recreational' manner today.

I think in fact that until relatively recently, when they changed the law to basically make "anything which gets you high" a controlled substance, to stop the continual chasing after new synthetics, all recreational drugs were made "illegal" after they'd come to be used recreationally.

Indeed- but, as I implied, Nanny has to decide 'where to stop' - given that there are very-widely-consumed 'borderline' substances like tea, coffee, chocolate etc.

 

[JohnW2]

I've never found paracetamol on its own to be particularly therapeutic in the first place.

Horses for courses. I personally generally find paracetamol to be more effective than anti-inflammatory drugs like aspirin and ibuprofen but others, probably like you, experience the opposite.

One of the problems with all of these things is delayed onset and limited duration of action - typically taking 30 mins or more to start working and then having peak effect for only a couple of hours, but with instructions that they should not be taken more frequently than 4-hourly. However, since paracetamol and the anti-inflammatories are chemically and pharmacologically totally different, one can take both, simultaneously if one wishes but, better, staggered - if one takes 'something' every two hours, alternating paracetamol and aspirin/ibuprofen, one then gets pretty 'constant' therapeutic effect.

 

[SUNRAY]

They have indeed found a way....EVs will soon be taxed at a rate higher than the current zero rate. Anything up to £190 for EVs and hybrids within a couple of years.

But that is basically replacing the existing road fund license, not the selection of taxes and duties on oil based fuels.

 

[SUNRAY]

Horses for courses. I personally generally find paracetamol to be more effective than anti-inflammatory drugs like aspirin and ibuprofen but others, probably like you, experience the opposite.

One of the problems with all of these things is delayed onset and limited duration of action - typically taking 30 mins or more to start working and then having peak effect for only a couple of hours, but with instructions that they should not be taken more frequently than 4-hourly. However, since paracetamol and the anti-inflammatories are chemically and pharmacologically totally different, one can take both, simultaneously if one wishes but, better, staggered - if one takes 'something' every two hours, alternating paracetamol and aspirin/ibuprofen, one then gets pretty 'constant' therapeutic effect.

Ibuprofen also contains paracetamol and the pack warns not to mix with other paracetamol based drugs.

 

[JohnW2]

Ibuprofen also contains paracetamol

Rubbish. Ibuprofen is ibuprofen and paracetamol is paracetamol. However ....

and the pack warns not to mix with other paracetamol based drugs.

... there are some products around which contain both paracetamol and ibuprofen, and they understandably come with such a warning. However, they generally only contain a 'half dose' of paracetamol (and sometimes a fairly low dose of ibuprofen), so they are in some senses pretty useless!

 

[SUNRAY]

Ibuprofen also contains paracetamol and the pack warns not to mix with other paracetamol based drugs.

Well I've just looked at a pack of Sainsburys Ibuprofen and no paracetamol in them.
When I had knee troubles around 2000 the tabs I was getting did, makes me wonder if ingredients have changed or specific to the brand I was getting.

EDIT: previous reply wasn't there when I started writing and looking on WWW.

 

[SUNRAY]

Rubbish. Ibuprofen is ibuprofen and paracetamol is paracetamol. However ....

... there are some products around which contain both paracetamol and ibuprofen, and they understandably come with such a warning. However, they generally only contain a 'half dose' of paracetamol (and sometimes a fairly low dose of ibuprofen), so they are in some senses pretty useless!

Seems that Nuromol is a full strength example: Ibuprofen 200mg and paracetamol 500mg.

 

[JohnW2]

Well I've just looked at a pack of Sainsburys Ibuprofen and no paracetamol in them.

Something sold as "ibuprofen" cannot, and must not, include any active ingredient other than ibuprofen.

When I had knee troubles around 2000 the tabs I was getting did, makes me wonder if ingredients have changed or specific to the brand I was getting.

It's not a matter of brand, it's a question of "what it is". As I said, combination products (containing both ibuprofen and paracetamol do exist (now, I don't know about 2000). There is no official name for the combination, so is sold under the manufacturer's proprietary name (e.g. Nuramol or Combogesic), but must not be sold as "ibuprofen".

 

[JohnW2]

Seems that Nuromol is a full strength example: Ibuprofen 200mg and paracetamol 500mg.

Nuromol is one of the combination products. It contains a 'full standard dose' of ibuprofen (200 mg), but only a 'half dose' of paracetamol (500mg, the usual adult dose being 1,000mg)