Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/26/2002 2:18:38 PM EDT
I might have to take a drug test for work. Anyone know if there is Codeine in Hydrocodone( I take it for tooth pain)?
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 2:19:45 PM EDT
yes
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 2:24:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/26/2002 2:32:37 PM EDT by TXSunDvl]
Not exactly codeine. Here is the description: Hydrocodone is a semisynthetic narcotic analgesic (pain reliever) and a cough suppressant, similar to codeine. The drug is an opiate prescribed for the relief of moderate to moderately severe pain, mainly for back pain and migraine headaches. Recently, hydrocodone has come under fire for being a heavily abused prescription drug. More info. The last statement is the most relevant: Chemistry/Pharmacology Hydrocodone [4,5a-epoxy-3-methoxy-17-methylmorphinan-6-one tartrate (1:1) hydrate (2:5), dihydrocodeinone] is a semisynthetic opioid structurally related to codeine and is approximately equipotent to morphine in producing opiate-like effects. The first report that hydrocodone produced a "striking euphoria" and habituation symptoms was published in 1923; the first report of hydrocodone dependency in the U.S. was published in 1961. It was removed from exempt status in the U.S. by the Narcotics Manufacturing Act of 1960. There are over 200 products containing hydrocodone in the U.S. In its most usual product forms hydrocodone is combined with acetaminophen (Vicodin, Lortab), but it is also combined with aspirin (Lortab ASA), ibuprofen (Vicoprofen), and antihistamines (Hycomine). Both tablet and liquid forms of hydrocodone are available (e.g., Tussionex) Hydrocodone will react as a normal opiate in the available field test kits.
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 2:58:38 PM EDT
just make sure you have your prescription with you at work or have your doctors name who wrote the script. They cannot take any deragatory action based on doctors orders. What kind of test was it? Hair, urine? frisco ps. I've dealt with employees who have taken drug tests in your state. This is the first question I ask if I get positive results.
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 3:13:23 PM EDT
Eating lots of poppy seeds helps wash codeine and related opiates out of the body. Go to a greenhouse and get as much of them as you can, from the plant papver soniferum. Eat handfuls of them a few days ahead of your piss test. Eat lots of poppyseed muffins if you can't find the seeds in bulk.
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 3:20:14 PM EDT
If possible.. just cool-it for a few days. [b]Samples are (for your concern) usually positive for only 2-3 days after drug use.[/b] To parrot frico;
"just make sure you have your prescription with you at work or have your doctors name who wrote the script. They cannot take any deragatory action based on doctors orders."
View Quote
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 3:31:31 PM EDT
The are only two opiates morphine and codeine. the rest are either synthetic or semi synthetic opioids. Hydrocodone also known as lortab and vicodan (when mixed with tylonol) are the current drug of choice among those who like pain killers. Those looking for a better high go to Oxycontin a 12 hour time release of percodan. If you have a legitimate scrip you're cool if not you're fucked. Opiates and opioids tend to stay in your system for some time. Eating poppy seeds will only give you a positive reading. Opium and Opiates are from the opium poppy. Consequently, you will get a positive reading w/o the high by eating poppies.
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 3:32:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/26/2002 3:36:00 PM EDT by TheHappyBlaster]
Originally Posted By More_Cowbell: Eating lots of poppy seeds helps wash codeine and related opiates out of the body. Go to a greenhouse and get as much of them as you can, from the plant papver soniferum. Eat handfuls of them a few days ahead of your piss test. Eat lots of poppyseed muffins if you can't find the seeds in bulk.
View Quote
Hmmm, thats funny. I've always heard poppy seeds can generate a false positive for cocaine. Any of our more scholarly brethren have any info on this? P.S.- yes hydrocodone is an opioid narcotic, & could cause a dirty result. But man, nothing kills post-operative pain like that stuff. Too bad pill poppin' junkies are giving it a bad name.
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 3:34:09 PM EDT
Thanks for your help guys, I think I'll be ok if I take the bottle in with me and a copy of the Rx. Im not sure if it will be urine or hair.
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 3:39:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/26/2002 3:42:36 PM EDT by djk]
Cocaine is derived from coca, just like cocoa is. Codeine, morphine and heroin are derived from poppies. Trivia: Coca Cola used to contain a butt load of cocaine in the old days... I believe Coca Cola produces a ton of medicinal stuff now, or do they just ship the good stuff off to someone else? Hydrocodone kicks ass, by the way. I pinched a nerve in my lower back last year and had a couple weeks worth of a pretty strong version. Take one and lie down for a 4 hour nappy...warm and tingly. EDIT: I had jaw surgery this spring, and they gave me stuff that made hydrocodone seem like aspirin.,,,LOOK AT THE PRETTY COLORS AND PATTERNS! [whacko]
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 3:43:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/26/2002 3:59:02 PM EDT by ChrisLe]
Originally Posted By M4_Aiming_at_U: I might have to take a drug test for work. Anyone know if there is Codeine in Hydrocodone( I take it for tooth pain)?
View Quote
Hydrocodone is an opiate based, Schedule III narcotic. Consequently, you will test positive for opiate drug use (Meperidine, Heroine, Morphine, to name a few) You have two choices. First, if your hyrdocodone is a legal prescription, bring a copy of your prescription to your drug test and be sure to list it in the pre-testing questionnaire. Second, you could refrain from using the drug for [b]at least 48 hours[/b] prior to the urinalysis. That is the accepted time frame for the drug to be completely metabolized by the body and subsequently extreted to undetectable levels...
Originally Posted By More_Cowbell: Eating lots of poppy seeds helps wash codeine and related opiates out of the body.
View Quote
Incorrect, opiate based narcotics are derived from opium, the milky substance of the poppy seed. Eating poppy seeds will result in a false positive for the use of opiate based drugs. It will NOT cleanse the system....
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 3:57:04 PM EDT
Second, refrain from using the drug for at least 48 hours prior to the urinalysis. That is the accepted time frame for the drug to be completely metabolized by the body and subsequently extreted to undetectable levels...
View Quote
That time frame sounds right for urine, however, there is a 90 day window for hair samples. As of the first of this year, we offically moved to hair sample for drug testing. We went from a 2-3% positive test rate to a 5-6% positive catch rate for new hires. What's even better is they can take hair from any part of the body for those that have solar panels. frisco
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 4:02:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/26/2002 4:03:20 PM EDT by ChrisLe]
Originally Posted By frisco: That time frame sounds right for urine, however, there is a 90 day window for hair samples. As of the first of this year, we offically moved to hair sample for drug testing. ffrisco
View Quote
My bad.. I [b]ass[/b]umed he was referring to urinalysis..
Link Posted: 8/27/2002 3:39:52 PM EDT
Thanks for the ehlp everyone. I too the test today and brought alond my prescription bottle and a note from the Doc. When I gave my Rx info to the polite (sarcasm) lady behind the counter she replies with " What yo want me to do wit dat"? So I made sure hwe supervisor know what I was doing just to cover my ass. Thanks again! Im sure everything will ne ok.
Link Posted: 8/27/2002 3:52:55 PM EDT
Hell tell them it is just better living through the use of chemicals, and take your script.
Link Posted: 8/27/2002 4:37:20 PM EDT
SLightly off topic, I received a prescription for 500mg Vicoden after cutting the tendon in my finger. The Vicoden messed me up so bad that counldn't take the stuff and work. The first day back I simply watched my phone ring and thought someone should pick that up instead of answering it myself.
Link Posted: 8/27/2002 4:51:31 PM EDT
Hehehee... Many, many years ago, I had an interview with a really cool guy that stated that the job was mine, so long as I passed the pre-requisite drug test the next day. I just looked at him and told him that there was no way in hell that I would pass a test like that, without studying for a few days before hand, since I was just at a huge party a couple of days prior... He just looked at me and said, "How's a week from next Tuesday sound..?" [:D] He told me that honesty wins out every time!
Link Posted: 8/27/2002 4:56:13 PM EDT
Originally Posted By JIMBEAM: SLightly off topic, I received a prescription for 500mg Vicoden after cutting the tendon in my finger. The Vicoden messed me up so bad that counldn't take the stuff and work. The first day back I simply watched my phone ring and thought someone should pick that up instead of answering it myself.
View Quote
Vicoden doesn't do a damn thing for me. Needless to say, I'm jealous....
Link Posted: 8/27/2002 5:46:53 PM EDT
Originally Posted By djk: Cocaine is derived from coca, just like cocoa is. Codeine, morphine and heroin are derived from poppies. [whacko]
View Quote
No it's not. You have your "coca" mixed up. [:D] Cocaine is derived from the leaves of the South American coca plant. Coca-Cola uses an extract from kola nuts. Cocoa is made from cacao beans.
Link Posted: 8/27/2002 7:57:24 PM EDT
Originally Posted By dickweed:
Originally Posted By djk: Cocaine is derived from coca, just like cocoa is. Codeine, morphine and heroin are derived from poppies. [whacko]
View Quote
No it's not. You have your "coca" mixed up. [:D] Cocaine is derived from the leaves of the South American coca plant. Coca-Cola uses an extract from kola nuts. Cocoa is made from cacao beans.
View Quote
This thread just tested positive for dickweed! [:D] frisco
Link Posted: 8/28/2002 5:18:31 AM EDT
P.S.- yes hydrocodone is an opioid narcotic, & could cause a dirty result. But man, nothing kills post-operative pain like that stuff. Too bad pill poppin' junkies are giving it a bad name.
View Quote
You dont what pain killin is. Ever mave hydromorphone? Synthetic morphene. I have this now for kidney stones. Couple of these and ya dont know where you are.
Link Posted: 8/28/2002 5:29:12 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ctrmass: You dont what pain killin is. Ever mave hydromorphone? Synthetic morphene. I have this now for kidney stones. Couple of these and ya dont know where you are.
View Quote
Yep, [u]Dilaudid[/u] is about as good as it gets, but since it's far beyond that of Demerol ([i]a Level-IV narcotic[/i]), you'll need to be on your death bed before you will ever receive it! I've only had it in IV's, as a post-op to my kidney surgery, but it is available tablet form. ------ Hydromorphone ([i]Dilaudid[/i]) is approximately 8 times more potent on a milligram basis than morphine. In addition, hydromorphone is better absorbed orally than is morphine; the former is approximately 20 to 25% as active orally as i.m.
Link Posted: 8/28/2002 5:33:34 AM EDT
Anti, if I'm ever on my deathbed in pain I'll know what to scream for. Thanks
Link Posted: 8/28/2002 5:35:42 AM EDT
[url]http://www.snopes2.com/cokelore/cocaine.asp[/url] "Coca-Cola was named back in 1885 for its two "medicinal" ingredients: extract of coca leaves and kola nuts."
Originally Posted By dickweed: No it's not. You have your "coca" mixed up. [:D] Cocaine is derived from the leaves of the South American coca plant. Coca-Cola uses an extract from kola nuts. Cocoa is made from cacao beans.
View Quote
Link Posted: 8/28/2002 5:40:12 AM EDT
Originally Posted By dickweed: Coca-Cola uses an extract from kola nuts.
View Quote
Maybe so today, but in the early days it did indeed contain cocaine before it was a regulated drug. Anybody else here oblivious to morphine? It doesn't do a damn thing for me. I had surgery on my leg a couple of years ago and I got to push the button every 7 minutes or something like that and I took so much morphine the first day that my veins became inflamed. Finally the next day they put the IV in my other arm and hooked me up with some demerol. That stuff is the shit. When I went home I got 750mg vicodins with one refill. I was eating these thing 3 or 4 at a time just to dull the pain. After a few days I just quit taking them completely since they didn't do much good. I've still got a few left and eat them on occasion for tooth aches (because I don't want to have my wisdom teeth pulled) and I'll take one if I ever get a really bad headache. They still don't do much, but work a little better than Tylenol on me and make me a little sleepy in big doses. Must be nice for some of yall to take em and get all loopy [;)]
Link Posted: 8/28/2002 6:12:50 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Ponyboy:
Originally Posted By dickweed: Coca-Cola uses an extract from kola nuts.
View Quote
Maybe so today, but in the early days it did indeed contain cocaine before it was a regulated drug.
View Quote
Yes, that's correct. The actual amount of cocaine was very little and it was eliminated in 1927. AFAIK the Coca-Cola Company never produced any other products with cocaine in them.
Link Posted: 8/28/2002 7:58:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/28/2002 7:59:16 AM EDT by ChrisLe]
Originally Posted By ctrmass: You dont what pain killin is. Ever mave hydromorphone? Synthetic morphene. I have this now for kidney stones. Couple of these and ya dont know where you are.
View Quote
It also appears to deadens the portion of the brain stem that controls one's ability to spell...[:D]
Link Posted: 8/28/2002 10:25:59 AM EDT
I had my tonsils and wisdom teeth taken out at the same time when I was in the Army(I do not recomend this by the way). Anyhow, I had the maxilofacial guy and the ENT guy both writing scripts for percocet at the same time, and told me if I ran out, to let them know, and they would get me more. WOW!! free drugs, and legal even! That stuff was potent. Percocet makes the vicodin that I had for shoulder surgery look like aspirin. It doesn't really make the pain go away, but it sure as hell makes you not give a shit about it. I had conversations with people who were not there, lost track of many hours, and I swear it makes every hair folicle in your body tingle. If you turn your head, it takes a while for the rest of the room to catch up to your vision. The drawback is the bad constipation.
Link Posted: 8/28/2002 11:01:00 AM EDT
You ain't done good drugs, until you've actually seen things broken down into molecular form... That's when life becomes interesting! [BD] [*] This is a very real, yet somewhat uncommon side effect from specific narcotics, and is attributed to stimulation of the pineal gland.[/*]
Link Posted: 8/28/2002 11:01:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Ponyboy:
Originally Posted By dickweed: Coca-Cola uses an extract from kola nuts.
View Quote
Maybe so today, but in the early days it did indeed contain cocaine before it was a regulated drug. Anybody else here oblivious to morphine? It doesn't do a damn thing for me. I had surgery on my leg a couple of years ago and I got to push the button every 7 minutes or something like that and I took so much morphine the first day that my veins became inflamed. Finally the next day they put the IV in my other arm and hooked me up with some demerol. That stuff is the shit. When I went home I got 750mg vicodins with one refill. I was eating these thing 3 or 4 at a time just to dull the pain. After a few days I just quit taking them completely since they didn't do much good. I've still got a few left and eat them on occasion for tooth aches (because I don't want to have my wisdom teeth pulled) and I'll take one if I ever get a really bad headache. They still don't do much, but work a little better than Tylenol on me and make me a little sleepy in big doses. Must be nice for some of yall to take em and get all loopy [;)]
View Quote
I hear ya, Ponyboy. Them "kickass" drugs the dentist prescribes does absolutely nothing for me. [:(]
Link Posted: 8/28/2002 11:04:54 AM EDT
Originally Posted By antiUSSA: [*] This is a very real, yet somewhat uncommon side effect from specific narcotics, and is attributed to stimulation of the pineal gland.[/*]
View Quote
psychopharmacological molecule LSD perhaps?[;)]
Link Posted: 8/28/2002 11:09:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/14/2002 12:33:30 PM EDT by DScottHewitt]
I am taking Dilaudid right now for kidney stone pain. Little tiny pills, but they hit you [b]HARD[/b]. I am trying to avoid taking them too often. (I was not treated Friday night in the ER for my pain, because they thought I just wanted drugs. I wanted drugs because i was [b]HURTING[/b]..... Scott
Link Posted: 8/28/2002 11:11:32 AM EDT
BTW, I am allergic to Codeine. But I can take Morphine, Demerol, Dilaudid, Vicodin, or Darvon with no Codeine-like reactions. So I agree they are different horses in the pain-control race. (The best Dilaudid side affect I had was watching an IV start cart sink into the floor after 2 milligrams IV.....) Scott
Link Posted: 8/28/2002 11:15:13 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DScottHewitt: I am taking Dilaudid right now for kidney stone pain. Little tiny pills, but they hit you [b]HARD[/b]. I am trying to avoid taking them too often.
View Quote
Scott, You're right, you shouldn't take them too often. To be sure, send half your Dilaudid pills to me for safe keeping.[:D]
Link Posted: 8/28/2002 11:21:33 AM EDT
when i was in the hospital last year, nothing really hit me much (heck, i was on a morphine drip!) until i got a scrip for oxycontin. when taken with a sleep aid like ambien (which is pretty strange stuff by itself) the effects were enough to ensure that i finished off my meds! (thats why it says on the bottle NO REFILLS!!!)
Link Posted: 8/28/2002 11:40:02 AM EDT
Yes, that's correct. The actual amount of cocaine was very little and it was eliminated in 1927. AFAIK the Coca-Cola Company never produced any other products with cocaine in them.
View Quote
Actually, it was quite a significant amount and was the reason for its popularity. It was also the reason that soda fountains became located in pharmacies -- because that's where you went to get your drugs. It was also in Pepsi-Cola and was sold over the counter without any restrictions at all until 1906. It was included in tootache drops, vitamin "tonics", and all sorts of other things. Kids could buy it and other drugs without restriction and heroin was even included in baby colic remedies. Despite these conditions, the drugs were not considered a major threat to society and there was no united movement to outlaw them as there was with alcohol. It was eliminated from Coca-Cola in 1905, the year before the Pure Food and Drug Act was passed. Cocaine was outlawed at the national level for all but medical use in 1914 with the passage of the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act. It was outlawed largely because of fears that superhuman Negro Cocaine Fiends would go on a violent rampage and rape white women and shoot white men. It was also believed that cocaine made them better marksmen and impervious to bullets, prompting police departments across the nation to switch to larger caliber pistols. Caffeine was almost outlawed at the same time for the same reasons. See Historical Research at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer for more information on the history.
Link Posted: 8/28/2002 11:49:50 AM EDT
Eating poppy seeds will make a person test positive for opiates. In fact, eating a poppy seed bagel will do it. If you are faced with a drug test, there are a number of options. The first is simply to refuse. After all, isn't this just the least bit offensive for someone to ask for your urine? Besides, there isn't any real evidence that it saves businesses more than the cost of the test and there is some evidence that businesses that test actually have lower productivity than businesses that don't. (Like maybe because their employees get the idead that management doesn't really have any respect for them?) Another problem with it is that it is none of your employer's business what you were doing last weekend. And, besides, you could spend your entire weekend screwed up on heroin, meth, and alcohol, and be in no shape to work on Monday morning, but you may still test clean. The people most likely to get caught by drug testing are pot smokers (because it can stay in the body for a few weeks), who really constitute the lowest risk to the employer if hired. I have refused drug tests on the simple grounds that it is offensive and none of their business anyway, and they dropped the requirement. (It was in a defense-related company working for the US Government.) Another thing you can try is to refuse on the grounds that it is against your religion to let other people handle your bodily fluids except for strict medical purposes (of which, a drug test is not one). They are barred by law from questioning you about your religion, or from denying you employment because of your religion. Drug testing is a major crock of BS, foisted upon the public by a few government insiders who managed to create a huge public scare and get it passed into law. Who heads the largest drug testing firms in the country? None other than the former heads of the DEA, and similar government agencies. This is one sweetheart financial deal for the Washington insiders if there ever was one.
Link Posted: 8/28/2002 12:18:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By wolfman97:
Yes, that's correct. The actual amount of cocaine was very little and it was eliminated in 1927. AFAIK the Coca-Cola Company never produced any other products with cocaine in them.
View Quote
Actually, it was quite a significant amount and was the reason for its popularity. It was eliminated from Coca-Cola in 1905, the year before the Pure Food and Drug Act was passed.
View Quote
According to this source it was eliminated in 1929. I beleive the exact formulation is a trade secret so who knows. I don't even drink the stuff anymore! [:D] [url]http://www.snopes2.com/cokelore/cocaine.asp[/url] Claim: Coca-Cola used to contain cocaine. Status: True. Origins: Coca-Cola was named back in 1885 for its two "medicinal" ingredients: extract of coca leaves and kola nuts. Just how much cocaine was originally in the formulation is hard to determine, but the drink undeniably contained some cocaine in its early days. Frederick Allen describes the public attitude towards cocaine that existed as Coca-Cola's developers worked on perfecting their formula in 1891: The first stirrings of a national debate had begun over the negative aspects of cocaine, and manufacturers were growing defensive over charges that use of their products might lead to "cocainism" or the "cocaine habit". The full-throated fury against cocaine was still a few years off, and Candler and Robinson were anxious to continue promoting the supposed benefits of the coca leaf, but there was no reason to risk putting more than a tiny bit of coca extract in their syrup. They cut the amount to a mere trace. Allen also explains that cocaine continued to be an ingredient in the syrup in order to protect the trade name "Coca-Cola": But neither could Candler take the simple step of eliminating the fluid extract of coca leaves from the formula. Candler believed that his product's name had to be descriptive, and that he must have at least some by-product of the coca leaf in the syrup (along with some kola) to protect his right to the name Coca-Cola. Protecting the name was critical. Candler had no patent on the syrup itself. Anyone could make an imitation. But no one could put the label "Coca-Cola" on an imitation so long as Candler owned the name. The name was the thing of real value, and the registered trademark was its only safeguard. Coca leaves had to stay in the syrup. How much cocaine was in that "mere trace" is impossible to say, but we do know that by 1902 it was as little as 1/400 of a grain of cocaine per ounce of syrup. Coca-Cola didn't become completely cocaine-free until 1929, but there scarcely any of the drug left in the drink by then: By Heath's calculation, the amount of ecgonine [an alkaloid in the coca leaf that could be synthesized to create cocaine] was infinitesimal: no more than one part in 50 million. In an entire year's supply of 25-odd million gallons of Coca-Cola syrup, Heath figured, there might be six-hundredths of an ounce of cocaine. So, yes, at one time there was cocaine in Coca-Cola. But before you're tempted to run off claiming Coca-Cola turned generations of drinkers into dope addicts, consider the following: back in 1885 it was far from uncommon to use cocaine in patent medicines (which is what Coca-Cola was originally marketed as) and other medical potions. When it first became general knowledge that cocaine could be harmful, the backroom chemists who comprised Coca-Cola at the time (long before it became the huge company we now know) did everything they could with the technology they had available at the time to remove every trace of cocaine from the beverage. What was left behind (until the technology improved enough for it all to be removed) wasn't enough to give a fly a buzz. Barbara "hooked on a feeling" Mikkelson
Link Posted: 8/28/2002 1:17:59 PM EDT
Besides, who needs cocaine with all that caffeine? A very potent and addicting drug init's own right. Had a Jolt Cola lately? [;D]
Link Posted: 8/28/2002 1:37:42 PM EDT
Origins: Coca-Cola was named back in 1885 for its two "medicinal" ingredients: extract of coca leaves and kola nuts.
View Quote
The original name was "French Wine of Coca - Invigorating Tonic". Pemberton changed the name when he bought it.
Just how much cocaine was originally in the formulation is hard to determine, but the drink undeniably contained some cocaine in its early days.
View Quote
See the original product name for a clue.
Frederick Allen describes the public attitude towards cocaine that existed as Coca-Cola's developers worked on perfecting their formula in 1891: The first stirrings of a national debate had begun over the negative aspects of cocaine, and manufacturers were growing defensive over charges that use of their products might lead to "cocainism" or the "cocaine habit". The full-throated fury against cocaine was still a few years off, and Candler and Robinson were anxious to continue promoting the supposed benefits of the coca leaf, but there was no reason to risk putting more than a tiny bit of coca extract in their syrup. They cut the amount to a mere trace.
View Quote
I don't know of any evidence that says that. They did substitute caffeine for cocaine to achieve the same effect. It was sold as a drug so there was no reason to take the drug out.
Allen also explains that cocaine continued to be an ingredient in the syrup in order to protect the trade name "Coca-Cola": But neither could Candler take the simple step of eliminating the fluid extract of coca leaves from the formula. Candler believed that his product's name had to be descriptive, and that he must have at least some by-product of the coca leaf in the syrup (along with some kola) to protect his right to the name Coca-Cola. Protecting the name was critical. Candler had no patent on the syrup itself. Anyone could make an imitation. But no one could put the label "Coca-Cola" on an imitation so long as Candler owned the name. The name was the thing of real value, and the registered trademark was its only safeguard. Coca leaves had to stay in the syrup.
View Quote
Trademarks have nothing to do with ingredients. If he felt the name had to be descriptive then that was the reason, nothing to do with trademark law.
How much cocaine was in that "mere trace" is impossible to say, but we do know that by 1902 it was as little as 1/400 of a grain of cocaine per ounce of syrup. Coca-Cola didn't become completely cocaine-free until 1929, but there scarcely any of the drug left in the drink by then:
View Quote
Cocaine was outlawed entirely except for medical use in 1914, so it had to be removed by then or they would have gone to jail for selling it in any detectable amount.
By Heath's calculation, the amount of ecgonine [an alkaloid in the coca leaf that could be synthesized to create cocaine] was infinitesimal: no more than one part in 50 million. In an entire year's supply of 25-odd million gallons of Coca-Cola syrup, Heath figured, there might be six-hundredths of an ounce of cocaine.
View Quote
Coca leaves are still used for flavoring so there still may be minute traces of it there. In fact, Coca-Cola is supposed to be one of the largest legitimate purchasers of cocaine leaf.
So, yes, at one time there was cocaine in Coca-Cola. But before you're tempted to run off claiming Coca-Cola turned generations of drinkers into dope addicts, consider the following: back in 1885 it was far from uncommon to use cocaine in patent medicines (which is what Coca-Cola was originally marketed as) and other medical potions. When it first became general knowledge that cocaine could be harmful, the backroom chemists who comprised Coca-Cola at the time (long before it became the huge company we now know) did everything they could with the technology they had available at the time to remove every trace of cocaine from the beverage. What was left behind (until the technology improved enough for it all to be removed) wasn't enough to give a fly a buzz.
View Quote
Yeah, I knew most of that. You see, I have the world's largest online collection of historical research on related topics. If you want a good picture of what happened re these drugs way back when, read the first few chapters of the Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm
Link Posted: 8/28/2002 1:38:16 PM EDT
First of all I must ask..Hydrocodone for tooth pain. Since this is only a short period of time taking it you should have no problem. Just write it down and piss in the bottle. Now if they ask you how long you been taking it and you say over 3 months or a year lets say for tooth pain, they are going to be asking questions. Usually Tylenol #3 is given for tooth pain 1 every 4-6 hrs for maybe a week if it was tooth surgery. Any thing more than that is going to be questioned.
Link Posted: 8/28/2002 2:19:35 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: When I went home I got 750mg vicodins with one refill. I was eating these thing 3 or 4 at a time just to dull the pain.
View Quote
damn man, how many is safe to take at once?
Link Posted: 8/28/2002 2:36:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By M4_Aiming_at_U:
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: When I went home I got 750mg vicodins with one refill. I was eating these thing 3 or 4 at a time just to dull the pain.
View Quote
damn man, how many is safe to take at once?
View Quote
Dunno, but I probably took 12 - 15 the first day. I slept good that night but my leg still hurt like hell [;)]
Link Posted: 8/28/2002 2:53:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/28/2002 2:58:05 PM EDT by bountyhunter]
Originally Posted By DScottHewitt: I am taking Dilaudid right now for kidney stone pain. Little tiny pills, but they hit you [b]HARD[/b]. I am trying to avoid taking them too often. (I was not treated Friday night in the R for my pain, because they thought I just wanted drugs. I wanted drugs because i was [b]HURTING[/b]..... Scott
View Quote
There must be some kind of shit list Doctors can get on when prescribing, they will always under prescribed pain meds 10 out of 10 times, they don't care about your pain, they are worried about there prescription record, this sucks in a major way, especially if your in a I am going to die mode, WTF, yeah right, your going to get addicted to it. I am going to ask a friend about this ! One more thing do they even make Dilaudid anymore I thought they stopped making it ????
Link Posted: 8/28/2002 4:21:58 PM EDT
First of all I must ask..Hydrocodone for tooth pain. Since this is only a short period of time taking it you should have no problem. Just write it down and piss in the bottle.
View Quote
Why should anyone piss in a bottle?
Now if they ask you how long you been taking it and you say over 3 months or a year lets say for tooth pain, they are going to be asking questions.
View Quote
There are literally millions of people in the US who take various pain medications on a long-term basis because of chronic pain from any variety of conditions. So how is the length of time you have been taking it any business of the employer?
Usually Tylenol #3 is given for tooth pain 1 every 4-6 hrs for maybe a week if it was tooth surgery. Any thing more than that is going to be questioned.
View Quote
Which means that if you are one of those people who needs something a little more to dull the pain, for whatever legitimate reason, then you are SOL.
Link Posted: 8/28/2002 4:35:50 PM EDT
There must be some kind of shit list Doctors can get on when prescribing, they will always under prescribed pain meds 10 out of 10 times, they don't care about your pain, they are worried about there prescription record, this sucks in a major way, especially if your in a I am going to die mode, WTF, yeah right, your going to get addicted to it. I am going to ask a friend about this !
View Quote
The Department of Health and Human Services has issued reports two years in a row stating that the undertreatment of pain in the US is a "national tragedy". They estimate that two-thirds of all *terminal* cancer patients do not get adequate pain medication and die suffering. I have seen court testimony from some medical experts that in Europe the US is considered a "third world country" in our application of pain medications. The reason for this stems back to 1925 and the case of Linder v. US. In 1914, a fairly small political group managed to get the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act passed which effectively outlawed the opiates, in the guise of placing a tax on them. They wanted to stamp out the use of opiates. Not that opiates were a huge problem at the time, they just wanted to stamp it out. One of the first things that happened was that addicts flocked to doctors to get maintenance doses of their drugs. This was quite a reasonable thing for the doctors to do since the drugs allowed addicts to live a relatively normal life and did no real long-term harm when they came from a properly regulated medical source. The Federal Bureau of Narcotics thought this was sinful so they went to stamp it out. (Actually, they thought most any use of drugs to relieve pain of most any sort was sinful, so they took a very dim view of any of it.) They arrested Dr. Linder for prescribing opiates to addicts and his case went all the way to the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that the Federal Bureau of Narcotics had no right to interfere in the medical prescription of narcotics -- even if that prescription was for the sole purpose of maintaining an addict on their drug of choice. In response to losing the case, the FBN went out and arrested and indicted thousands of doctors for prescribing opiates. They never brought any of them to trial, because they knew they would lose. But the indictments alone were enough to convince doctors to change their prescribing habits forever. You can read all about it at http://www.druglibrary.org/special/king/king1.htm The system nowadays is that many states have triplicate forms for narcotics prescriptions and a copy gets sent to a central point for checking. The person doing the checking is usually some kind of poorly trained agent who knows little about medicine and nothing about the particulars of the individual patient's case. He does his job by looking for the doctor with the most prescriptions and then goes out and visits the doctor, rummages through his files, and sometimes suspends the doctor's license to prescribe while all of this is going on. Naturally, doctors learn soon enough that the path of least resistance means not prescribing pain killers. Those who do prescribe them often come under huge pressures that essentially destroy their practice even if they win the process of fighting with the drug enforcers. It's a sin, and is just one more of the reasons to repeal the war on some drugs.
One more thing do they even make Dilaudid anymore I thought they stopped making it ????
View Quote
AFAIK, they still make it. No reason not to, there are other drugs more powerful than that.
Link Posted: 8/28/2002 4:36:31 PM EDT
Not only is most employment in this country "at will" (which means they can let you go for no reason, more or less), the employer can require drug screens if it can be shown to be at all related to job performance or safety. In fact, the employer has a duty to do what they reasonably can to provide a safe workplace. That includes not having stoned or drunk or otherwise impaired employees on the floor. I also doubt using legitimate prescription drugs *as prescribed* can be used as a reason to fire you. I've heard a saying: acute pain tends to be under-medicated, and chronic pain tends to be over-medicated.
Link Posted: 8/28/2002 6:53:33 PM EDT
In fact, the employer has a duty to do what they reasonably can to provide a safe workplace. That includes not having stoned or drunk or otherwise impaired employees on the floor.
View Quote
It might be nice if drug testing did that, but it doesn't, for lots of reasons. The person most likely to be caught by drug testing is the person who smoked a joint some time in the last thirty days -- which is probably the least of all the drug concerns that an employer should have. And, if the company can't tell they have stoned, drunk, or otherwise impaired employees then they have a management problem that drug-testing isn't going to fix.
I also doubt using legitimate prescription drugs *as prescribed* can be used as a reason to fire you.
View Quote
And just what good justification does an employer even have for asking whether you take any prescription medications?
I've heard a saying: acute pain tends to be under-medicated, and chronic pain tends to be over-medicated.
View Quote
That saying is wrong. They are both severely undermedicated. I could introduce you to some doctors who got prosecuted for providing correct medication. Just as one demonstration, Tylenol with codeine is not even a prescription drug except in the US and South Africa. The US is the only country that has ever sent a doctor to jail for prescribing it.
Link Posted: 8/28/2002 7:11:23 PM EDT
Last year I pulled a hamstring and I injured my hip socket. The pain was beyond belief! The one kind doctor gave me a two day script for 20mg Valiums (to take the edge off of the mental anguish), 100mg Percocet's (for the throbbing pain) and 20mg Flexrils (I guess that was to put my dick in the dirt!). I was feeling no pain for those two days. After that I had Vicoden and Darvocets for the pain.
Link Posted: 8/28/2002 9:00:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By wolfman97:
In fact, the employer has a duty to do what they reasonably can to provide a safe workplace. That includes not having stoned or drunk or otherwise impaired employees on the floor.
View Quote
It might be nice if drug testing did that, but it doesn't, for lots of reasons. The person most likely to be caught by drug testing is the person who smoked a joint some time in the last thirty days -- which is probably the least of all the drug concerns that an employer should have. And, if the company can't tell they have stoned, drunk, or otherwise impaired employees then they have a management problem that drug-testing isn't going to fix.
I also doubt using legitimate prescription drugs *as prescribed* can be used as a reason to fire you.
View Quote
And just what good justification does an employer even have for asking whether you take any prescription medications?
I've heard a saying: acute pain tends to be under-medicated, and chronic pain tends to be over-medicated.
View Quote
That saying is wrong. They are both severely undermedicated. I could introduce you to some doctors who got prosecuted for providing correct medication. Just as one demonstration, Tylenol with codeine is not even a prescription drug except in the US and South Africa. The US is the only country that has ever sent a doctor to jail for prescribing it.
View Quote
I'm not as tolerant of "recreational" drug use as you seem to be, so we're not going to see eye-to-eye on that issue. Difference of opinions, I think. I believe drug use impairs workers and affects safety on the job. A quick web search shows that alcohol, for instance is involved in a substantial number of fatal and non-fatal accidents at work. [url]http://www.nohsc.gov.au/OHSInformation/NOHSCPublications/factsheets/alcho1.htm[/url] As a general rule, the effective treatment of many chronic painful conditions is optimized when a minimum of narcotic analgesics are used. It is true that some state and local organizations are way behind the times in understanding appropriate drug use, and can be draconian in their punishment of physicians they decide have crossed their line. Still, that's no excuse to over-prescribe narcotics instead of providing more appropriate long-lasting solutions. It's often easier, cheaper, and more satisfying to the patient to just keep writing scrips for more and more drugs, but the patient ultimately suffers from that approach. Acute pain, however, should be treated with just about whatever it takes to get in under control, IMO.
Link Posted: 8/29/2002 12:14:33 AM EDT
I'm not as tolerant of "recreational" drug use as you seem to be, so we're not going to see eye-to-eye on that issue. Difference of opinions, I think.
View Quote
I have found that, more often than not, it is a difference of education.
I believe drug use impairs workers and affects safety on the job.
View Quote
If it happens on the job, it might. But, if you have a couple of beers on Saturday night, how does that become your employer's business?
A quick web search shows that alcohol, for instance is involved in a substantial number of fatal and non-fatal accidents at work.
View Quote
Yeah, that's alcohol, which leads the field in all areas of social damage over all the illegal drugs combined, by several orders of magnitude. (And before you say, that's because the other drugs are illegal -- no, it's not. It has always been that way, regardless of the laws.) Oddly enough, while alcohol is the clear leader in that area, it is one drug which is not likely to be caught on drug tests, or to be a real issue if it is caught.
www.nohsc.gov.au/OHSInformation/NOHSCPublications/factsheets/alcho1.htm
View Quote
For better information on what is good policy toward these problems see http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer See Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy and Historical Research.
As a general rule, the effective treatment of many chronic painful conditions is optimized when a minimum of narcotic analgesics are used.
View Quote
Not according to the doctors I talk to, or the Department of Health and Human Services. HHS says that patients should be given opiates as soon as other drugs don't do the job and that they should be allowed to regulate their own dosage (simply because you or anyone else can't really tell what works for one individual in pain.) As just one example, recent research shows that the time spent in the hospital after major operations if doctors simply give doses of morphine that are several times the current standard.
It is true that some state and local organizations are way behind the times in understanding appropriate drug use, and can be draconian in their punishment of physicians they decide have crossed their line.
View Quote
No, you clearly don't get it. This is a Federal problem, present across the US, and enforced by the Federal narcotics police, and has been since about 1925. See the Historical Research section, above.
Still, that's no excuse to over-prescribe narcotics instead of providing more appropriate long-lasting solutions. It's often easier, cheaper, and more satisfying to the patient to just keep writing scrips for more and more drugs, but the patient ultimately suffers from that approach.
View Quote
No, that's wrong, too. The long-term prescription of adequate quantities of narcotics is absolutely vital to the well-being of millions of people. I would suggest you do some more reading on the subject. See the site linked above, which contains a section on the American Society for Action on Pain. Among other things, you will find the story of a guy who lost the lower half of his body in an auto accident. He currently sits on his rib cage. He had a hell of a time getting any doctor to prescribe pain medications (because they are afraid of the narcotics enforcers) and had to go to another state to find a doctor. Then, he was raided by the cops who claimed that he didn't need all those drugs because he had lost the lower half of his body and, therefore, couldn't possibly be in pain. And then there was the case of Florida v. Martinez on Court TV a few years back. Mr. Martinez was charged with distributing morphine to anyone who would ask for it, without any medical license or training. He admitted he did it. His only defense was that it was necessary to do so because the barbaric drug policies of the US Federal Government prevented desperately ill people with AIDS and other conditions from getting adequate pain medication. The testimony offered by experts in the trial was absolutely chilling. After hearing the evidence, the jury voted unanimously for acquittal and called him a "hero". My relatives thought the same as you. Then my aunt caught cancer and during the last two months of her life was in such pain that she was screaming at her family members to kill her. Some of said that they almost did. The doctors told them they couldn't give her any more pain killers because they were afraid of prosecution. My relatives don't agree with your point of view anymore. Acute pain, however, should be treated with just about whatever it takes to get in under control, IMO.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top